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.