The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Right at the beginning, he separates a posteriori from a priori
Critique of Pure Reason (Prefaces and Introduction)
Experi- ence tells us, indeed, what is, but not that it must necessarily be so, and not otherwise. It therefore gives us no true universality; and reason, which is so insistent upon this kind of knowledge, is therefore more stimulated by it than satisfied. Such universal modes of knowledge, which at the same time possess the character of inner necessity, must in themselves, independently of experience, be clear and certain. They are therefore entitled knowledge a priori; whereas, on the other hand, that which is borrowed solely from experience is, as we say, known only a posteriori, or empirically.
When I read this I think, "Hold on! You can only build logical constructs a posteriori--for a start you have to be alive (contingent) to propose anything." I also think that the urge to universality is....the urge to apply a rule across all time and space--
Even without appeal- P 045 ing to such examples, it is possible to show that pure a priori principles are indispensable for the possibility of experience, and so to prove their existence a priori. For whence could experience derive its certainty, if all the rules, according to which it proceeds, were always themselves empirical, and therefore contingent?
For me, experience would derive its certainty from its...existence. I experience ergo it is possible. The alternative: I have proved that existence is not possible ergo nothing exists cannot be the case. There is no abstracted place where e.g. mathematics happens without humans. Mathematics (as the classic eg) is a human invention to describe the universe. When the last human dies, there will not be "the universe in any case acting according to the rules"--the "universe" is a human construct--I mean: there is an out there--from a human perspective. When the last human dies the "out there" will get on with its business without regard to mathematics.
2 + 2 = 4 is about relations...ach...
I suppose I'm questioning the idea that human beings can use their brains to arrive at some position above our material existence--some "universality"--as our material existence determines what we consider to be the limits of the case. The limiting factor is precisely "the limits of our possible experiences"--something like that.
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by Oui - Jul 24 17 comments
by Oui - Jul 18 29 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 16 5 comments
by ATinNM - Jul 13 28 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 15 5 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 14 1 comment
by Oui - Jul 12 26 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 9 27 comments
by Oui - Jul 2417 comments
by Oui - Jul 202 comments
by Oui - Jul 1829 comments
by Oui - Jul 184 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 165 comments
by ATinNM - Jul 158 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 155 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 141 comment
by ATinNM - Jul 1328 comments
by Oui - Jul 1315 comments
by Oui - Jul 1226 comments
by Oui - Jul 11
by Oui - Jul 103 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 927 comments
by gmoke - Jul 9
by Oui - Jul 82 comments
by Oui - Jul 84 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 740 comments
by Oui - Jul 234 comments
by Oui - Jun 309 comments