From what I understand, a priori is the way Kant saw Truth. He didn’t not believe in the idea of cause and effect, so the only truth he knew was that time and space where connected. “that some tings in the world could not be different, and that our minds are attuned to these things” (page 60). If I understood that correctly he’s saying that are parts of our world that are assumed and not to be questioned, and other’s that we’ve got completely wrong. The assumed being the ultimate connection between time and space (?!)
Kant:
• His approach to philosophy was less focused on how disconnected the human mind is from our natural world, but how humans effect the environment their in and vise versa.
• He alarmed the church because his philosophy connected humans to nature separate from God.
Hegel:
• His usage of the dialectic introduces a sense of constant change.
• History/change is about the process, there is no way to fully reach a static state in a society
• “The knower and what he knows influence one another…” (page 63)
One thing I found totally amazing was the idea that our approach to…time is cultural. For example how in the middle ages people were not aware that the future would be any different or better than the past.
I saw a priori as meaning "having existed by default, and prior to any experience or development-basically inherent or inborn." I see Kant as having argued that people do not have to "learn" time and space-that certain conceptions about time and space exist without any external stimuli and without any authority telling you so. Also, there is no logic to space or time other than the logic that we give it. People sense that time has passed, or a certain object is close to them, in a way that is completely natural. Effectively, there is no specific reason to assume that time and space work as we define them to work in everyday life, but we all define them similarly anyway.
Kant's Points:
Experience is derived in some part on the basis of specific natural truths (Newtonian space and Newtonian time) If we didn't have inherent assumptions about space and time, none of our other sensory perceptions would make any sense, nor would they be able to occur at all.
Causality provides people with a way of interpreting nature, so nature always complies with certain causal relationships.
The five senses are insufficient unless people recognize the pre-existing notions of space and time that we are born with.
A priori knowledge exists not only in nature but in moral behaviors. Since morality as a system can only exist when individual people understand its value, the very presence of "morals" means that people are born with preconceived social notions. For instance, having morals allows greater individual freedom, a sense of comfort, and a greater survival rate. Thus, the ideas linking moral behavior to these benefits are already ingrained in people's minds when they are born.
There is a natural balance between nature and people which allows them to coexist; this balance lies in their mutual understanding of one another, and their very structures, which are designed to be in harmony.
I, like Ziz, found it interesting that, at some point, people may not have understood that the future would bring social changes.
Another thing: The article says that "man is his history." (485) Later on the same page, it says, "only an understanding of history can enable man to understand himself." If these two phrases are synthesized, then we are left with the statement, "only an understanding of himself can allow man to understand himself." Thus, is an understanding of experience predicated upon some sort of self-reflection in the context of history?
I feel that a priori represents a given in the universe or more or less a truth (as ziz said). That there must exist some “basic framework” in the pursuit of knowledge that upholds and makes possible the empirical. We exist in relation to this constant, a constant which overrides the idea that we as humans directly affect our existence, or that we perceive and thus exist and that nothing exists outside of our perceptions. To play off of Ziz’s quote, I’d go as far as to say that such things, such a prioris, are not assumed, but just (I guess…) are. If this is thus irrefutable, that man is not profoundly in accord with nature as Kant may have said, for we do not completely affect our existence. Yet it is then an a priori, or framework, that man could exist with the universal and nature for we too have an a priori within ourselves, morality and the knowledge of nature. That nature exists by no product of our thoughts and experience but that we are inherently a part of it. I know these too ideas starkly conflict… but I like how it also conflicts with Hegel… or so I feel.
Hegel:
. Our knowledge creates us and the world around us. That we are dependent on our perception of the universe and that the universe is a product of our experience, our senses, our thoughts. There is nothing that exists outside of our perception
. That change is directly affected by its opposite, that one form cannot exist without the other (as understood by his flower anecdote) and although to separate forms exist out of the same source, their direct contention with one another is what allows them to exist, synthesizing to create further complexity yet culmination.
.“Man is his history; and that only an understanding of history can enable man to understand himself.” (64) Could this be a suggestion that history is not the study of man and his past but the idea that all history is equitable to one person, to the growth of humanity as a whole and that all events whether in the past or present, build the concept of humanity so as to validate the idea that a revolution does not work if you only change doctrine, you must reform the history of man, every single building block of modern man, to truly bring about change.
Kant:
. That there is a universal, similar to the ideal eternal being of Plato, that exists outside the influence of our perception, or an a priori
. Without this outer framework, our empirical knowledge makes no sense as there is nothing to base it off of, that it is inconceivable for man to exist outside of some greater idea. He must be born with an inherent understanding for nature and morality if such things are not a product of his thought and experience (assuming that such things are constant).
The way I saw 'priori' is somewhat similar to the way Ziz and Karl defined it. I saw it as universal truth, and something that everybody already knows intuitively. "Some things in the world could not be different, and that our minds are attuned to these things." pg 476 and these things is whata priori is.
A lot of the main points have already been mentioned, so I'll try not to be very repetitive.
Kant
* Men and nature are not separate.
* "Nature must conform to causality, because causality is the only way in which the mind can grasp her workings" pg 477
* "Man's reason appeared as an instrument in tune with the working of the universe... [man] needed no guide but its own dignity." pg 479
Hegel
* Saw "all progress, whether in the history of man or in the evolution of life, as a succession of revolutionary steps." pg 482
* "There is no reality until we know it" pg 483
* History isn't just a record of the past, it is progress.
* The 'knower' and 'what he knows' must be united in each step of human progress.
This reading really messed with my head. Especially on page 483 when Hegal said that, "my thinking foes more than prove my existence: it creates it." and "Being is thought."
I feel there is a lot of information that I missed from this reading. So much information and philosophy was packed into 18 pages, more than I could process. There is so much more I could've taken from it than I actually did. I really hope over time I'll gain a better understanding of Kant and Hegel.
A priori is knowledge that exists within the mind before exposure to experience. It is knowledge that is not gained through empirical data. I think it’s appropiate to call it “intuition”, but we have to then make the point that this is not intuition in the sense that we are making connections based on previous experiences. A priori comes before theory.
(Sorry, my list is a lot of repetition)
Kant:
× Nature conforms itself to causality
× There are some “necessary relations” in nature that are necessary for our way of thought
× Man is born with a sense of a priori knowledge in nature and morality, going against Aristotle’s concept of tabula rasa (John Locke was the one who called the concept “tabula rasa”)
× There is an intrinsic quality binding man and nature; this intrinsic connection has nothing to do with God. He looks at morality beyond catechism
× There are both scientific and moral necessities in nature
× The behavior of man assumes the existence of “underlying necessities” (61); like Karl said, without this assumption, man’s behavior would be meaningless
Hegel
× The application of Socratic dialectics (the synthesis of two contradictions generating knowledge) to the realities of life allow progression. In other words, progression is a series of revolutionary steps (side note: our class seems based off of this concept, what with “loopwriting” and all. How intriguing)
× “There is no reality until we know it.” (63). Reality does not exist independently of our knowledge of it. Therefore, the knower and the object being known are fused together (dialectics) through experience.
× “The universal spirit” (64) is revealed through history (as opposed to science?)
× Man himself is history
× “The spirit of the people expressed itself in its heroes” (66). Going beyond this, these heroes are above morality
Ziz and Hannah are both touching on something that make Kant and Hegel so imperative to this class: If there are certain necessities that are a priori, doesn’t this denote that there is some objective truth? And if this objective truth exists, is it reached through science, history, or both?
I want to comment quickly on Einstein’s theory of special relativity. According to his theory, uniform motion is relative. Also, according to our reading, this theory destroys the Newtonian concept of uniform time. But our reading fails to mention a very important part of the theory of special relativity: that the speed of light is the same for all observers. What does this means in terms of an objective understanding of time?
One more question: For Hegel, is there a distinction between knowing reality and perceiving reality? For example, we don’t fully know yet about the existence of quantum mechanics. If we can perceive it, but not know it, does it exist (according to Hegel)?
Sorry I wrote like ten millions things. But....this reading was pretty much the crux of everything. My mind is so confused and so happy at the same time.
A priori is a “Necessary relation in nature,” (60). ‘A priori’-s are basic frameworks of the world. Things that, if the didn’t exist, our minds would not be able to grasp the external world at all. Ex. If space and time did not exist, we would not be able to perceive the external world outside of our minds.
Kant:
- There is an underlying framework in nature, and in our thought, to which the physical behavior of material bodies must conform in any possible universe
- Reason and morality are inborn ‘a priori’-s in humans
- Man and nature or not separate, they are in accord
- There is a reality independent of men because of the a priori or things that must be (?)
Hegel:
- There is a thesis and an antithesis. This is resolved only by a step of synthesis, which fuses the two. Knower and what is to be known generate a higher synthesis: they generate knowledge itself.
- Life takes its important steps only when it synthesizes these two into a higher form. That is when life progresses.
- There is no reality until we know it. Things exist only because the mind thinks them, just as the mind exists only because it thinks. “Thinking does more than prove my existence, it creates it.” (63) everything is a construct of the mind.
- The world is always in a state of change
- Only an understanding of history can enable man to understand himself
"a priori" is from latin, meaning from the first. Something which is a priori is something which we always know to be true. Kant's example is space and time, which is not correct based on the work presented by relativity, but the concept of something which is so fundamental that it is understood is shown. "a priori" is that which is always understood, and which the universe conforms to. These two lead mutually to each other.
The main points of
Kant;
Because there are some observable patterns between cause and effect, there must be some causality. The world has some unchanging features (things which could not be different [pg 60] ) and the mind is attuned to these few features. This means that anything we assume at the most basic level, and have always assumed, must be true. The idea that things change is so basic to every human (in every philosophy we have read yet, from plato and aristotle to einstein ) is something which must be true.
Kant says that if we understand something at the most basic level, then our belief is true.
Hegel;
The beginning of his ideas seem to be similar to quantum physics, where the observer changes what is being observed by the fact of observation. The concept that the world only exists because we think it does. This relationship is derived from the concept of everything being a combination of two opposites. This seems to be a throwback to Aristotle's elements, which are combinations of hot and cold and wet and dry. This is applied to everything in Hegel's world, the physical, the mental, the moral, everything shares this mixture.
After this discussion, his thoughts seem to fall into idealization of a strong dictator government. He was inspired by Napoleon's presence during his career, and from then on he seemed to idealize strong figures leading their countries. This seems to be more of an idealization of his current situation, rather than a continuation of his ideals.
I am not overly confident in my summaries of their ideas, but from what I have understood, Hegel seems to be less important than Kant. Kant said that because we assume that there is some relationship between different parts of the universe, there must be some relationship between different parts. This assumption that patterns and relationships exist is fundamental for science. What did Hegel produce which compares to this vital assumption for science?
On one hand I regret how late I have chosen to post because repeptition will be inevitable. On the other hand I'm very pleased because I was able to read everyone else's reflection prior to articulating my own.
A priori is that which all people, by dint of being members of the human specie, are endowed with. As many have (better) articulated, it is that which we possess prior to and regardless of, any external experience. This is not meant to glorify the (to Kant) highly separate spectrums of mind and world (here, mind) but to transcend the cerebral. While I think, (like most other terminology we've encountered thus far), Hegel means something very different and specific in "spirit," its an appropriate word for where the innate prior lie within people. It is spirit, it is us, and it is our framework.
And here---I will make a leap. When Jen posed the question---"does this not denote the existence of an objective truth?" I found myself inclined to disagree. As my understanding of "objective" is that which exists or is with or without validation, consideration or deliberation, I feel as if the priori is less an objective entity and more something we as people have all decided to agree upon. Hegel, too, validates this idea of acknowledging necessary priori without designating it as fundamentally objective in saying, "We exist by virtue of knowing the outside world--but the world also exists only by virtue of our knowing it. 'The real is the rational and the rational is the real.'" (63)
Our priori is our priori because history "as the justification for every accident of existence," (64) has been molded to be such. The argument for why, cross-culturally, values, behaviors and perceptions differ could be explained as variant manifestations of said priori in the context of the given states, a conclusion further supported by Kant's dismissal of cause and effect as being purely empirical. The cause shall always be the priori whereas the effect, variable and often conflicting in peoples, is the unchecked effect.
Of course, my interpretive definition of priori has a distinctly Hegelian bent inasmuch that I know Kant would profoundly disagree with it, believer as he is in the "thing-in-itself" i.e. priori, i.e. objectivity.
OH! back. I realized after I posted I forgot to list the major points of each man. I came back to do that but then realized a) everyone else already did it fairly comprehensively/very well and b) id rather answer travis's question.
My response is that I think Travis is correct in saying Hegel did not provide an assumption as powerful and beneficial to science as Kant did. However, categorically more important? I disagree. Whereas Kant contributes to philosophy and science in a way Hegel does not, Hegel's concrete applications of his philosophy to not only human life but HISTORY as a whole is imperative. Therefore, I would hesitate to declare one individual independently more important than the other, yet their contributions seems to vary more than they overlap.
Another question might be, does the fact that Kant is inspired by other philosophers and scientists whereas Hegel seems more preoccupied with politicians, leaders and others outside his field greatly affect the development of their respective philosophies?
A “priori”, as many people have stated, is an assumed truth that is the framework for our understanding as the world: “Some things in the world could not be different…our minds are attuned to these things”. In addition, we are born with this knowledge and then use it to understand and learn about the world around us. If we didn’t have these, we wouldn’t be able to grasp our world. “We can not imagine a world in which either could be different”. Kant repeatedly uses the concepts of space and time. As we observe our world we assume that space and time exist to understand and draw conclusions. To me, it seems like prioris cannot be proven.
Kants main points (some things might be repeated from above):
- Space and time are a framework for experience and are one of natures necessary connections
- “Prioris” exist and are universals truths that are a framework that the universe follows, and it is needed for empirical science
- We our born with these basic truths because we need them to grasp the world
- Man is not separate from nature, and therefore nature is not an obstacle to man; “Free will in man is a necessity of nature”
Hegel’s main points:
- The knower and what is to be known generated knowledge
- It is not just being and nonbeing but becoming
- There is no distinction between the knower and what he knows
- Thinking creates existence. Since there is no separation between reality and the knower, until we know it, it doesn’t exist.
- Since synthesis moves to a higher state, change is always for the better. Therefore history is progress.
And Rachel to address your question, I think Hegel’s focus on politicians was because of his interest in change in society, and it allowed him to see and theorize about history maybe more so than if he was only influenced by scientists and other philosophers. I’m not totally certain on that though, so I want to know what you guys think.
The comments, first of all, have been great so far. I wanted to pose a question about the implications of Hegel's theory that thinking creates existence and the existence of the world creates thinking. What are the implications of this? If thinking creates existence, and we all think differently, then this nullifies the objectivity of both science and history, making both disciplines completely subjective. In this instance, the only objective truth is that there is no objective truth. I think Jen started to touch on this point, but I just wanted to restate it in my own terms because it will help me to process it better.
Hey guys, So I actually mistakenly read this reading like a week ago cause I saw it on mycsw and thought that this was the reading that was due for the first assignment. Anyway onto the topics at hand.
First: As far as I understand a priori is when one bases knowledge not upon an experience or obeservation but when knowledge is based on a theoretical deduction. For example Kant stating on page 60 that space and time are a priori, since the are a "basic framework." At least, thats What I got from the reading.
Second: One major point was I got from Kant was his strong belief that Science and Philosphy are intrinsically linked and should work hand in hand. One of the big problems, Kant faced, was that with new discoveries in science the gap between science and philosophy widened and he felt pressure to close that said gap. Kant also stated that "a philosopher of science can alarm authority." Kant also stated that a priori is an innate quality in man. One of Hegel's Major points was study of the relationship between knowledge and the knower, stating that there is a push/pull relationship between a man wishes to know something, and the knowledge which provides resistance and struggle for the knower to finally capture the knowledge. When this finally happens, Hegel calls the unity "synthesis" which i found very interesting because synthesis usually means a process of fusing two things, not the finished product.
One point I want elaborate on that I found absolutely incendiary was Jen's point about the objective truth existing. I do not think Kant and Hegel realized what they were doing when they introduced these theories, because I do not suspect them of being the kind of people to declare a singular truth. Again responding to Jen, I would say that just because we perceive something I do believe it exists. A good example of this is how in modern day many things that we merely dreamt of in past decades, but had no idea how to create, are now becoming reality (sharing of music, infinite information) So I would say Hegel is correct there
P.S.
Sorry for the late post, I hope it is still relevant!
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
