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.
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 3:39 am

For my interpretation beeing and time describes sometimes subtle discrimination and mobbing from the point of view of a double meant , "ontological" view of the corresponding talks between colleagues. The hermeneutical context , in relation to the metaphysical situation plays there the role of the Apriority. You knew it in advance, your colleagues didn't like you, they adumbrated it.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 4:03 am

The person that heidegger, depicted in his works , beeing and time, committed suicide due to the mobbing and the discrimination in his job. But the mobbing and discrimination were simply just then present if one would have interpretated the previous talks in a double fashion. Which would have been an impossible impertinence. The apriory knowledge that after such a talk , the discriminative hammer of task of the firm did wait for the corresponding employee, is nothing special , everybody with half wits could have done this.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 4:10 am

Or i simply misinterpretated your interest, but this would be more a theme of a social media blog. Obvoiusly we're here for philosophy.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 5:55 am

Thus there are philosophica contributions, that discuss heidegger more in a context of a suicide (whether generated via mobbing or discriminiation or not). Look at this webpage in german:

http://funkkolleg-philosophie.de/zusatz ... -folge-09/

I cite in german according to this webpage:

Die Frage nach Sein und Zeit (Bayerischer Rundfunk)
Im Radiobeitrag des Bayerischen Rundfunks wird Martin Heideggers bekanntes und komplexes Werk Sein und Zeit auf verständliche Weise vorgestellt. In diesem Werk widmet Heidegger sich im zweiten Kapitel den Grenzen des Daseins und damit einhergehend dem „Sein zum Tode“.


I am claiming , that this suicide was the consequence of mobbing and discrimination in an intruiguing way.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 6:13 am

As a hint the preface of a german edition:

In the preface they talk how it is, to be for oneself as a question for modern moral philosophical ethics which is represented through the persons and their actions. For the author of the preface it's not important if the metaphysical question what a person is really for but the real world phenomenological question , how it's like to be at all a person (or personality).

This and even more should give you a hint.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 6:14 am

The preface is written by the philosopher Thomas Rentsch. It's not fully depicted but it should suffice to be a guide for argumentation.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 6:37 am

If you don't believe it: The preface Heidegger, how it's like beeing oneself (as a personality or person in society) is avalable as a preface in a pdf version in the webpage:

http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/philo/uploa ... 54-60x.pdf

It's about beeing a moral personality, in the sense of discrimination or mobbing for the society.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 7:12 am

But this was not your statement, it was about a scenario like the prediction of the outcome of an experiment that you described in your baseball setting.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1589
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 2nd, 2018, 3:42 pm

Causality is presence at hand; it is a given that is not to be explained. Certainly there is disclosure upon disclosure, but Heidegger had some pretty nasty things to say about what Husserl called the naturalistic perspective. Heidegger is pretty clear about this: Of course, present at hand is given, as all things, through ready to hand, the hermeneutical taking up something as. But, and he goes after Kant and Descartes on this point, it is not within nature of ready to hand to take present at hand beyond the possibilities of human dasein. Space, for example, cannot be taken as an apriori intuition, but rather space in human dasein is the language of "over here" and "there, on the shelf," and so forth. It is all, you could say, an act of interpretation. Now I take the apriority of space, for example, as an intuition, but Heidegger would not. But he does call it presence at hand, just as all that not dasein is presence at hand. Presence at hand I have seen as inherited from Husserl's "givens" which are intuited and absolute. So, maybe not Heidegger so much as Husserl on this; though I confess I don't see how Heidegger gets around causal apriority because this kind of thing presents itself non discursively, and therefore, present at hand.
I will have to revisit Being and Time to present this clearer. But then, I do take Husserl's and kant's side here.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 2nd, 2018, 5:00 pm

This is clear, that causality is implied by the corresponding apriority, but what you still don't see it was connected with the beeing to death as previously remarked , and it's consequences implied a troublesome exestentialistic consequence after heideggers remarks. That causality itself , cannot determine the beeing in time and space in the sense of reasoning. The existence of beeing at hand , had itself the doomed causal consequence of imposing the question of a reason of life and death in heideggers works in his later chapters.

Namelesss
Posts: 263
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Namelesss » January 2nd, 2018, 7:01 pm

Scott wrote:
June 29th, 2009, 10:46 pm
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).
Aristotle finally got something right; Knowledge = experience!
No 'cause/effect', no division at all.
There is only experience/Knowledge each moment of existence!

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 3rd, 2018, 4:42 am

You simply don't seem to get it, apriori knowledge is epistemological philosophy and has nothing to do with the previously discussed moral philosophical ansatz of heidegger. The moral-philosophical ansatz previously discussed, was simply discussed, due to the fact that it was a misunderstanding of heideggers thoughts.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 3rd, 2018, 5:04 am

We previously discussed that true apriory knowledge can get mathematical embedded into a filtration ansatz of stochastic processes on the basis of foreknowledge in terms of sequences of sigma-algebras. We then got the conclusion that true intuiton could have been already modelled by IBM-watson in his jeopardy show, due to the fact that bayesian inference was used. Hereandnow , mentioned that Heidegers , being and time, used a different apriory terminology , due to his usage of apriory causality. This statement was doubted and discussed by me, due to the fact that the main content of heideggers , beeing and time, is moral philosophic and not related to epistemology .

Wayne92587
Posts: 1482
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Wayne92587 » January 3rd, 2018, 10:17 am

Hereandnow;
I only want to make clear that you are working with the assumption that there are no absolutes,
Not so !

singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 is transfigured, converted, is reborn, a Singularity of One-1, as it becomes relative by becoming the first in a series, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, becomes the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, becomes the direct cause of a series of events known to be the direct cause of the system of Chaos which made manifest Reality, the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, (as in the Butterfly Effect) being the direct cause of the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word, of even a rock.

The metaphysical transfiguration, the conversion, of a random Singularity of Zero-0, into a Singularity of One-1, becoming an Affect, “The Reality of “ First” Cause.

An Affect, a random Singularity having no relative numerical, having a numerical value of Zero-0 has the potential of becoming, without effort, of becoming the indirect cause of a series of Events, of system of Chaos, by becoming Relative, attaining a numerical value of One-1, a Singularity having a dual quality 0/1 being transcendental.

Hermes trismegistus keep of the Holy Grail, Lord of the Ring.
Ye, Amen-Ra------>0

Wayne92587
Posts: 1482
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Wayne92587 » January 3rd, 2018, 10:48 am

0/1

The motion of a Singularity having no relative numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, simply because it has no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction is not measurable as to location and momentum, is meaningless, does not exist.

However a Singularity of Zero-0 is transcendental, has the potentiality of being a duality, being converted into the Reality of First Cause.
0/1.

Post Reply