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.
knowlegde is learning the why, the how.
Personally, I agree. But that's not how the term is used in the philosophical literature, nor in the expression "a priori knowledge."
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.
™ Version 4.2
