Is there A Priori Knowledge? - Epistemology Video 17 

These videos are philosophical gold. I have learnt much, and appreciate the effort you put into your presentations. Keep up the outstanding work.

Best notification ever.

Currently watching your series on the First Critique to accompany my reading and it helps me so much! This video was a nice excursion to some positions opposing Kant, very well made!

Some people who has synesthesia say that they can see something entirely one color, and at the same time entirely another color. It would be interesting to know how we can address this issue.

I once heard a pretty funny joke that's somewhat on-topic: "There are two types of maths problems; unsolved and trivial." In a way, 'complicated' mathematical truths can feel trivial if you hang around in that level of complexity regularly enough, therefore the "emptiness" of a priori statements is a subjective problem and not a criticism of the knowledge itself (if you suppose it exists). I think "1+1=2" is a posteriori knowledge because the idea that two things can be brought together to make a larger thing is an idea that can only come to us through experience. We could, a prior, deduce that such a concept as "1+1" is meaningless to begin with, because if there's only one universe then it would not be possible to have 1 and 1 existing in a state of separation unless we divide that universe into smaller subspaces (wherein each 1 could exist separately), but the smaller subspace idea is not inherently given. It could be the case that the universe is one big clump with no divisibility, and thus there would be no way to hold 1 and 1 separately such that it wasn't always a big old 2.

Thank you for that excellent video and arguments. The rationalist argument claims that a priori principles are necessary for empirical investigation and cannot be derived empirically. However, to me it seems this view may conflate a priori knowledge with learned preferences shaped by empirical experiences. The preference for hypotheses that fit the evidence seems to stem from natural behaviours, such as pattern recognition and survival strategies, which are learned over time. For instance, creatures learn to find water by recognizing environmental cues like the smell of water or sight of vegetation. These behaviours are refined through experience, not necessarily a priori knowledge. Could the rationalist stance exhibit circular reasoning by insisting on the impossibility of empirical investigation without a priori principles? When in fact these principles themselves could be empirical generalizations codified from practical experience. Therefore, I believe the preference for evidence-supported hypotheses likely arises from accumulated empirical knowledge rather than innate a priori principles, which supports the view that all knowledge, including guiding principles, is ultimately inseparable from experience.

the story that you prefer sure seems to line up with the "pragmatic a priori" of Quine's teacher C. I. Lewis

There is a priori knowledge, but it's been baked into our brains by evolution which is a kind of meta-experience. So all our "a priori" knowledge is the result of billions of years of evolutionary experimentation. So none of it is really prior to experience in a broader sense. 20:25 This kind of evolutionary investigation doesn't require any a priori ideas about how to pick the best hypothesis, that happens automatically.

Great video Victor! Enjoyed it very much! Have you encountered William James' Radical empiricism? Radical empiricism seems like an interesting argument that puts the idea of the A Priori in question. It seems rather close to Quine's view due to its holistic understanding of things, while also having elements of the other views that you presented that question the A Priori.

I would say that a priori knowledge exists in the sense that certain aspects of the world clearly lead us to specific ideas. We live in a world where circles exist, are mathematically describable and easily identifiable to us. There is no other conclusion for us to reach than circles existing. In our reality, circles are logically undeniable. Try and you'll be called mad by anyone who studied this world to a certain degree. And by circle I do not mean a word, but a reference object that is obvious to any human that has experienced circles. This is not a platonic ideal, because for many things there isn't anything like that. There is no platonic ideal of "hammer"; because the form and exact functionality of a hammer is vague. There is nothing vague about circles. If our world were different, making circles vague or even impossible, things would be different. But as it stands, any proper understanding of this world will contain a version of circle, because it is relevant to this world.

I like this! is there going to be part 2?

I like to beleave, there is a priori knowledse as an artist. But what about a 0 (m.m. green) which can also be a 1 (m.m. red) at the same time in quantumphysics?

Finally we get to the meat and potatoes. I’m in the minority on a priori knowledge.

On the roundness of circles question, mathematicians have a standard way to define the term "circle" which is mathematically precise: it's the set of points that are all equidistant from the center. This means that the concept of "roundness" is nowhere to be found in the definition of a circle, and indeed, if you change your concept of distance, there are non-round circles. This all makes it very unlikely that a statement like "all circles are round" could ever be about the world. It's clearly about the relationship between the definitions of "circle", "distance" and "roundness". And in this case, it's false.

i just find it problematic that knowledge gained previously through sense data experience i.e. learning the axioms of geometry, and then later manipulating mental images to reach a conclusion, should be called a priori. in the process of imagining, there is also a witnessing awarenesss to which that imagining is an experience. it's not without experience it's just an experience that doesn't have physical stuff involved. i could just as easily demonstrate with lines in the sand. it's no different than using the canvas of my mind.

Another great video. So good. Though instinctively(!) I think you are a little quick to have sympathy with the view that you need a priori knowledge to even be a practising empiricist. Is there not an argument that we are not an "ideal" philosophers living in the ether somewhere but very much embodied ones in a physical world, and that particualr embodiment is the result of a few billion years of very empirical evolution. That is, all of your neural structure and reasoning capability is the result of empirical trial and error. So what you think of, at first blush, as a priori 'common sense (like "you should go with theories that fit the evidence) coould well be exactly embedded empirical knowledge and not a priori at all.

Maybe it’s all just words..