Is a priori knowledge possible?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Londoner »

And besides, you didn't addressed the argument I put forward for this claim. Do you deny the fact that if I draw an accurate circle then I can know a priori that the ratio between it's radius and circumference will be very close to pi?
Yes. You as me to beg your own question by saying it is an 'accurate circle', by which you mean a circle in geometry i.e an unreal circle. The more your claim is true, the less 'real' your circle would be. If your claim was entirely true, the circle would be completely unreal.

I might as well say I could paint something 'white', in which case it will have (to some degree) a quality of 'whiteness', thus the names of colours like 'white' also provide 'a priori' knowledge of the world. 'Mammal' describes all creatures that have mammalian features; I can declare I know for a fact that all mammalian creatures will have mammalian features; does this make the word 'mammal' - and every categorical description - an example of 'synthetic a priori' knowledge?

Perhaps, for you, it does. In which case I can only say that it isn't what is usually understood by the term.

And nor does it fit with your own earlier definition. To know that something is circular or white or mammalian you have to use your senses; to use those terms about an object is to communicate the sensory information another person might expect. But in your definition of 'synthetic a priori' knowledge you declared that such knowledge should be independent of experience.
The question is ambiguous. In one sense, there are triangles in the world, every kid can draw one on a piece paper. And then there are the geometrical abstract notion of a triangle which is an idealized way of describing the necessary properties of spatial objects, like a triangle on a page. And who knows, maybe it's possible for a perfect triangle to exist in the actual physical space, or at least there could've been a different physics that would allow the existence of such objects.
If we could first find that 'synthetic a priori' then it might be able to go on and argue for such a metaphysics, but we can't rest a 'synthetic a priori' claim itself on a 'maybe' or 'could've'!
User avatar
Fafner88
Posts: 377
Joined: August 30th, 2013, 8:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein
Location: Israel

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Fafner88 »

Londoner wrote:Yes. You as me to beg your own question by saying it is an 'accurate circle', by which you mean a circle in geometry i.e an unreal circle. The more your claim is true, the less 'real' your circle would be. If your claim was entirely true, the circle would be completely unreal.
It doesn't matter how you call it. The question is, can I know very accurate information about the thing that I've drawn on the page without measuring it, yes or no?
Londoner wrote:I might as well say I could paint something 'white', in which case it will have (to some degree) a quality of 'whiteness', thus the names of colours like 'white' also provide 'a priori' knowledge of the world.
What does it mean to say "the names of colours like 'white' provide 'a priori' knowledge"? Names can't provide knowledge, one can know only propositions, not names.
'Mammal' describes all creatures that have mammalian features; I can declare I know for a fact that all mammalian creatures will have mammalian features; does this make the word 'mammal' - and every categorical description - an example of 'synthetic a priori' knowledge?
No, it's not synthetic a priori, "all mammals are mammals" is analytic, so again it's an irrelevant example.

And a word can't be knowledge, you can know only propositions because words by themselves don't say anything, so the question about the word 'mammal' being synthetic a priori doesn't make sense. You must make the distinctions between a word, its reference, a concept, and a proposition, and the question of a priori knowledge (or knowledge of any kind) can arise only regarding propositions. This is what I meant by confusions about language.
And nor does it fit with your own earlier definition. To know that something is circular or white or mammalian you have to use your senses; to use those terms about an object is to communicate the sensory information another person might expect. But in your definition of 'synthetic a priori' knowledge you declared that such knowledge should be independent of experience.
No, this is not what I say, I don't say that one can know that something is a circle a priori without looking, what I claim is that given that one already knows that something is a circle, then one can also know a priori different properties of that circle.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Londoner »

Fafner
It doesn't matter how you call it. The question is, can I know very accurate information about the thing that I've drawn on the page without measuring it, yes or no?
No. At the very least you need to use your senses to determine that there exists a drawn object that resembles a circle. Unlike a geometric circle which is an abstraction which need not exist in fact (and doesn't). And when you say 'very accurate information' you mean 'slightly inaccurate'.
What does it mean to say "the names of colours like 'white' provide 'a priori' knowledge"? Names can't provide knowledge, one can know only propositions, not names.
If naming something a 'circle' is a proposition about its shape, why isn't naming it 'white' a proposition about its colour? Either or neither!

You say a round-object will have similar characteristics to an abstract shape; I say a white-object will have similar characteristics to the abstract quality white. Of course it will also differ from that abstract quality, since white only describes a colour but any white-object must be other than pure colour, but say you do not consider the differences to be significant, as long as the object has being somewhat round/white as one of its qualities. Again, either or neither.
You must make the distinctions between a word, its reference, a concept, and a proposition, and the question of a priori knowledge (or knowledge of any kind) can arise only regarding propositions. This is what I meant by confusions about language.
I think I do. For example I distinguish between propositions about geometry from those about real objects. As to the way in which our words and concepts might reference real world objects, that is the thing we are discussing.

But let me suggest an alternative. You argue that real things can resemble abstractions. And that abstractions can give us 'synthetic a priori' knowledge. But since real things are always imperfect copies of the abstractions, surely the 'synthetic a priori' knowledge is only perfectly realised in the abstraction.

In that case, why shouldn't the term 'synthetic a priori' be one that applies to the abstractions? We can simply accept that it is the nature of real objects to be something like 'imperfect copies' of the ideal objects that we access through reason.

I'm not suggesting anything at all original here. I'm pointing out a well-used slip road that will feed us back into the philosophical highway.
User avatar
Luisgmarquez1985
Posts: 79
Joined: October 20th, 2013, 12:14 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Baruch Spinoza
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Luisgmarquez1985 »

when it comes to this I am ultimately Kantian. we have a priori knowledge because we have certain categories in which we are born with in order to analysis things and bring out the information. Yet at the same time, we need the external world to experience knowledge posteriori. in my view we need both a priori and posteriori. a priori knowledge is not possible if there is nothing from which we can gain experience from something 'out there'. Even your example Scott of an analytic proposition that states, "all bachelors are unmarried" has to be derived from an external experience where we can find all bachelor's are indeed unmarried. at the sometime, we cannot experience knowledge posteriori without an inner mechanism from which to draw information from external objects.

also with Kant, we can only gain knowledge from things that we can experience. Anything that we cannot experience we cannot draw knowledge from, only have faith or beliefs about it. the best example of this is God.
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing" - Socrates

"To understand is to be free" - Baruch Spinoza
User avatar
Fafner88
Posts: 377
Joined: August 30th, 2013, 8:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein
Location: Israel

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Fafner88 »

Londoner wrote:No. At the very least you need to use your senses to determine that there exists a drawn object that resembles a circle. Unlike a geometric circle which is an abstraction which need not exist in fact (and doesn't). And when you say 'very accurate information' you mean 'slightly inaccurate'.
Again, forget about how you call it, can one know in advance that the ratio between the diameter and circumference of this thing http://bestclipartblog.com/clipart-pics ... -art-6.jpg will be about 3.14 ant not 1 or 374, yes or no? If you don't believe me, just measure it yourself, and see if my prediction is correct.
If naming something a 'circle' is a proposition about its shape, why isn't naming it 'white' a proposition about its colour? Either or neither!
Naming something is not a proposition, what does it even mean? Shape recognition is not naming, I don't understand you.
You say a round-object will have similar characteristics to an abstract shape; I say a white-object will have similar characteristics to the abstract quality white. Of course it will also differ from that abstract quality, since white only describes a colour but any white-object must be other than pure colour, but say you do not consider the differences to be significant, as long as the object has being somewhat round/white as one of its qualities. Again, either or neither.
I don't understand what's the objection here. As I explained, I don't claim that someone can know that something is circular a priori just as no one can know that something is white a priori, but once someone knows that an object is circular, then he can know a priori empirical facts about that object, whereas knowing that something's white doesn't give you this kind of knowledge, only some analytic knowledge (that it's a colored object for example.
But let me suggest an alternative. You argue that real things can resemble abstractions. And that abstractions can give us 'synthetic a priori' knowledge. But since real things are always imperfect copies of the abstractions, surely the 'synthetic a priori' knowledge is only perfectly realised in the abstraction.
I don't understand what "perfect/imperfect realization of knowledge" is supposed to be.
In that case, why shouldn't the term 'synthetic a priori' be one that applies to the abstractions? We can simply accept that it is the nature of real objects to be something like 'imperfect copies' of the ideal objects that we access through reason.
I'm not a Platonist therefore I don't believe there are 'perfect objects' which physical things are 'copies of'. But we don't have to decide on this issue right now, I only want to defend the claim that this abstract knowledge of geometry, whatever it is, allows you to know empirical facts about the physical reality, and hence geometry must be synthetic and not analytic.
Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Daviddunn »

Naming something is not a proposition, what does it even mean? Shape recognition is not naming, I don't understand you.
Londoner is a real genius. Reading his/her post is pure logical symphony. I call him/her the Roger Federer of philosophy. Carry on. One must pay a lot of attention to understand.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Londoner »

Fafner
Naming something is not a proposition, what does it even mean? Shape recognition is not naming, I don't understand you.
Why is this activity called 'shape recognition' one thing, but 'colour recognition' something else? I'm afraid the failure to understand is mutual.
As I explained, I don't claim that someone can know that something is circular a priori just as no one can know that something is white a priori, but once someone knows that an object is circular, then he can know a priori empirical facts about that object,...
And how did you come to know that object was circular, if not by looking at it and/or measuring it? In that case your knowledge that it is circular is not a priori but empirical.

You know stuff about circles, a priori. You can discover stuff empirically. But you cannot glue the two together and make one 'synthetic a priori'.
I don't understand what "perfect/imperfect realization of knowledge" is supposed to be.
In this case, it is that any physical object can only be an imperfect realisation of a geometric concept.
I'm not a Platonist therefore I don't believe there are 'perfect objects' which physical things are 'copies of'.
I said 'ideal objects'- such as shapes that are ideal because they only exist in two dimensions. But if you agree that such things cannot be copied in the form of objects, then surely you must take my point that what is true of those ideal forms will not be true of the faulty copies?

Again, we are chasing the same points, so I will summarise by saying that I don't think geometry reveals synthetic a priori knowledge because (a) it is not 'a priori' - the information about the physical object must be found through our senses and (b) it is not 'knowledge' because it isn't ever true.

I can see I will not convince you, so I will take a break, saying again that I suggest you look at other philosophical attempts to discuss this topic. Why have they not seen what you take to be so obvious?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Daviddun says some kind things. But probably the reason I can rabbit on about all this is because before I went to university I carefully read the once trendy but now largely forgotten 'logical positivist' book 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A.J.Ayer. It was a lucky choice as it grounded me in a lot of the ideas and terminology that were to come up later. Does anyone else know it? There is a good entry for it in the well known online encyclopedia (that this site won't let us link to) or you can find the whole thing in pdf.
Logic_ill
Posts: 1624
Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Logic_ill »

Scott wrote:In this thread I want us to debate whether a priori knowledge is possible. Some philosophers argue that some knowledge is a priori (fully independent from experience). In contrast, radical empiricists argue that all knowledge is a posteriori (derived from experience). Immanuel Kant made the distinction between analytic a priori knowledge and synthetic a priori knowledge. (An analytic proposition is one whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept, such as "All bachelors are unmarried." And a synthetic proposition is one whose predicate concept is NOT contained in its subject, such as "All bachelors are happy.")

What do you think? Do you think a priori knowledge is possible or not? Why?

I think the answer depends greatly on how we define knowledge and experience.

If knowledge refers to the act of knowing, which requires a conscious being to perform the act, then I believe all knowledge depends on experience in some ways simply because the conscious being itself cannot exist without experience-gained data. In regards to the claim that a conscious being cannot exist without experience-gained data, I believe a functioning conscious being, namely a human or similar animal, is created through experiences that hard-wire it with certain instincts, beliefs, etc. Even before birth, a human baby's brain is experiencing developments as a result of experiences that happened to its mother and evolutionarily-gained traits through experiences that happen to its ancestors over time. But of course all those statements rely on the definition of experience and what is and is not experience.

Anyway, what do you think?
I would ask the philosophers who believe that some a priori knowledge is possible to give examples, Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think it's all a posteriori...
User avatar
Fafner88
Posts: 377
Joined: August 30th, 2013, 8:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein
Location: Israel

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Fafner88 »

Londoner wrote:Why is this activity called 'shape recognition' one thing, but 'colour recognition' something else? I'm afraid the failure to understand is mutual.
I didn't say they are different.
And how did you come to know that object was circular, if not by looking at it and/or measuring it? In that case your knowledge that it is circular is not a priori but empirical.
I said it a hundred times already, what's known a priori is not whether some object is circular, but some other empirical properties of the object given that it was correctly recognized as a circle and not a triangle or whatever (that you can't know a priori).

Contrast it with a case of empirical knowledge: suppose that you know that Felix is a cat, can you also know that he has a tail solely on the basis of this information? No, because for all you know he might've lost his tail. Now suppose that you see a very symmetrical circle (like in the picture I linked), can you know that its ratio is going to be very close to pi without calculating? The obvious answer is yes, this is something that every kid learns at school. If knowing accurately without calculation a ratio of a physical object is not synthetic a priori knowledge then I don't know what 'synthetic a priori' is supposed to mean on your view.
You know stuff about circles, a priori. You can discover stuff empirically. But you cannot glue the two together and make one 'synthetic a priori'.
Why not? Since Kripke some philosophers even think that there can be contingent a priori knowledge.
it is not 'knowledge' because it isn't ever true.
Not true what? Do you deny that all the symmetrically round objects in the world have a very close ratio to pi?
Daviddun says some kind things. But probably the reason I can rabbit on about all this is because before I went to university I carefully read the once trendy but now largely forgotten 'logical positivist' book 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A.J.Ayer. It was a lucky choice as it grounded me in a lot of the ideas and terminology that were to come up later. Does anyone else know it? There is a good entry for it in the well known online encyclopedia (that this site won't let us link to) or you can find the whole thing in pdf.
The argument of Quine that I've presented earlier was aimed specifically against the doctrine of A.J Ayer, and it was one of the arguments that persuaded philosophers that logical positivism is false. So it is recommended to read some criticisms of Ayer's views because almost no philosopher accepts them today. One good book will be "Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century" by Scott Soames (the chapters about Ayer and Quine).
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Wayne92587 »

Fafner88, I was simply responding to Woody's Dragon example.
User avatar
Fafner88
Posts: 377
Joined: August 30th, 2013, 8:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein
Location: Israel

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Fafner88 »

Wayne92587 wrote:Fafner88, I was simply responding to Woody's Dragon example.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought the post was addressed to me.
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Bohm2 »

Logic_ill wrote:I would ask the philosophers who believe that some a priori knowledge is possible to give examples, Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think it's all a posteriori...
I'm not a philosopher as my background is in sciences but how about our knowlege in language? Consider the 'Poverty of stimulus' argument with respect the way children attain lingustic knowledge:
A central goal of modern generative grammar has been to discover invariant properties of human languages that reflect ‘‘the innate schematism of mind that is applied to the data of experience’’ and that ‘‘might reasonably be attributed to the organism itself as its contribution to the task of the acquisition of knowledge’’ (Chomsky, 1971). Candidates for such invariances include the structure dependenceof grammatical rules, and in particular, certain constraints on question formation. Various ‘‘poverty of stimulus’’ (POS) arguments suggest that these invariances reflect an innate human endowment, as opposed to common experience: Various ‘‘poverty of stimulus’’ (POS) arguments suggest that these invariances reflect an innate human endowment, as opposed to common experience...In our view, the way forward begins with the recognition that environmental stimuli radically underdetermine developmental outcomes, and that grammar acquisition is a case in point. Then one can try to describe the gap between experience and linguistic knowledge attained, reduce that gap to basic principles that reflect the least language-specific innate endowment that does justice to the attained knowledge, and thereby help characterize the true role of experience in a manner that illuminates cognition.
Poverty of the Stimulus Revisited
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.t ... isited.pdf
Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Daviddunn »

Again, forget about how you call it, can one know in advance that the ratio between the diameter and circumference ofthis thing http://bestclipartblog.com/clipart-pics ... -art-6.jpg will be about 3.14 ant not 1 or 374, yes or no? If you don't believe me, just measure it yourself, and see if my prediction is correct.
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter being pi, holds under the presupposition of euclidean space. In curved space it does not hold. The value of pi changes in curved space. Experience seems to be necessary to verify the proposition c/d=3.14
User avatar
Fafner88
Posts: 377
Joined: August 30th, 2013, 8:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein
Location: Israel

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Fafner88 »

Daviddunn wrote:
Again, forget about how you call it, can one know in advance that the ratio between the diameter and circumference ofthis thing http://bestclipartblog.com/clipart-pics ... -art-6.jpg will be about 3.14 ant not 1 or 374, yes or no? If you don't believe me, just measure it yourself, and see if my prediction is correct.
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter being pi, holds under the presupposition of euclidean space. In curved space it does not hold. The value of pi changes in curved space. Experience seems to be necessary to verify the proposition c/d=3.14
Can you detect the curvature of space on your monitor with a ruler? It's irrelevant to my argument because I was talking about approximations anyway.

And then one can construct the same argument about a priori knowledge of the non-euclidean properties of space.
Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Daviddunn »

Can you detect the curvature of space on your monitor with a ruler? 
wikipedia wrote:The ratio C/d is constant, regardless of the circle's size. For example, if a circle has twice the diameter of another circle it will also have twice the circumference, preserving the ratio C/d. This definition of π implicitly makes use of flat (Euclidean) geometry; although the notion of a circle can be extended to any curved (non-Euclidean) geometry, these new circles will no longer satisfy the formula π =C/d.[3] There are also other definitions of π that do not immediately involve circles at all. For example, π is twice the smallest positive x for which cos(x) equals 0.[3][4]
Basic science skills: if c/d not equal to pi, something is happening! Curvature of space?? Hmm, could be.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021