So Im not quite sure I understood what anything in this article was trying to tell me... But I do believe that a Priori is something that is generally acknowledged to be correct. Something that everyone takes for granted to be truth.
-sequence from cause to effect seems necessary to us only because it is familiar
-the connection between cause and effect is empirical and not necessary
-? Is there such framework on which experience is founded, and without which the mind cannot grasp the eternal world at all?
- space and time are a basic framework, and we know them as a priori
-some things in the world could not be different and that our minds are attuned to these things
-nature can only be understood if we see that under empirical experience lies a framework of a priori knowledge
-some knowledge must be a priori in order to make empirical science possible at all
-nature and man were not separate
-Man's reason appeared as an instrument in tune with the workings of the universe, and in man's morality appeared as an instrument inborn in man, which needed no guide but its own dignity.
-Kent did not mention God
-man is not simply a passive receiver, the knower and what he knows influence one another
-there is a reality which is independent of man (thing-in-itself)
to be continued with Hegel, but wanted to post before 11
Hegel:
-there must be a profound unity between the knower and what he knows, and that knowledge would be impossible without such a unity
-dialectic method with 2 parts: nature of reality and progress and development of the real world
-every process in life call out its contradictory process
-Life is not merely being, and death is not merely nonbeing; the essential step of progress is the synthesis of the two - becoming.
-saw progress as a succession of revolutionary steps
-no reality until we know it
-being is thought
-man is his history; and that only an understanding of history can enable a man to understand himself
-history is the spirit of all men, the great transformer, the great mover; moreover the working of a universal spirit, the spirit is reason and cannot be wrong
a priori:
-from latin, meaning "from the former"
(thank you wikipedia)
Last edited by Jessica Santos on Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:13 pm; edited 3 times in total
After snooping around the internet, I found the perfect definition that we as a class can work with.
Quote:
“relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from empirical observation or experience.”
Some Key words from that definition are theoretical deduction, empirical observation, reasoning, knowledge, and experience. Through of this past week, we have used these terms daily.
Kant believed that "some knowledge must be a priori in order to make empirical science possible." What makes Kant so different from Hegel is that he was schooled as a mathematician and physicist. Interestingly enough, more Non-Scientists were influenced by his philosophies than Actual Scientists.
I sense that Hegel's believed that man, and thought go hand in hand. Perhaps they are one in the same... He say that "the knower and what he knows, thesis and antithesis, are fused in in a single synthetic experience. He believed that you can resolve conflict by the synthesis of the thesis and antithesis. He argues that “man is history” and that "there is no reality until we know it" as well as history the being that has reason.
I'm curious to see how we can discuss whether or not history and science has a true distinction from one another. Over the course of this reading, I thought that there had been much crossover of both disciplines.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:58 pm Post subject:
A priori from a dictionary defenition means using facet of priciples that known to be true in order to decide what the probable effect or result of something will be. Connecting the defenition to the reading, I think a priori is a framwork of evrything. From Kant’s prospective, a preori is just like the soul of our mind, and it also helps us to understand the nature.
Hobs believed that “the same cause always has the same effect”( p.5. He thinks that cause and effect can be understood through logic. But, in 1739, David Hume took challeges of Hob’s theory.
Hume stated that “the sequesnce from cause to effect seems necessary to us only because it is familiar”(p.59). He believed that the sequesnce of cause and effects came from our own experience, or quality of senses. I found that both Aristotle and Hume have the same way of seeing nature through senses. Both of them believed only through senses can people understand. However, Kand later on did not agree with him because he thought that experiences were not necessary for connection in nature.
Kant believed that everything had a fram work, or a priori. Although experience was important, conforming the a priori was necessary. Only knowing the causality can let men grasp the nature because causality provided the fram work of universe. Without knowing the a priori, our conduct will be meaningless. He believed tha a priori was morality. However, some people took his theory in a religious perspective. Many countries did not allow his book to be published.
Hegel was influenced by Kant, but he was more of a materialist. He believed that man was independent. He had a really famous method on finding the opposition and synthesyzing.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:01 pm Post subject: KANT TOUCH THIS, pt. 1
I think this reading was very dense, not because it was difficult to understand, or too complicated with its words, but because it was just chock-full of information and insight. It ended up taking me a while to get through, but it was worth it to me because I love some of Kant and Hegel's ideas.
If you remember when we talked as a class about what a system of philosophy really was, probably on the second day of class, we struggled a bit with the definition. Although Rachel and Marilyn obviously had a master plan, which revealed the term 'a Priori' today, it may have helped us earlier to get a better grasp of what philosophy is, or isn't. Since I'd rather not repeat a definition, I'll just offer my two cents. In a search for truth and unity, philosophers continually overturn conventional thinking, because they desire the most basic, distilled idea possible. A priori knowledge is central to the belief systems of all the people we've studied; because it must be understood BEFORE the rest of their arguments.
Hobbes: "Every cause has a material effect, and the same cause always has the same effect." (58.)
Hume: "The sequence from cause to effect seems necessary to us only because it is familiar; we have no reason to expect this sequence to occur again except our habits...'Tis not, therefore, reason, which is the guide of life, but custom." (59.)
Kant: "Is there some framework [a priori knowledge] on which experience is founded, and without which the mind cannot grasp the external world at all?" (59.) In order to learn anything about nature, to gain empirical knowledge, Kant said we first need to accept space, time, and morality. He also talked about some elusive truth; independent of men, a 'thing-in itself'. His approach focused on our relationship with knowledge, and the "profound accord" (60.) that he envisioned had no mention or influence by a God-figure.
Hegel: "There is no reality until we know it; we exist by virtue of knowing the outside world - but the world also exists only by virtue of our knowing it." Furthermore "My thinking does more than prove my existence, it creates it." [At this point Descartes would say 'Zut Alors'] He used the phrase "Being is thought" and vice-versa. (63.) On a larger scale, Hegel saw all changes in the world as changes for the better, or at least in the direction of complexity, integration, and greater fullness. His profoundly different view of history from his contemporary Kant or his predecessors separated Hegel's philosophy. History, he said was the great transformer; not something that can be defined, but a spirit that dwells within men, so much that "Man is history; and that only an understanding of history can enable man to understand himself." (64.) <-- That's my favorite part.
Quote:
mreilly: I'm wondering if we did not have a framework on which experience is founded how would we gain knowledge?
Miranda, this is just what Kant wondered! From what I've heard, He took Aristotle's theory that understanding came only through experience one step further. He noticed that if you based everything on an "If x then y" system of reasoning, you would need SOMETHING to start with.
Last edited by edalven on Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:28 pm; edited 4 times in total
Priories exist mainly in an ideal world. They are theories and speculations that are then used as the foundation, or framework, for other things.
So there was a lot of good points to all the philosophers, but here is what I thought was most important.
Hobbes: He believed that the same cause will always have the same effect and that effects stem from their causes.
Hume: He believed that cause and effect is empirical and that it is only necessary because it is familiar to us. Cause and effect are not connected by logical necessity, and therefore in nature, there are no unnecessary connections.
Locke: I got that Locke was very similar to Aristotle in the sense that there is no ideal world. He believes that experience has to be lived, not imagined.
Kant: This was a big one. There was much mention of the framework, or priories, i guess, so that this natural framework is the basis for most everything else. Unlike Locke, Kant believed that some knowelege is necessary in order to make empirical science function.
Hegel: His points confused me the most, so I'm not so sure about how much i write is true/ makes sense. But what stood out to me is that he believed that there is no reality until we know it and that things only exist because we think of them. This point was very similar to what we read about in the Galileo reading where the senses are there because they are drilled into our minds, and that these senses reside only in our consciousness and if the living thing was eliminated from these senses, then they would be eliminated as well. I'm not sure how clear that was, but I hope it was no too bad.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:05 pm Post subject:
Aundre: I really agree with you. I feel that what we have been doing was to try to come up with a definition, but we forget their relationship. Today after I finished the reading, I felt that both history and science provide us a way to look at future. The subject themselves may be different, but the reason we study them is because of ourselves! In the reading Hegel said that "she is the working out... of the spirit of all men". I think what he was trying to say was that history was just a subject from human's perspective, which can also apply to science.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. He thinks that cause and effect can be understood through logic. But, in 1739, David Hume took challeges of Hob’s theory.
