David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The notion of the a priori underwent several changes since the time it came into existence in the Middle Ages. Originally it had been used to mark a certain form of argument, an argument that proceeds from what is prior to what is later, from cause to effect: demonstratio procedens ex causis ad effectum = demonstratio a priori. But this changed with Kant, for whom it meant not a form of argument but rather some special kind of knowledge (or elements thereof), namely knowledge that (a) is independent of particular experiences and (b) that makes experience in general (Erfahrung überhaupt) possible. Tied up with consciousness and the transcendental unity of apperception, Kant"s understanding of the a priori was in the spirit of his transcendental philosophy. But this understanding changed again with the rise of analytic philosophy, in which we still find the first characteristic but not the second anymore. The idea of Erfahrung überhaupt was given up, partly because one naturally wondered what exactly this notion of experience in general, or experience universally conceived, should be. Where should we get it from, if not by way of abstraction and generalization from individual cases of experience? And would this not make it an empirical concept, so that the whole project of asking for the conditions of its possibility would not lead us to the kind of certainty, necessity and universality we expect from a priori knowledge? There would be no guarantee that in the future we would not make discoveries that would give us new kinds of experiences or that would show us our experiences in a new light. Thus, we would have to admit that these experiences did not satisfy the conditions of experience we had set up originally. The a priori conditions would have to be revised
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hamid Vahid (1999). A Priori Knowledge, Experience and Defeasibility. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (2):173 – 188.
Hannah Ginsborg (2006). Kant and the Problem of Experience. Philosophical Topics 34 (1/2):59-106.
M. C. Dillon (1987). Apriority in Kant and Merleau-Ponty. Kant-Studien 78 (1-4):403-423.
Vasilis Politis (1997). The Apriority of the Starting-Point of Kant's Transcendental Epistemology. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (2):255 – 284.
Patricia Kauark-Leite (2010). Transcendental Philosophy and Quantum Theory. Manuscrito – Rev. Int. Fil 33 (1):243-267.
Derk Pereboom (1990). Kant on Justification in Transcendental Philosophy. Synthese 85 (1):25 - 54.
Jason S. Baehr, A Priori and a Posteriori. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Robert Greenberg (1999). The Ontology of Kant's Theory of Knowledge. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 1999:39-48.
Jennifer Nagel (2000). The Empiricist Conception of Experience. Philosophy 75 (293):345 - 376.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2008). A New Definition of A Priori Knowledge: In Search of a Modal Basis. Metaphysica 9 (2):57-68.
Hartry Field (2005). Recent Debates About the A Priori. In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology. OUP Oxford
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads29 ( #118,614 of 1,780,762 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #95,675 of 1,780,762 )
How can I increase my downloads?