|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: True Freedom | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
moo writes: This decison could have been made a priori though obviously not fully a priori because aposteriori or imperical(experience) knowledge precedes a priori knowledge. This was the statement that prompted me to say that. because he seriously screwed up his terms. as I said, it's impossible to have after-the-fact knowledge (or experience) before you have before-hand knowledge. It would, by default, become a priori knowledge (experience). Therin lies the contradiction. Do you know why 2 + 2 = 4 before you have learned the concept of adding? knowledge is not about learning facts. facts don't really tell much.knowlegde is learning the why, the how. messenjah says that the kid could have decided a priorily what to do, but not fully a priorily, because apostpriori comes before apriori knowledge. that's like saying that one's birth comes before one was concieved. and in philosophy, a priori is used to mean innate knowledge (from what comes before). the knowledge you have of that thing before you have experienced that thing. a priori could be said to be instinct, but I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison. mainly because instinct doesn't really deal with knowledge. you also cannot have a halfway apriori and aposteriori. It is either one or the other. yes--I realize my definition of knowledge is a little different, but I think it still holds true if you use the standard. you cannot know an after-hand fact before you know the fact (knowledge), without it by default becoming a before-hand knowledge of the fact(knowledge) hope this makes sense. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you know why 2 + 2 = 4 before you have learned the concept of adding? Actually there have been some great recent studies that seem to imply that the answer might be yes.
here and
here Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
okay.
but still, you can't have aposteriori knowledge before you have apriori knowledge. that's still a contradiction. so it looks like we can do math earlier than thought, and it looks like it's inate. my question is: do we, at that time, know why the answer is such? as in, do we know why 50 is greater than 17 is greater than 13? visually, it appears we know that it is such, but why it is still remains to be answered. now that could be some interesting research. Edited by kuresu, : changed to : d. who knew that even a lower case d could give you a smiley? All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Someone doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
I suggest reading the first 50 pages of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
You should feel embarrassed. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
which--the contradiction or the kantian ethics?
even if I'm wrong on the kantian ethics, you're argument still falls because of the contradiction--because you make it in an area crucial to your argument. my kantian ethics is an aside/ All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Listen friend,
There is no contradiction. Do I have to go out of my way to quote long passages and to scan my notes from those passages. I'm talking about 3-4 pages and 2 pages of notes. At this point I feel you should learn on your own, take out Critique of Pure Reason from the library and read the introduction please. Please retract your argument, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to criticize you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Do you know why 2 + 2 = 4 before you have learned the concept of adding?
To say it is a priori is to say that it can be found deductively, without having to depend on empirical evidence. It doesn't have to do with the time order of learning. I recommend the article by C.I. Lewis on a priori knowledge knowledge is not about learning facts. facts don't really tell much.
Personally, I agree. But that's not how the term is used in the philosophical literature, nor in the expression "a priori knowledge."
knowlegde is learning the why, the how. I realize my definition of knowledge is a little different, ...
I'm not objecting to your idea as to what knowledge is. I am pointing out that you improperly criticized -messenjah of one, given that what he wrote was consistent with the usage within philosophy.
..., but I think it still holds true if you use the standard. you cannot know an after-hand fact before you know the fact (knowledge), ...
However a priori has nothing to do with when you acquired those facts. If, right now, I invent some new facts out of my head, then they are a priori because they don't depend on empirical data. We are wandering a bit off topic. Let's not further pursue this in the current thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
hahahah whippersnapper haha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
and if you reject Kant's argument about a priori and aposteriori?
funny--for one telling everyone about how they've gotten trapped into the system, and can't break from the conformity, you seem to be awfully trapped by what those before you have written. I still see it as a contradiction--why?I'm more in agreement with the distiction between the two that the empiricists and the rationalists made than what Kant did with them. As far as I'm concerned, Kant is brilliant with his categorical imperative. as far as his reasoning on apriori and aposteriori, I think not (and thus I don't exist). Pay attention to my sig--paraphrased from what Locke wrote/said. you'll see where I come from. I still see the contradiction as legitimate. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: Uhm yeah, no, Uh yeah, no, I don't think, yeah no, nope. For example, I can't remember anything besides your previous classes that you have wrote. This is not to degrade you and stuff, it's just that I don't think that you have provided much content in your posts. I am sure there are those here who feel the same about me I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Dear Kuresu,
You are actually not rejecting Kant by way of your sig. Kant says that there essentially must be experience before any a priori knowledge. I could provide an example but I feel you need to learn on your own. You display a total misunderstanding of Kant and of the terms a priori and a posteriori.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
well if you supposedly get him better than me, then why don't you just fucking give me the examples. after all, you are the messenjer, are you not?
my sig's from Locke--well before Kant screwed with apriori and aposteriori. It comes from the idea of tabula rasa--blank tablet--upon which our knowledge is written. but hey, if you're willing to wait about a year, then you and I can do some sort of great debate on this. the only way kant can make this statement "that there essentially must be experience before any a priori knowledge" is by changing the definitions. Sort of like when the creationists changed macroevolution to be above and beyond the splitting of the genus. They used to agree that it meant speciation. And since we hadn't observed that at that time, their argument held that macro evolution is impossible. But since we've seen it, they've changed it so they can keep the same argument. a shell game. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: wowzers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
CK writes:
I tend to find that Asian students are a) not very good on word limits and b) like essay and exam questions to have AN ANSWER. I'm constantly asked what THE ANSWER is to any type of question that I set (not that I do much of that, I'm pure research, I only teach a module a year to keep my hand in). The Asian education model is driven by standards and tests. Students take standardized tests to determine what elementary school they can attend, then what junior high, then what high school, then what college. Students always attend the school they do based on how they performed academically. And going to the right school counts for much in a world where students wear uniforms every day. When students ride on the Metro--whether those students are 6, 10, 14 or 18--they know everyone on the train can see what school they attend. Everyone knows where the school stands in the pecking order--'That's the #1 school, that's the #5 school'--because everyone came through the same system. Families know, neighbors know. There's a long history behind this that predates by centuries the founding of the first European universities. Many advantages flow from this way of doing things. The main advantage is that it's egalitarian. Getting access to better education is made as strictly as possible a matter of merit. Students tend to invest in their own academic success early. Peer pressure works to encourage learning. Schools care about raising their academic rankings, not athletic standings. Schools know they do this by helping their students perform. But any structure involves tradeoffs. Doing well on standardized tests means delivering short, unambiguous answers. Then students enter college and begin, as they must, studies that admit more than one right answer. Suddenly they can feel at sea. How are they going to pass the test on this? Every college student has this moment, whether they study here or abroad. This is speaking very generally. Asian societies are very different from one another even though, from a Western perspective, the school structures look similar. Taiwanese students tend to be a very creative lot, very optimistic. They work hard and play hard. Their culture frowns on corporal punishment (still a problem in Japan) and values self-discipline more than regimentation (still the tendency in China). The arts are part of their curriculum from early childhod. So Taiwanese students are not all that intimidated by the idea of 'more than one right answer'. They will appreciate your best advice about how to prepare for your test. Give them that, though, and they're game for anything. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024