at 8:30, i think it can be argued that proposition 6 is analytic, for the temperature 100 degrees centigrade is by definition the boiling point of water. similarly, the temperature 0 degrees centigrade is defined as the freezing temperature of water. centigrade means 100 degrees, the 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling temperatures of water
In a sense yes,but I suppose it could be falsified by adding salt. It would still be water, but it would not longer have the same boiling point, but that potentially creates a hidden imprecision of what defines water.
It has to be synthetic since the only way to conclude the boiling point of water is by observing it and observation is sense data. But I think this follows the general idea of 2+2=4 and can be reconciled by placing it in the “synthetic a priori” category
There should maybe be a distinction drawn between claims that are tautologous and claims that are a priori. Tautologies are trivial and follow from any given definition, a priori claims extend our knowledge in some fashion, they are arrived at through some level of analysis
Here's an example I am struggling with discerning if it is "a priori" or what specific kind of reasoning I used. I heard I had a brother, and that was all the information I received about him. I was confident in thinking (believing) he is a good person, because I am a good person. This turned out to be true. Is this "a priori" , or what kind of reasoning did I use to arrive at this conclusion?
where does logically necessary vs logically contingent and physically necessary vs physically contingent fit in the 3 column chat of metaphysics, epistemology and language? Are they considered subcategories of any of the 3 distinctions mentioned in this video?
I've read so much on the difference between the dichotomies of A priori/A posteriori and Analytic/Synthetic but I still don't understand it. I hope this video helps.
Analytic is dual to synthetic, it is duality not dichotomy! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Alive is dual to not alive -- Hegel's or Schrodinger's cat. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Objective is dual to subjective. Action is dual to reaction -- Newton. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics.
@@hyperduality2838 yes you’re right but what’s your point they are all dual to each other what has it to do with a priori and posterior. A priori and posterior fall under knowledge what we know to be true real so it’s objective how is there even a debate about this
@@infiniity5529 Synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant. A priori (before measurement) is dual to a posteriori (after measurement) -- Immanuel Kant. All knowledge is therefore dual according to Kant. In physics space/time is "synthetic a priori" knowledge according to Kant. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Deductive inference is dual to inductive inference -- Immanuel Kant. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas. There is a pattern of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics and philosophy! Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@infiniity5529 The Critique of Pure Reason -- Immanuel Kant. Read the book, Immanuel Kant actually tells you how to create new concepts. You need to understand Kant in order to understand Hegel.
Rationalism (analytic) is dual to empiricism (synthetic) Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Thesis, anti-thesis --> synthesis or synthetic a priori knowledge. Hegel's cat:- alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat. Objective is dual to subjective Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought. Action is dual to reaction -- Newton
great video, but referring to the chart at the end, synthetic does not mean "true by experience," I think a better descriptor is "true by relation to other information [whether experience, related analytical knowledge, or self-evident innate knowledge]"
There's a problem at 14:00 , you responded well that determinists would say that all the things you say here are contingent are in fact necessary, but the George Bush WAS president is contingent might be wrong from a presentist non-determinst from the perspective of the present... why? Because our present reality isn't a vantage point from which the past has any possibility of actually being different. We can say hypothetically, but then a Boethean who believes in free will can counter that HYPOTHETICAL I can go left or right at the stop light tomorrow morning, but it must be true, even now, that I WILL only go one way or the other and the other way I don't take has 0% chance of actually transporting, because in a B theory timespace there's the atemporal perspective by which I already did. I guess this gets messy because there's a category of necessity called contingent necessity, which covers former contingencies that are now foundational solid unchangeable realities which present to us a starting impetus for current contingencies, or materially necessary effects... in that sense a properly arrayed structure of dominoes only exists that way by past contingency, but once it does and the first domino is tipped, then the rest of the array falls "by necessity" despite the fact that everything else about the situation was previously contingent. Indeed this is a vital, not merely valid way of thinking of these things, as it pertains to cosmology and philosophy religion, because deteeminists believe the world unfolds by way of necessity, yet if they're divine determinists, they don't believe that the universe itself existing is itself necessary since God could have chosen not to create. But like the dominoes, if the universe is created by God's contingent will, in such a way that produces a fixed result, then the contingent universe becomes a system of necessity. God himself would be necessary for the contingent universe to exist, but God would act by contingency to create a system that follows by necessity. This interesting feature of necessity and contingency, trading places based on vantage point, is woefully underappreciated.
Is ‘water is h20’ necessary because it’s a consequence of definitions? So perhaps that makes it analytic a posteriori. Analytic because it’s contained in the definition of water. You could change the word ‘water’ but not the necessity of its being h20. We don’t need to investigate all water molecules that exist. (h2o2 is hydrogen peroxide and no longer water). A posteriori because it’s not discoverable via thinking alone but needs observation.
I may have to take this back. According to Kant, analytic judgements are not just consequences of definition, but “what has been already actually thought in the concept of the subject” (Prolegomena, 2). Since water being h2o must be discovered, it is not already thought into the concept of water. An example of an analytic judgment about water might therefore be, ‘Water is wet.’
Elsewhere he writes that analytic statements are explicative (water is wet) and synthetic statements are ampliative (water is h2o); that is, it amplifies the concept.
Thank you for the explanation! I just had a question about something being “necessary”: we believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because it cannot be contracted. However, what if I used a different number system? For example, what if I said 0010 + 0010 = 0100 in binary? Are both statements necessary, even though they contradict each other? Or is there no contradiction because I have acknowledged that binary is different since it has a different base number system (i.e., base 10 vs base 2)?
great vid! i wish you would make a video about self evidence, questions that come to mind are: are things that are true by definition are self evident? (i think so) are self evident things epistemically justified? if not then what is the nature of the justification by which they are justified? or they arent justified at all? can we justify a self evident claim by deductive argument? (i think with some claims we can & with some we cant) are they a priori/analytic? is it correct to say that the belief in the external world existing outside the mind was self evident until we came up with the brain in a vat scenario?
I saw a quote the other day says ‘if facts or truths are expressed poorly, it's a lie.’ Should this be considered an unsound deductive argument, because it has false inference, as 'lie' might not be the precise term to describe untruth?? Or is this not even an argument, because there is no premises?? plz correct me
fen chillipepper My name is Joseph Robert Johnson I know for a fact....This is where I begin to listen to the words I put into the air....Every word is a fact. And the truth is everybody’s putting the words and the air for a reason...that’s a fact... And everybody got facts.... Of how they got to this point... Now being able to pull the facts from every word To have a better understanding of what you’re listening to. When someone doesn’t know the truth how can they tell it.
2+2=4 is priori because it is mere of ideas 2+2= 4 is analytic because the predicate(4) contains the subject(2+2) 2+2=4 can be proven empirically therefore it is synthetic . Hence, Not all priori analytic are knowledge. Some priori analytic can be proven to be synthetic. Knowledge can be priori analytic and it can be priori analytic synthetic. Kant miss the last proposition I made. I guess
Caaqil Dalmar You screwed up the second one, it is a priori if the predicated is contained within the subject, not if the predicate contains the subject. If the subject contains the predicated then no synthesis is needed to verify the claim made. Reason alone has the possibility to determine its truth, even if it can be also determined empirically
What always confuses me is that you might say a priori doesn’t require experience but the thing is you still need experience to form the concept of the thing. Without the concept of a triangle how can you know it has 3 sides? You couldn’t conceive of a triangle unless you had the ability to think of one that, and that ability you probably get did from experience
By implication one has to have experience of something in order to know and talk about it. A kid wouldn't say "All crows are birds" if he has never experienced birds
A priori seems to me to be nonsensical. If anything a priori is more like saying "the idea is true without evidence or experience because the evidence or experience is true because of the idea." The examples given for 'a priori' are based on acquired knowledge and therefore 'a posteriori.' For example, if you don't know what triangle means or what it is, you cannot 'know if it has three sides or what color it is. If you haven't been informed what bachelor means then you cannot know a bachelor is single. If you have not observed Bob, Jane or Sue you cannot conclude the statement is true till you have observed all three of them. So these are bad examples. In reverse, the statement of bachelors are unhappy is an assumption making it an a priori claim and a false sweeping statement. Bob is six feet tall is also an assumption till it is able to be observed and he is measured and until observed saying 'the triangle is blue' does not make it true as it can just as easily be red or some other color so again its an assumption without proof one way or the other.
"The standard meter bar in paris is one meter long" It's logically true only in language, so it is analytic. But it's not A priori or Necessary, as it might not actually be one meter long right now. The claim can not be known to be true only by thinking, if it can also be thought as false. Method of proof for the bar to be one meter long is not strong enough. There might be confusion as this refers to "The" standard meter bar. Not to a bar that's necessarily one meter long right now, but to a bar that once was one meter long, but can not be logically proved to be still one meter long, in the real world, and therefore has to be measured again. Our reality won't collapse / turn into a big paradox if "The standard meter bar" is not actually one meter = contingent + when you can think this = A posteriori Something can be contingent and a priori, but it can not be thought to be contingent and a priori. It's contingency is argument against it's necessity and if it can be thought to be not necessarily true, how can it be thought to be true?
Confused!!! Thought a priori was instinctive(a knowing) and so a posteriori would be learned or experiential??? A 2yr old has to be taught the concept of 1 + 1.
'All water boils at 100°C' is analytic, because the idea of 100°C is defined to be the point at which water boils, so it is like saying 'bachelors are unmarried'. I'm confused?!!??!
Do we know it by definition or experiment? Under normal conditions (standard pressure), we have found that water boils at 100. At higher altitudes (Denver, CO), it boils at a lower temp. Not then true by def. Does that make sense?
Once you have the acquaintance of the temperature boils, it will always be true that boiling point is 100⁰C. It does sound posteriori since it needs a test to establish. But after grasping it becomes a priori forever.
@@teachphilosophy ahh I see. I never considered the pressure/altitude element. Since the Celcius scale was developed in such a way that sea level water, at standard pressure, would boil at 100°c (in the same way that 1ml = 1g of water), if you modified the sentence to: "All sea level water at standard pressure boils at 100°c" then this would definitely be analytic right, as the measurement of Celcius itself was defined to make that a certainty?
A priori is first philosophy that's deconstructed and challenged it affects the present as it is knowable now knowledge is the processed reality the isolated person processes after the mind collapses to rebuild all those relationships reality presents to perspective then they have bots who challenge the a posterior processed they become hostile and affective reality will present itself as it is synthesized by the a priori whether you want it to be knowledge is up to you kant is basic a priori principles you should know but most reality is a synthetic a priori oh and he just laughed at me my greatest husband is that good?
Kant is wrong - Thought experiment: Imagine a child is born and it’s brain has no sensory input from the outside world. It’s conscious but with No understanding of the outside world. So it would never know about the concept of bachelors. So neither the means to be known or shown would provide the knowledge, of the meaning of bachelors, would be possible!
If I have never seen a crow before and I look up the word crow in the dictionary and it defines it as a black feathered bird, then all crows are black is a priori just like saying all bachelors are single is a priori. It’s part of the definition of a crow. So, why do you claim all crows are black is a posteriori when there is no such thing as an non-black crow? By definition, crows are black just like bachelors are single. I would not know all bachelors are single unless I looked the word “bachelor” up in the dictionary. One could then say it was my experience of looking the word bachelor up in the dictionary and discovering it’s meaning that now makes the phrase “all bachelors are single” a posteriori, right?
when philosophy scholars and academics have no true knowledge to share or no light to shed, they get caught up in useless teaching such as in this video. Sorry it's the sad A Posteriori repeating truth
great video, but referring to the chart at the end, synthetic does not mean "true by experience," I think a better descriptor is "true by relation to other information [whether experience, related analytical knowledge/definitions, or self-evident innate knowledge]"
I’ve been trying to understand this for 2 hours finally an informative video that explains properly. Thank you sooooo much!
You have a gift. Absolutely brilliant explanation. Congratulations 👏
Very calming voice. I am trying to grasp this right now in class. Appreciate your video. Thank you.
Its the Sam Harris dialect 🌝
Hope more lectures like this
It was easily grasping presentation
Excellent video. Much appreciated.
at 8:30, i think it can be argued that proposition 6 is analytic, for the temperature 100 degrees centigrade is by definition the boiling point of water. similarly, the temperature 0 degrees centigrade is defined as the freezing temperature of water. centigrade means 100 degrees, the 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling temperatures of water
In a sense yes,but I suppose it could be falsified by adding salt. It would still be water, but it would not longer have the same boiling point, but that potentially creates a hidden imprecision of what defines water.
It has to be synthetic since the only way to conclude the boiling point of water is by observing it and observation is sense data. But I think this follows the general idea of 2+2=4 and can be reconciled by placing it in the “synthetic a priori” category
Very much enjoyed this easy to follow video.
Clearest explanation I came across, thanks.
Thank you so much for helping. I was not able to understand anything but by watching your video I did . ❤️
Excellent video - clear explanation
Crystal clear explanation. Well done 😄.
There should maybe be a distinction drawn between claims that are tautologous and claims that are a priori. Tautologies are trivial and follow from any given definition, a priori claims extend our knowledge in some fashion, they are arrived at through some level of analysis
Living in the UK, where summer just means that the rain is warm, a statement that, ' it is is either raining or not raining', is full of problems. :)
I appreciate the practice activities so much
pretty simple interpretation for a fancy thing.. great job.
Thank you.
Here's an example I am struggling with discerning if it is "a priori" or what specific kind of reasoning I used. I heard I had a brother, and that was all the information I received about him. I was confident in thinking (believing) he is a good person, because I am a good person. This turned out to be true. Is this "a priori" , or what kind of reasoning did I use to arrive at this conclusion?
where does logically necessary vs logically contingent and physically necessary vs physically contingent fit in the 3 column chat of metaphysics, epistemology and language? Are they considered subcategories of any of the 3 distinctions mentioned in this video?
I've read so much on the difference between the dichotomies of A priori/A posteriori and Analytic/Synthetic but I still don't understand it. I hope this video helps.
It never gets easier. Lol.
Analytic is dual to synthetic, it is duality not dichotomy!
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis, the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Alive is dual to not alive -- Hegel's or Schrodinger's cat.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Objective is dual to subjective.
Action is dual to reaction -- Newton.
Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics.
@@hyperduality2838 yes you’re right but what’s your point they are all dual to each other what has it to do with a priori and posterior. A priori and posterior fall under knowledge what we know to be true real so it’s objective how is there even a debate about this
@@infiniity5529 Synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant.
A priori (before measurement) is dual to a posteriori (after measurement) -- Immanuel Kant.
All knowledge is therefore dual according to Kant.
In physics space/time is "synthetic a priori" knowledge according to Kant.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Deductive inference is dual to inductive inference -- Immanuel Kant.
Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas.
There is a pattern of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics and philosophy!
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@infiniity5529 The Critique of Pure Reason -- Immanuel Kant.
Read the book, Immanuel Kant actually tells you how to create new concepts. You need to understand Kant in order to understand Hegel.
Hi can you explain absolute Idealism, dielectric method vs discartes,carnelian method
Can a necessary truth be a synthetic truth too? And what would be an example of a Necessary synthetic truth?
Rationalism (analytic) is dual to empiricism (synthetic)
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Thesis, anti-thesis --> synthesis or synthetic a priori knowledge.
Hegel's cat:- alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat.
Objective is dual to subjective
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought.
Action is dual to reaction -- Newton
great video, but referring to the chart at the end, synthetic does not mean "true by experience," I think a better descriptor is "true by relation to other information [whether experience, related analytical knowledge, or self-evident innate knowledge]"
thank you very much. chill voice, clear explenation. :)))
There's a problem at 14:00 , you responded well that determinists would say that all the things you say here are contingent are in fact necessary, but the George Bush WAS president is contingent might be wrong from a presentist non-determinst from the perspective of the present... why? Because our present reality isn't a vantage point from which the past has any possibility of actually being different. We can say hypothetically, but then a Boethean who believes in free will can counter that HYPOTHETICAL I can go left or right at the stop light tomorrow morning, but it must be true, even now, that I WILL only go one way or the other and the other way I don't take has 0% chance of actually transporting, because in a B theory timespace there's the atemporal perspective by which I already did.
I guess this gets messy because there's a category of necessity called contingent necessity, which covers former contingencies that are now foundational solid unchangeable realities which present to us a starting impetus for current contingencies, or materially necessary effects... in that sense a properly arrayed structure of dominoes only exists that way by past contingency, but once it does and the first domino is tipped, then the rest of the array falls "by necessity" despite the fact that everything else about the situation was previously contingent.
Indeed this is a vital, not merely valid way of thinking of these things, as it pertains to cosmology and philosophy religion, because deteeminists believe the world unfolds by way of necessity, yet if they're divine determinists, they don't believe that the universe itself existing is itself necessary since God could have chosen not to create. But like the dominoes, if the universe is created by God's contingent will, in such a way that produces a fixed result, then the contingent universe becomes a system of necessity. God himself would be necessary for the contingent universe to exist, but God would act by contingency to create a system that follows by necessity.
This interesting feature of necessity and contingency, trading places based on vantage point, is woefully underappreciated.
Is ‘water is h20’ necessary because it’s a consequence of definitions? So perhaps that makes it analytic a posteriori.
Analytic because it’s contained in the definition of water. You could change the word ‘water’ but not the necessity of its being h20. We don’t need to investigate all water molecules that exist. (h2o2 is hydrogen peroxide and no longer water). A posteriori because it’s not discoverable via thinking alone but needs observation.
I may have to take this back. According to Kant, analytic judgements are not just consequences of definition, but “what has been already actually thought in the concept of the subject” (Prolegomena, 2). Since water being h2o must be discovered, it is not already thought into the concept of water.
An example of an analytic judgment about water might therefore be, ‘Water is wet.’
Elsewhere he writes that analytic statements are explicative (water is wet) and synthetic statements are ampliative (water is h2o); that is, it amplifies the concept.
EXCELLENT 👏
Great Video!!!
Thanks.
Thank you for the explanation! I just had a question about something being “necessary”: we believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because it cannot be contracted. However, what if I used a different number system? For example, what if I said 0010 + 0010 = 0100 in binary? Are both statements necessary, even though they contradict each other? Or is there no contradiction because I have acknowledged that binary is different since it has a different base number system (i.e., base 10 vs base 2)?
It is the same thing, because instead of using base 10 you are using base 2 so both have the same attributes and characteristics
Where does the statement "Some bachelors have never been married" sit?
great vid! i wish you would make a video about self evidence, questions that come to mind are:
are things that are true by definition are self evident? (i think so)
are self evident things epistemically justified? if not then what is the nature of the justification by which they are justified? or they arent justified at all?
can we justify a self evident claim by deductive argument? (i think with some claims we can & with some we cant)
are they a priori/analytic?
is it correct to say that the belief in the external world existing outside the mind was self evident until we came up with the brain in a vat scenario?
i have one check it th-cam.com/video/7AiLAGEh3dc/w-d-xo.html
I saw a quote the other day says ‘if facts or truths are expressed poorly, it's a lie.’ Should this be considered an unsound deductive argument, because it has false inference, as 'lie' might not be the precise term to describe untruth?? Or is this not even an argument, because there is no premises?? plz correct me
fen chillipepper My name is Joseph Robert Johnson I know for a fact....This is where I begin to listen to the words I put into the air....Every word is a fact. And the truth is everybody’s putting the words and the air for a reason...that’s a fact... And everybody got facts.... Of how they got to this point... Now being able to pull the facts from every word To have a better understanding of what you’re listening to. When someone doesn’t know the truth how can they tell it.
Expressed poorly Or not able to listen properly
I don't see why adding 2 quarts to 2 quarts is 4 quarts is a posteriori?
2+2=4 is priori because it is mere of ideas
2+2= 4 is analytic because the predicate(4) contains the subject(2+2)
2+2=4 can be proven empirically therefore it is synthetic .
Hence, Not all priori analytic are knowledge. Some priori analytic can be proven to be synthetic.
Knowledge can be priori analytic and it can be priori analytic synthetic.
Kant miss the last proposition I made.
I guess
Caaqil Dalmar
You screwed up the second one, it is a priori if the predicated is contained within the subject, not if the predicate contains the subject. If the subject contains the predicated then no synthesis is needed to verify the claim made. Reason alone has the possibility to determine its truth, even if it can be also determined empirically
Great video, I instantly subscribed. Just a quick note: There's a typo in the title of the video.
What always confuses me is that you might say a priori doesn’t require experience but the thing is you still need experience to form the concept of the thing. Without the concept of a triangle how can you know it has 3 sides? You couldn’t conceive of a triangle unless you had the ability to think of one that, and that ability you probably get did from experience
This is what first dogma of empiricism as explained by Quine.
By implication one has to have experience of something in order to know and talk about it. A kid wouldn't say "All crows are birds" if he has never experienced birds
A priori seems to me to be nonsensical. If anything a priori is more like saying "the idea is true without evidence or experience because the evidence or experience is true because of the idea." The examples given for 'a priori' are based on acquired knowledge and therefore 'a posteriori.' For example, if you don't know what triangle means or what it is, you cannot 'know if it has three sides or what color it is. If you haven't been informed what bachelor means then you cannot know a bachelor is single. If you have not observed Bob, Jane or Sue you cannot conclude the statement is true till you have observed all three of them. So these are bad examples. In reverse, the statement of bachelors are unhappy is an assumption making it an a priori claim and a false sweeping statement. Bob is six feet tall is also an assumption till it is able to be observed and he is measured and until observed saying 'the triangle is blue' does not make it true as it can just as easily be red or some other color so again its an assumption without proof one way or the other.
"The standard meter bar in paris is one meter long"
It's logically true only in language, so it is analytic.
But it's not A priori or Necessary, as it might not actually be one meter long right now.
The claim can not be known to be true only by thinking, if it can also be thought as false. Method of proof for the bar to be one meter long is not strong enough.
There might be confusion as this refers to "The" standard meter bar. Not to a bar that's necessarily one meter long right now, but to a bar that once was one meter long, but can not be logically proved to be still one meter long, in the real world, and therefore has to be measured again.
Our reality won't collapse / turn into a big paradox if "The standard meter bar" is not actually one meter = contingent + when you can think this = A posteriori
Something can be contingent and a priori, but it can not be thought to be contingent and a priori. It's contingency is argument against it's necessity and if it can be thought to be not necessarily true, how can it be thought to be true?
one question: "all crows are birds" is a priori knowledge even if i do not know what a crow is? cant be, can it?
Irrespective of if _you_ know what a crow is, by definition crow is a bird, so the subject is in the predicate
@@Betterdangaming ok thank u
@@ryrez4478 why did you delete that while thing?
@@Betterdangaming i thought about it then read about it and what u said made more sense so i deleted it
thanks a lot. what books do you recommend as an introduction to Kant?
Being and time
In our introductory Knowledge and Reality class we’re reading Kant’s Prolegomena.
Confused!!!
Thought a priori was instinctive(a knowing) and so a posteriori would be learned or experiential??? A 2yr old has to be taught the concept of 1 + 1.
Rewatch 3:27 to 4:17
'All water boils at 100°C' is analytic, because the idea of 100°C is defined to be the point at which water boils, so it is like saying 'bachelors are unmarried'. I'm confused?!!??!
Do we know it by definition or experiment? Under normal conditions (standard pressure), we have found that water boils at 100. At higher altitudes (Denver, CO), it boils at a lower temp. Not then true by def. Does that make sense?
Water boiling contingent on altitude. Bachelor is always unmarried.
Once you have the acquaintance of the temperature boils, it will always be true that boiling point is 100⁰C. It does sound posteriori since it needs a test to establish. But after grasping it becomes a priori forever.
Synthetic a priori it is
@@teachphilosophy ahh I see. I never considered the pressure/altitude element. Since the Celcius scale was developed in such a way that sea level water, at standard pressure, would boil at 100°c (in the same way that 1ml = 1g of water), if you modified the sentence to:
"All sea level water at standard pressure boils at 100°c"
then this would definitely be analytic right, as the measurement of Celcius itself was defined to make that a certainty?
PS: beautyfull subtle refrence to obesetie
gracias!
de nada
Undergrad bs. No here here - A Priori.
Or these are all the same thing. According to Quine.
Yes, see minute 12:00 on. :)
A priori is first philosophy that's deconstructed and challenged it affects the present as it is knowable now knowledge is the processed reality the isolated person processes after the mind collapses to rebuild all those relationships reality presents to perspective then they have bots who challenge the a posterior processed they become hostile and affective reality will present itself as it is synthesized by the a priori whether you want it to be knowledge is up to you kant is basic a priori principles you should know but most reality is a synthetic a priori oh and he just laughed at me my greatest husband is that good?
Kant is wrong - Thought experiment: Imagine a child is born and it’s brain has no sensory input from the outside world. It’s conscious but with No understanding of the outside world. So it would never know about the concept of bachelors. So neither the means to be known or shown would provide the knowledge, of the meaning of bachelors, would be possible!
If I have never seen a crow before and I look up the word crow in the dictionary and it defines it as a black feathered bird, then all crows are black is a priori just like saying all bachelors are single is a priori. It’s part of the definition of a crow. So, why do you claim all crows are black is a posteriori when there is no such thing as an non-black crow? By definition, crows are black just like bachelors are single. I would not know all bachelors are single unless I looked the word “bachelor” up in the dictionary. One could then say it was my experience of looking the word bachelor up in the dictionary and discovering it’s meaning that now makes the phrase “all bachelors are single” a posteriori, right?
So to speak
“Obese”
when philosophy scholars and academics have no true knowledge to share or no light to shed, they get caught up in useless teaching such as in this video. Sorry it's the sad A Posteriori repeating truth
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge you brain fart
great video, but referring to the chart at the end, synthetic does not mean "true by experience," I think a better descriptor is "true by relation to other information [whether experience, related analytical knowledge/definitions, or self-evident innate knowledge]"