A Priori Vs A Posteriori Does Not Exist.

[Eodnhoj7]

In the question related to a priori and a posteriori knowledge, "does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone.

Given a man which possesses such qualities of senses space is also observed as well.

Space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

It reflects the basic nature of a posteriori knowledge as its division of one space into another, a dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness divides into form) and after the senses, as both quality and quantity.

[Impenitent]

damn goggles just will not be removed...

-Imp

[tapaticmadness]

In the question related to a priori and a posteriori knowledge, "does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone.

Given a man which possesses such qualities of senses space is also observed as well.

Space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

It reflects the basic nature of a posteriori knowledge as its division of one space into another, a dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness divides into form) and after the senses, as both quality and quantity.

Are these a priori or a posteriori or both?
Red is a color.
37 is a number
Next to is a relation.
If you have a and you have b, then you have the set (a,b).

[Eodnhoj7]

In the question related to a priori and a posteriori knowledge, "does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone.

Given a man which possesses such qualities of senses space is also observed as well.

Space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

It reflects the basic nature of a posteriori knowledge as its division of one space into another, a dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness divides into form) and after the senses, as both quality and quantity.

Are these a priori or a posteriori or both?
Red is a color.
37 is a number
Next to is a relation.
If you have a and you have b, then you have the set (a,b).

Color is a quality of space considering it is a frequency of light, as a quality it is "a priori", as red it is "a posteriori".

Quantity is the divergence of one space into another, as such is a priori.

Sets are spatial limits, a quantity, existing as a new quantity thus a priori.

All quality begins with space, and quantity as well. For example a person may a prior-ly sense space with this being a qualtity, the divergence of the qualities as a new sets of qualities becomes a quantity as a relation of spaces.

Quality is that which innumerable and infinite, quantity is the relation of multiple qualities.

[tapaticmadness]

In the question related to a priori and a posteriori knowledge, "does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone.

Given a man which possesses such qualities of senses space is also observed as well.

Space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

It reflects the basic nature of a posteriori knowledge as its division of one space into another, a dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness divides into form) and after the senses, as both quality and quantity.

Are these a priori or a posteriori or both?
Red is a color.
37 is a number
Next to is a relation.
If you have a and you have b, then you have the set (a,b).

Color is a quality of space considering it is a frequency of light, as a quality it is "a priori", as red it is "a posteriori".

Quantity is the divergence of one space into another, as such is a priori.

Sets are spatial limits, a quantity, existing as a new quantity thus a priori.

All quality begins with space, and quantity as well. For example a person may a prior-ly sense space with this being a qualtity, the divergence of the qualities as a new sets of qualities becomes a quantity as a relation of spaces.

Quality is that which innumerable and infinite, quantity is the relation of multiple qualities.

I think it is interesting that you try to derive phenomenal quality and also sets and quantity from our a priori notion of space. It's a rather Kantian project, I surmise. I rather doubt that it can be done; nonetheless, I will read what you have to say.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You need to define what do you mean by 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' first.
Without proper definition, anything goes.

Generally, a priori = nature, a posteriori = nurture.
The issue of "nature versus nurture" is such a common topic so such concepts do exist in reality.

The other common dichotomy of the above is from Kant who proved such concepts do exist in reality and very relevant to his theories.

There are other perspectives to the above dichotomy.

So what is your perspective on the above?

[tapaticmadness]

You need to define what do you mean by 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' first.
Without proper definition, anything goes.

Generally, a priori = nature, a posteriori = nurture.
The issue of "nature versus nurture" is such a common topic so such concepts do exist in reality.

The other common dichotomy of the above is from Kant who proved such concepts do exist in reality and very relevant to his theories.

There are other perspectives to the above dichotomy.

So what is your perspective on the above?

Would you say that your statement "Without proper definition, anything goes." is a priori or a posteriori? It seems to me that the search for definitions is endless because one definition requires another and so on forever. Eventually we must strike rock bottom on which we can base our thinking and there we are beyond definition. That of course is another statement that is maybe a priori and maybe a posteriori and maybe both.

[Eodnhoj7]

You need to define what do you mean by 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' first.
Without proper definition, anything goes.

Generally, a priori = nature, a posteriori = nurture.
The issue of "nature versus nurture" is such a common topic so such concepts do exist in reality.

The other common dichotomy of the above is from Kant who proved such concepts do exist in reality and very relevant to his theories.

There are other perspectives to the above dichotomy.

So what is your perspective on the above?

A priori is that before the senses.

A posteriori is that after the senses.

[tapaticmadness]

You need to define what do you mean by 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' first.
Without proper definition, anything goes.

Generally, a priori = nature, a posteriori = nurture.
The issue of "nature versus nurture" is such a common topic so such concepts do exist in reality.

The other common dichotomy of the above is from Kant who proved such concepts do exist in reality and very relevant to his theories.

There are other perspectives to the above dichotomy.

So what is your perspective on the above?

A priori is that before the senses.

A posteriori is that after the senses.

Do places exist and what accounts for the relations between places if they do?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You need to define what do you mean by 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' first.
Without proper definition, anything goes.

Generally, a priori = nature, a posteriori = nurture.
The issue of "nature versus nurture" is such a common topic so such concepts do exist in reality.

The other common dichotomy of the above is from Kant who proved such concepts do exist in reality and very relevant to his theories.

There are other perspectives to the above dichotomy.

So what is your perspective on the above?

Would you say that your statement "Without proper definition, anything goes." is a priori or a posteriori? It seems to me that the search for definitions is endless because one definition requires another and so on forever. Eventually we must strike rock bottom on which we can base our thinking and there we are beyond definition. That of course is another statement that is maybe a priori and maybe a posteriori and maybe both.

In a way a definition can lead to infinite regression, but that is not what I meant.

In a philosophical discussion as in this case, both parties must agree on a definition [compromised or otherwise] else the discussion is a non-starter and is a stalemate from the beginning.

Note the various interpretations of a priori and a posteriori.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_ ... Early_uses

[Veritas Aequitas]

You need to define what do you mean by 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' first.
Without proper definition, anything goes.

Generally, a priori = nature, a posteriori = nurture.
The issue of "nature versus nurture" is such a common topic so such concepts do exist in reality.

The other common dichotomy of the above is from Kant who proved such concepts do exist in reality and very relevant to his theories.

There are other perspectives to the above dichotomy.

So what is your perspective on the above?

A priori is that before the senses.

A posteriori is that after the senses.

Seems vague.
'Sense' is to be limited to sense organs and their respective neural elements.
What about sense data, perception, cognition, consciousness, experiences that result from the triggering of the sense organs.

[tapaticmadness]

You need to define what do you mean by 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' first.
Without proper definition, anything goes.

Generally, a priori = nature, a posteriori = nurture.
The issue of "nature versus nurture" is such a common topic so such concepts do exist in reality.

The other common dichotomy of the above is from Kant who proved such concepts do exist in reality and very relevant to his theories.

There are other perspectives to the above dichotomy.

So what is your perspective on the above?

Would you say that your statement "Without proper definition, anything goes." is a priori or a posteriori? It seems to me that the search for definitions is endless because one definition requires another and so on forever. Eventually we must strike rock bottom on which we can base our thinking and there we are beyond definition. That of course is another statement that is maybe a priori and maybe a posteriori and maybe both.

In a way a definition can lead to infinite regression, but that is not what I meant.

In a philosophical discussion as in this case, both parties must agree on a definition [compromised or otherwise] else the discussion is a non-starter and is a stalemate from the beginning.

Note the various interpretations of a priori and a posteriori.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_ ... Early_uses

In my experience only rationalists, not empiricists, believe that we must agree on a definition. I am most definitely NOT a rationalist. I am an extreme empiricist. For example, take a true statement of logic in which all the variables are empty. That statement is true by virtue of its form. So now we must examine empirically that form and the emptiness of the variables. We must go to the thing itself, not to a definition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Would you say that your statement "Without proper definition, anything goes." is a priori or a posteriori? It seems to me that the search for definitions is endless because one definition requires another and so on forever. Eventually we must strike rock bottom on which we can base our thinking and there we are beyond definition. That of course is another statement that is maybe a priori and maybe a posteriori and maybe both.

In a way a definition can lead to infinite regression, but that is not what I meant.

In a philosophical discussion as in this case, both parties must agree on a definition [compromised or otherwise] else the discussion is a non-starter and is a stalemate from the beginning.

Note the various interpretations of a priori and a posteriori.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_ ... Early_uses

In my experience only rationalists, not empiricists, believe that we must agree on a definition. I am most definitely NOT a rationalist. I am an extreme empiricist. For example, take a true statement of logic in which all the variables are empty. That statement is true by virtue of its form. So now we must examine empirically that form and the emptiness of the variables. We must go to the thing itself, not to a definition.

That is odd.
The most hardcore [by the book] empiricists are scientists.
It is obvious scientists has to rely on common definitions of terms used to arrive at their conclusions for peer review and consensus.

[tapaticmadness]

In a way a definition can lead to infinite regression, but that is not what I meant.

In a philosophical discussion as in this case, both parties must agree on a definition [compromised or otherwise] else the discussion is a non-starter and is a stalemate from the beginning.

Note the various interpretations of a priori and a posteriori.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_ ... Early_uses

In my experience only rationalists, not empiricists, believe that we must agree on a definition. I am most definitely NOT a rationalist. I am an extreme empiricist. For example, take a true statement of logic in which all the variables are empty. That statement is true by virtue of its form. So now we must examine empirically that form and the emptiness of the variables. We must go to the thing itself, not to a definition.

That is odd.
The most hardcore [by the book] empiricists are scientists.
It is obvious scientists has to rely on common definitions of terms used to arrive at their conclusions for peer review and consensus.

Once again you are looking in books to find the world. It isn't there. Close the book and open your eyes.

[tapaticmadness]

In my experience only rationalists, not empiricists, believe that we must agree on a definition. I am most definitely NOT a rationalist. I am an extreme empiricist. For example, take a true statement of logic in which all the variables are empty. That statement is true by virtue of its form. So now we must examine empirically that form and the emptiness of the variables. We must go to the thing itself, not to a definition.

That is odd.
The most hardcore [by the book] empiricists are scientists.
It is obvious scientists has to rely on common definitions of terms used to arrive at their conclusions for peer review and consensus.

Once again you are looking in books to find the world. It isn't there. Close the book and open your eyes.

I have disparagingly and as an insult called you a rationalist. The reason I did that is because of what you have had to say about madness in some of your other answers. You spoke of the God delusion. You said that it is all part of mental illness. I am a Platonist and the madness of The Phaedrus is important in my thinking. Is that madness, that mania, divine or evil? I know that madness well. That erotic power. It is the entryway, as Plato says, to the Forms. Only the mad know the Platonic Forms and believe in them. No rational person would. They are not things of reason and reasonableness. They are otherworldly and intense. One experiences them straight on. One knows the madness intimately and of course only empirically. If you try to imagine a madman trying to write a definition of madness, you imagine something silly. Yes, God is madness. Divine madness. No rationalist with his book of definitions will ever understand.

On the other hand, if, in your life, what you value most is a family, a good job (perhaps in academia), a good retirement and a fine reputation, then by all means stay away from that madness and become a sensible rational rationalist.