Noumenon

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Noumenon

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:21 am Since a noumenon can't be experienced, one cannot know of it, thus it might simply be a false concept, a place holder for those things one cannot yet know.
That it not the intent of Kant.

Kant started his 3-phases-argument with a focus on the "phenomenon" and in anticipation of the dualists 'naturally instincts, he introduced its direct opposite the 'noumenon' so that he can concentrate on discussing and exhaust everything about the phenomenon.

The noumenon is a temporary placeholder for no-thing [???], i.e. a limiting concept [B311] and not meant to represent a thing-one-cannot-yet-know.
As Wittgenstein stated, one should just 'shut up' [be silence] on such a desire and impulse.

In the next second of 3 phases of his argument which is beyond the phenomenonal world, Kant rename the noumenon as the thing-in-itself within the Understanding [the intellectual world].

In the final phase of his argument, Kant demonstrated the noumenon [re empirical world] aka thing-in-itself [re intellectual] is merely an illusion within Pure Reason.

The initial desperation to reify the noumenon at the phenomenal stage and thing-in-itself at the intellectual and pure reason stages, is due purely to psychology.

The most notable reification of the thing-in-itself as something real is that of a reified-real-God by theists when the thing-in-itself is a mere illusion.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Noumenon

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:53 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:21 am Since a noumenon can't be experienced, one cannot know of it, thus it might simply be a false concept, a place holder for those things one cannot yet know.
That it not the intent of Kant.

Kant started his 3-phases-argument with a focus on the "phenomenon" and in anticipation of the dualists 'naturally instincts, he introduced its direct opposite the 'noumenon' so that he can concentrate on discussing and exhaust everything about the phenomenon.

The noumenon is a temporary placeholder for no-thing [???], i.e. a limiting concept [B311] and not meant to represent a thing-one-cannot-yet-know.
As Wittgenstein stated, one should just 'shut up' [be silence] on such a desire and impulse.

In the next second of 3 phases of his argument which is beyond the phenomenonal world, Kant rename the noumenon as the thing-in-itself within the Understanding [the intellectual world].

In the final phase of his argument, Kant demonstrated the noumenon [re empirical world] aka thing-in-itself [re intellectual] is merely an illusion within Pure Reason.

The initial desperation to reify the noumenon at the phenomenal stage and thing-in-itself at the intellectual and pure reason stages, is due purely to psychology.

The most notable reification of the thing-in-itself as something real is that of a reified-real-God by theists when the thing-in-itself is a mere illusion.
Yeah thanks VA. I like some of the things he said as well, but did Kant know of a smart phone or a digital computer? Of course not. Do you know the in's and out's of every technology we currently utilize? Of course not. And neither do I. So when I look at some of the things the old philosophers said, I use my own sense of logic to test their theories, and when they seem to sound like they were grasping for straws, in a day of relative ignorance, I scoff at their proposals.

For instance I see that there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, that there is only ever a-posteriori knowledge. That knowledge originally never existed, that it's like an onion with each layer informing the next, and so on, and so on, thus only ever a-posteriori. That two bits that together yield a new bit, could only ever do so dependant upon the mind that's able to add the two together, still a-posteriori.

I think that unconsciously he was just trying to pat himself on the back, to deny that his ideas came exclusively from the past, that he could find something that he always had in only his mind. Of course I could be wrong, it just seems logical to me.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Noumenon

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:53 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:21 am Since a noumenon can't be experienced, one cannot know of it, thus it might simply be a false concept, a place holder for those things one cannot yet know.
That it not the intent of Kant.

Kant started his 3-phases-argument with a focus on the "phenomenon" and in anticipation of the dualists 'naturally instincts, he introduced its direct opposite the 'noumenon' so that he can concentrate on discussing and exhaust everything about the phenomenon.

The noumenon is a temporary placeholder for no-thing [???], i.e. a limiting concept [B311] and not meant to represent a thing-one-cannot-yet-know.
As Wittgenstein stated, one should just 'shut up' [be silence] on such a desire and impulse.

In the next second of 3 phases of his argument which is beyond the phenomenonal world, Kant rename the noumenon as the thing-in-itself within the Understanding [the intellectual world].

In the final phase of his argument, Kant demonstrated the noumenon [re empirical world] aka thing-in-itself [re intellectual] is merely an illusion within Pure Reason.

The initial desperation to reify the noumenon at the phenomenal stage and thing-in-itself at the intellectual and pure reason stages, is due purely to psychology.

The most notable reification of the thing-in-itself as something real is that of a reified-real-God by theists when the thing-in-itself is a mere illusion.
Yeah thanks VA. I like some of the things he said as well, but did Kant know of a smart phone or a digital computer? Of course not. Do you know the in's and out's of every technology we currently utilize? Of course not. And neither do I. So when I look at some of the things the old philosophers said, I use my own sense of logic to test their theories, and when they seem to sound like they were grasping for straws, in a day of relative ignorance, I scoff at their proposals.
Many of the well-known philosophers of the past obviously were not aware the Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution, the knowledge of neurosciences, and other advance knowledge, but one wise thing they did was to be rational not to speculate beyond what they could know.
The most notable speculation they did not do was the invention that God exists as a real thing.
For instance I see that there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, that there is only ever a-posteriori knowledge. That knowledge originally never existed, that it's like an onion with each layer informing the next, and so on, and so on, thus only ever a-posteriori. That two bits that together yield a new bit, could only ever do so dependant upon the mind that's able to add the two together, still a-posteriori.
This is Locke's theory of Tabula Rasa which is untenable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

A-priori knowledge is obviously not a-posteriori knowledge.
However a priori knowledge are embedded as instincts and intuitions in humans via the DNA prior to birth.
A-priori knowledge are the grounds for a-posteriori knowledge.
I think that unconsciously he was just trying to pat himself on the back, to deny that his ideas came exclusively from the past, that he could find something that he always had in only his mind. Of course I could be wrong, it just seems logical to me.
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one long argument in 300+ pages.
If you read the CPR [..I have done thoroughly] you will note all the premises of his arguments follow sequentially to the conclusion - the thing-in-itself is illusory.
To prove Kant was wrong is very easy, i.e. just find one unjustified premise that does not follow in his chain of argument.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Noumenon

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:38 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:53 am
That it not the intent of Kant.

Kant started his 3-phases-argument with a focus on the "phenomenon" and in anticipation of the dualists 'naturally instincts, he introduced its direct opposite the 'noumenon' so that he can concentrate on discussing and exhaust everything about the phenomenon.

The noumenon is a temporary placeholder for no-thing [???], i.e. a limiting concept [B311] and not meant to represent a thing-one-cannot-yet-know.
As Wittgenstein stated, one should just 'shut up' [be silence] on such a desire and impulse.

In the next second of 3 phases of his argument which is beyond the phenomenonal world, Kant rename the noumenon as the thing-in-itself within the Understanding [the intellectual world].

In the final phase of his argument, Kant demonstrated the noumenon [re empirical world] aka thing-in-itself [re intellectual] is merely an illusion within Pure Reason.

The initial desperation to reify the noumenon at the phenomenal stage and thing-in-itself at the intellectual and pure reason stages, is due purely to psychology.

The most notable reification of the thing-in-itself as something real is that of a reified-real-God by theists when the thing-in-itself is a mere illusion.
Yeah thanks VA. I like some of the things he said as well, but did Kant know of a smart phone or a digital computer? Of course not. Do you know the in's and out's of every technology we currently utilize? Of course not. And neither do I. So when I look at some of the things the old philosophers said, I use my own sense of logic to test their theories, and when they seem to sound like they were grasping for straws, in a day of relative ignorance, I scoff at their proposals.
Many of the well-known philosophers of the past obviously were not aware the Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution, the knowledge of neurosciences, and other advance knowledge, but one wise thing they did was to be rational not to speculate beyond what they could know.
But what they believed they knew came long after life's beginning. They only knew of the years they lived, which was almost 4,000 million years after our beginning. You can't start close to the end of the story and say you actually know anything about it. Only that what you experienced during your relatively very short lifetime caused you to believe you knew. Especially what it is that you and I are currently arguing, namely, the existence of a-priori knowledge.


The most notable speculation they did not do was the invention that God exists as a real thing.
For instance I see that there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, that there is only ever a-posteriori knowledge. That knowledge originally never existed, that it's like an onion with each layer informing the next, and so on, and so on, thus only ever a-posteriori. That two bits that together yield a new bit, could only ever do so dependant upon the mind that's able to add the two together, still a-posteriori.
This is Locke's theory of Tabula Rasa which is untenable.
Of course it's considered untenable when one only considers the very smallest portion of the life story.
Approximately 4,000 million years ago life first appeared. And the first members of the genus Homo, Homo Habilis appeared at 2 million years ago, you do the math. Do you actually believe that no dinosaurs cared for their young, crocodiles surely do and they appeared 55 million years ago, 53 million years before the earliest Homo species.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

A-priori knowledge is obviously not a-posteriori knowledge.
However a priori knowledge are embedded as instincts and intuitions in humans via the DNA prior to birth.
A-priori knowledge are the grounds for a-posteriori knowledge.
Again I disagree, because you have to consider our past on planet earth from day one, which you are not doing because it's impossible to know for sure. But I speculate that with evolution life on earth became capable of passing the innate knowledge of which you speak, from generation to generation that in fact it too is a-posteriori knowledge. An accumulation from day one, ground zero, or more correctly water zero. Quite probably, so scientists now believe, life started near oceanic hydrothermal vents. Keep in mind that I speak of basically bacteria as our starting point, long before the human babies of anti Tabula Rasa consideration.

I think that unconsciously he was just trying to pat himself on the back, to deny that his ideas came exclusively from the past, that he could find something that he always had in only his mind. Of course I could be wrong, it just seems logical to me.
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one long argument in 300+ pages.
If you read the CPR [..I have done thoroughly] you will note all the premises of his arguments follow sequentially to the conclusion - the thing-in-itself is illusory.
To prove Kant was wrong is very easy, i.e. just find one unjustified premise that does not follow in his chain of argument.
Incorrect! Again, if he didn't start from day one, water zero, which is impossible, then everything he said, is entirely after his first and biggest mistake. And that's almost a 4,000 million year mistake.
And don't ding me on speculation, because everything before each of our lives, is to one degree or another speculation. We trust that our history books are accurate, without knowing for certain, we simply trust, have faith in what's been written, so why not the bible? Or how about a comic book? Many bibles are King James versions, which lends to other versions, what was added, what was omitted?

My history professor at university told me a story about him being asked by Britannica to write a section on our first president, George Washington, and that when he included George's promiscuity, venereal disease, and other so called off color truths, they fired him. History by omission? That's lying, probably to suck up to Uncle Sam.

So there you go, a lesson in starting in the middle of a story.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Noumenon

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:38 am Many of the well-known philosophers of the past obviously were not aware the Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution, the knowledge of neurosciences, and other advance knowledge, but one wise thing they did was to be rational not to speculate beyond what they could know.
But what they believed they knew came long after life's beginning. They only knew of the years they lived, which was almost 4,000 million years after our beginning. You can't start close to the end of the story and say you actually know anything about it. Only that what you experienced during your relatively very short lifetime caused you to believe you knew. Especially what it is that you and I are currently arguing, namely, the existence of a-priori knowledge.
I believe there is a misunderstanding on the term 'knowing' and 'knowledge'.
As I had stated there is a big difference between cognition of a-priori knowledge and a-posteriori knowledge.
What is know a-priori is intuitive knowing not consciously knowing like a posteriori knowledge.
This is Locke's theory of Tabula Rasa which is untenable.
Of course it's considered untenable when one only considers the very smallest portion of the life story.
Approximately 4,000 million years ago life first appeared. And the first members of the genus Homo, Homo Habilis appeared at 2 million years ago, you do the math. Do you actually believe that no dinosaurs cared for their young, crocodiles surely do and they appeared 55 million years ago, 53 million years before the earliest Homo species.

Not sure of your point.
I did not mention earlier, but what is a-priori knowledge is evolved from 4 billion years ago.

A-priori knowledge is obviously not a-posteriori knowledge.
However a priori knowledge are embedded as instincts and intuitions in humans via the DNA prior to birth.
A-priori knowledge are the grounds for a-posteriori knowledge.
Again I disagree, because you have to consider our past on planet earth from day one, which you are not doing because it's impossible to know for sure. But I speculate that with evolution life on earth became capable of passing the innate knowledge of which you speak, from generation to generation that in fact it too is a-posteriori knowledge. An accumulation from day one, ground zero, or more correctly water zero. Quite probably, so scientists now believe, life started near oceanic hydrothermal vents. Keep in mind that I speak of basically bacteria as our starting point, long before the human babies of anti Tabula Rasa consideration.
I believe you got it wrong.
The passing of innate knowledge is not a-posteriori.
A-posteriori is dependent on the present experience of the person[s] during their life-time only.

Incorrect! Again, if he didn't start from day one, water zero, which is impossible, then everything he said, is entirely after his first and biggest mistake. And that's almost a 4,000 million year mistake.
Note sure of your point but I guess.
Since no humans can know exactly happened 4,000 million years ago, then every assertion made by anyone [especially Science] is a mistake?

What I had stated was, to ensure anyone's argument is sound or not, just verify whether the premises are sound and follow to the conclusion subject to not knowing what happened 4,000 million years ago.

And don't ding me on speculation, because everything before each of our lives, is to one degree or another speculation. We trust that our history books are accurate, without knowing for certain, we simply trust, have faith in what's been written, so why not the bible? Or how about a comic book? Many bibles are King James versions, which lends to other versions, what was added, what was omitted?

My history professor at university told me a story about him being asked by Britannica to write a section on our first president, George Washington, and that when he included George's promiscuity, venereal disease, and other so called off color truths, they fired him. History by omission? That's lying, probably to suck up to Uncle Sam.

So there you go, a lesson in starting in the middle of a story.


Btw, the most credible knowledge, facts and truths from Science are at best polished conjectures. So we should ignore all Scientific facts?
Point is we should make the best use of the best available justified knowledge that can be of utility to humanity with the awareness of their limitations.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Noumenon

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:34 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:38 am Many of the well-known philosophers of the past obviously were not aware the Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution, the knowledge of neurosciences, and other advance knowledge, but one wise thing they did was to be rational not to speculate beyond what they could know.
But what they believed they knew came long after life's beginning. They only knew of the years they lived, which was almost 4,000 million years after our beginning. You can't start close to the end of the story and say you actually know anything about it. Only that what you experienced during your relatively very short lifetime caused you to believe you knew. Especially what it is that you and I are currently arguing, namely, the existence of a-priori knowledge.
I believe there is a misunderstanding on the term 'knowing' and 'knowledge'.
There is no relevant distinction between the two words, except that knowledge is the sum of knowing. Both mean to contain in ones/manys mind/s, observed/experienced facts. Many words are simply forms of other words. This is one point that some have problems understanding. To split hairs unnecessarily is unnecessary.

As I had stated there is a big difference between cognition of a-priori knowledge and a-posteriori knowledge.
What is know a-priori is intuitive knowing not consciously knowing like a posteriori knowledge.
What is written in a history book is not a-priori; period! When you read it, it comes to your mind after the fact of it already being known, thus a-posteriori. It doesn't matter if the history book is made of paper or neurons. A storage medium of, so called facts, is a storage medium of, so called, facts!

There is no such thing as intuition. What people call intuition is simply the unconscious/subconscious mind formulating new information based upon already known information, or simply calling upon stored information, long forgotten, finally retreived. Ones mind adds together what it has stored to create new concepts/information, then calls it intuition, when all it is, is new conjecture?/facts?, hopefully based upon a-posteriori knowledge thus facts. (We don't need any superstition, or mysticism muddying the waters of knowledge/knowing).

This is Locke's theory of Tabula Rasa which is untenable.
Of course it's considered untenable when one only considers the very smallest portion of the life story.
Approximately 4,000 million years ago life first appeared. And the first members of the genus Homo, Homo Habilis appeared at 2 million years ago, you do the math. Do you actually believe that no dinosaurs cared for their young, crocodiles surely do and they appeared 55 million years ago, 53 million years before the earliest Homo species.

Not sure of your point.
It's that we are the 'culmination' of ALL knowledge, "starting from life's beginning"

I did not mention earlier, but what is a-priori knowledge is evolved from 4 billion years ago.
Which means that the a-priori distinction is simply a manifestation of ego. That people of any particular future day, (beyond the first day of earth's life), refuse to give credit to that knowledge and those that accumulated it prior to them. That in fact all knowledge, is a-posteriori in nature.

"A priori and a posteriori ('from the earlier' and 'from the later', respectively) are Latin phrases used in philosophy to identify two types of knowledge, justification, or argument, characterized by the use of empirical evidence found in experience (a posteriori) or the lack thereof (a priori)." -wikipedia-

There is no such thing as the "lack thereof." All knowledge throughout earth's history can only ever be a-posteriori. Every bit of knowledge from the simplest(beginning of life) to the most complex(today) is the culmination of all knowledge, added together in any particular time, in it's time.
A-priori knowledge is obviously not a-posteriori knowledge.
However a priori knowledge are embedded as instincts and intuitions in humans via the DNA prior to birth.
A-priori knowledge are the grounds for a-posteriori knowledge.
The recorded knowledge of prior knowledge is in fact a-posteriori knowledge, (after the fact), thus it can't be said that it's the grounds for a-posteriori knowledge. If you really have the want/desire to stick with Kant's misguided illusory and unnecessary concept of a-priori knowledge then clearly a-posteriori knowledge is the grounds for his/your a-priori knowledge that is contained in instincts/DNA.

I.E. life first appears on planet earth, it then experiences facts/knowing, it then records it, and passes it on to the next generation, which does the same thing. You see, all knowledge is a-posteriori (after the fact of experience) simply passed on in the most basic of history books, neurons! Or pre-neurons if you prefer, I mean we have to include evolution right?


Again I disagree, because you have to consider our past on planet earth from day one, which you are not doing because it's impossible to know for sure. But I speculate that with evolution life on earth became capable of passing the innate knowledge of which you speak, from generation to generation that in fact it too is a-posteriori knowledge. An accumulation from day one, ground zero, or more correctly water zero. Quite probably, so scientists now believe, life started near oceanic hydrothermal vents. Keep in mind that I speak of basically bacteria as our starting point, long before the human babies of anti Tabula Rasa consideration.
I believe you got it wrong.
The passing of innate knowledge is not a-posteriori.
No I see that you have it wrong, you're putting the cart before the horse.
Innate knowledge came from the past it's "post" knowledge or rather (a-'post'eriori) knowledge.
Life came first and then to help it survive it evolved to be capable of storing what it had learned so as to pass it on to the next generation, don't forget that the first lifeforms procreated via mitosis. Very easy to understand how they were finally capable of transferring their knowledge.


A-posteriori is dependent on the present experience of the person[s] during their life-time only.
No, a-posteriori knowledge is the culmination of ALL knowledge, whether passed on through books of paper or neurons, it makes no difference. There is no need for the distinction! It serves no purpose! It did in it's time, due to our ignorance of mind. Kants belief, and it was nothing more, was a stepping stone. But its antiquated, by today’s measure. If you truly believe it serves a purpose, other than as a historical stepping stone, explain how so.

Incorrect! Again, if he didn't start from day one, water zero, which is impossible, then everything he said, is entirely after his first and biggest mistake. And that's almost a 4,000 million year mistake.
Note sure of your point but I guess.
Since no humans can know exactly happened 4,000 million years ago, then every assertion made by anyone [especially Science] is a mistake?
No, not necessarily, but it can induce error.

What I had stated was, to ensure anyone's argument is sound or not, just verify whether the premises are sound and follow to the conclusion subject to not knowing what happened 4,000 million years ago.
Yes, but no logical conclusions can be made from invalid premises. If those premises are based upon invalid conjecture, they can lead to falsehoods. 4,000 million years is a very long time.

As an example palaeontologists, once believed dinosaurs dragged their tails, but now they say they hovered in the air as a counter balance, their rear legs being the fulcrum. But what's the truth? Is either conclusion necessarily correct? Could any particular time during evolution change things, or how about species specific differences? They usually represent them in colors, yet colors can't be fossilized, only bones. The same goes for how much meat was on the bones. They use reptiles of the day as examples, but evolution is all about change. They can only ever introduce conjecture into their representations, because some data is missing, which can never be recovered. And relative to life on earth, dinosaurs are relative babies, the first showing up approximately 233.23 Million years ago.


And don't ding me on speculation, because everything before each of our lives, is to one degree or another speculation. We trust that our history books are accurate, without knowing for certain, we simply trust, have faith in what's been written, so why not the bible? Or how about a comic book? Many bibles are King James versions, which lends to other versions, what was added, what was omitted?

My history professor at university told me a story about him being asked by Britannica to write a section on our first president, George Washington, and that when he included George's promiscuity, venereal disease, and other so called off color truths, they fired him. History by omission? That's lying, probably to suck up to Uncle Sam.

So there you go, a lesson in starting in the middle of a story.


Btw, the most credible knowledge, facts and truths from Science are at best polished conjectures.
Yes, Science is revisionist in nature.
So we should ignore all Scientific facts?
Of course not, but I'd say it should be taken with a grain of salt, (skepticism).

Point is we should make the best use of the best available justified knowledge that can be of utility to humanity with the awareness of their limitations.
Agreed, 'knowing' that JTB doesn't necessarily lend to certainty/factuality.
All I'm saying is that while the old philosophers are extremely valuable, historically speaking, sometimes their Ideas are antiquated relative to this day and age. And that an example of this is a-priori knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Noumenon

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:34 am A-priori knowledge is obviously not a-posteriori knowledge.
However a priori knowledge are embedded as instincts and intuitions in humans via the DNA prior to birth.
A-priori knowledge are the grounds for a-posteriori knowledge.
The recorded knowledge of prior knowledge is in fact a-posteriori knowledge, (after the fact), thus it can't be said that it's the grounds for a-posteriori knowledge. If you really have the want/desire to stick with Kant's misguided illusory and unnecessary concept of a-priori knowledge then clearly a-posteriori knowledge is the grounds for his/your a-priori knowledge that is contained in instincts/DNA.

I.E. life first appears on planet earth, it then experiences facts/knowing, it then records it, and passes it on to the next generation, which does the same thing. You see, all knowledge is a-posteriori (after the fact of experience) simply passed on in the most basic of history books, neurons! Or pre-neurons if you prefer, I mean we have to include evolution right?


Again I disagree, because you have to consider our past on planet earth from day one, which you are not doing because it's impossible to know for sure. But I speculate that with evolution life on earth became capable of passing the innate knowledge of which you speak, from generation to generation that in fact it too is a-posteriori knowledge. An accumulation from day one, ground zero, or more correctly water zero. Quite probably, so scientists now believe, life started near oceanic hydrothermal vents. Keep in mind that I speak of basically bacteria as our starting point, long before the human babies of anti Tabula Rasa consideration.
I believe you got it wrong.
The passing of innate knowledge is not a-posteriori.
No I see that you have it wrong, you're putting the cart before the horse.
Innate knowledge came from the past it's "post" knowledge or rather (a-'post'eriori) knowledge.
Life came first and then to help it survive it evolved to be capable of storing what it had learned so as to pass it on to the next generation, don't forget that the first lifeforms procreated via mitosis. Very easy to understand how they were finally capable of transferring their knowledge.


A-posteriori is dependent on the present experience of the person[s] during their life-time only.
No, a-posteriori knowledge is the culmination of ALL knowledge, whether passed on through books of paper or neurons, it makes no difference. There is no need for the distinction! It serves no purpose! It did in it's time, due to our ignorance of mind. Kants belief, and it was nothing more, was a stepping stone. But its antiquated, by today’s measure. If you truly believe it serves a purpose, other than as a historical stepping stone, explain how so.

Point is we should make the best use of the best available justified knowledge that can be of utility to humanity with the awareness of their limitations.
Agreed, 'knowing' that JTB doesn't necessarily lend to certainty/factuality.

All I'm saying is that while the old philosophers are extremely valuable, historically speaking, sometimes their Ideas are antiquated relative to this day and age. And that an example of this is a-priori knowledge.

.....................
I believe the contention above is due to your understanding of what is "experience."
Experience is the process through which conscious organisms perceive the world around them.[1][2]
Experiences can be accompanied by active awareness on the part of the person having the experience, although they need not be.[3]
Experience is the primary subject of various subfields of philosophy, including the philosophy of perception, the philosophy of mind, and phenomenology.

Several different senses of the word "experience" should be distinguished from one another.
In the sense of the word under discussion here, "experience" means something along the lines of "perception", "sensation", or "observation".
In this sense of the word, knowledge gained from experience is called "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge".
This can include propositional knowledge (e.g. finding out that certain things are true based on sensory experience), procedural knowledge (e.g. learning how to perform a particular task based on sensory experience), or knowledge by acquaintance (e.g. familiarity with certain people, places, or objects based on direct exposure to them).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience
Note the "different senses" the term 'experience' is used.
The generally accepted usage of the term 'experience' is as mentioned above.
Thus 'a posteriori' knowledge refer to knowledge gained from conscious human experiences.

Those single-celled entities from 4 billion years ago are not 'conscious' in the above sense of experience. It is only after > 3.9++ billion years that some animals has some recognizable traces of consciousness, e.g. the primates and other other more advance animals. But they don't come close to what is consciousness to human beings and they survived predominantly on instincts.

Therefore the "knowledge" that is embedded from our animal ancestors since 4 billion years ago via evolution and programmed into our brains cannot be 'a posteriori' knowledge like those of Science, and other knowledge in mind and various databases [library etc.].

It is thus imperative we maintain the distinction between a priori 'knowledge'* and a posteriori knowledge. * They are more like a priori concepts generating synthetic a priori knowledge.
There is no need for the distinction! It serves no purpose! It did in it's time, due to our ignorance of mind. Kants belief, and it was nothing more, was a stepping stone. But its antiquated, by today’s measure. If you truly believe it serves a purpose, other than as a historical stepping stone, explain how so.
Nope, Kant believed a priori concepts [synthetic a priori knowledge] are facts and the knowledge of the existence of such facts is very critical to humanity during his time, now and the future.
Therefore it is important that we differentiate a priori concepts [knowledge] and a posteriori knowledge.

Those who do not differentiate a priori from a posteriori will be driven to believe in the supernatural entities and the woo woo elements.

It is from the differentiation of a priori concepts that Kant could ground his argument that the idea of God is an illusion.
When the whole of humanity realize this truth, it will have a great impact on humanity and its path to perpetual peace.
For one thing, if we convince all God is an illusion, there will be no more God-Driven-Islamic terror.

All human behaviors are grounded on a priori concepts and giving them attention will facilitate to cultivate greater moral competence and the well being of the individuals and humanity.

Btw, your failure to differentiate a priori from a posteriori and thus did not explore the a priori in details is also the reason why you'd hastily jumped to conclusion there is no such thing as a priori knowledge.
Post Reply