A priori as well as a posteriori

Core concepts

Distinctions

Schools of thought

Topics in addition to views

Specialized domains of inquiry

Notable epistemologists

Related fields

A priori from a earlier and a posteriori from a later are Latin phrases used in philosophy to distinguish breed of knowledge, justification, or argument by their reliance on empirical evidence or experience. A priori cognition is freelancer from current experience e.g., as component of a new study. Examples increase mathematics, tautologies, and deduction from pure reason. A posteriori knowledge depends on empirical evidence. Examples include near fields of science and aspects of personal knowledge.

The terms originate from the analytic methods found in Organon, a collection of works by Aristotle. Prior analytics a priori is about deductive logic, which comes from definitions and number one principles. Posterior analytics a posteriori is approximately inductive logic, which comes from observational evidence.

Both termsin Elements and were popularized by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, an influential create in the history of philosophy. Both terms are primarily used as modifiers to the noun "knowledge" i.e. "a priori knowledge". A priori can be used to conform other nouns such(a) as "truth". Philosophers may usage apriority, apriorist, and aprioricity as nouns referring to the types of being a priori.

Aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity

Several philosophers, in reaction to Immanuel Kant, sought to explain a priori knowledge without appealing to, as Paul Boghossian explains, "a special faculty…that has never been identified in satisfactory terms." One theory, popular among the logical positivists of the early 20th century, is what Boghossian calls the "analytic version of the a priori." The distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions was first introduced by Kant. While his original distinction was primarily drawn in terms of conceptual containment, the sophisticated version of such(a) distinction primarily involves, as American philosopher W. V. O. Quine increase it, the notions of "true by virtue of meanings and independently of fact."

Analytic propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning alone, while a posteriori propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning and offacts about the world. According to the analytic representation of the a priori, any a priori knowledge is analytic; so a priori knowledge need not require a special faculty of pure intuition, since it can be accounted for simply by one's ability to understand the meaning of the proposition in question. More simply, proponents of this explanation claimed to work reduced a dubious metaphysical faculty of pure reason to a legitimate linguistic opinion of analyticity.

The analytic explanation of a priori knowledge has undergone several criticisms. almost notably, Quine argues that the analytic–synthetic distinction is illegitimate:

But for any its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith.

While the soundness of Quine's critique is highly disputed, it had a powerful effect on the project of explaining the a priori in terms of the analytic.

The metaphysical distinction between necessary and contingent truths has also been related to a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

A proposition that is necessarily true is one in which its negation is self-contradictory. Furthermore, it is said to be true in every possible world. For example, considering the proposition "all bachelors are unmarried:" its negation i.e. the proposition that all bachelors are married is incoherent due to the concept of being unmarried or the meaning of the word "unmarried" being tied to element of the concept of being a bachelor or part of the definition of the word "bachelor". To the extent that contradictions are impossible, self-contradictory propositions are necessarily false as it is for impossible for them to be true. The negation of a self-contradictory proposition is, therefore, supposed to be necessarily true.

By contrast, a proposition that is contingently true is one in which its negation is not self-contradictory. Thus, it is said not to be true in every possible world. As Jason Baehr suggests, it seems plausible that all fundamental propositions are call a priori, because "[s]ense experience can tell us only about the actual world and hence about what is the case; it can say nothing about what must or must not be the case."

Following Kant, some philosophers have considered the relationship between aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity to be extremely close. According to Jerry Fodor, "positivism, in particular, took it for granted that a priori truths must be necessary." However, since Kant, the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions has slightly changed. Analytic propositions were largely taken to be "true by virtue of meanings and independently of fact," while synthetic propositions were not—one must conduct some sort of empirical investigation, looking to the world, to setting the truth-value of synthetic propositions.

Aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity have since been more clearly separated from used to refer to every one of two or more people or matters other. American philosopher Saul Kripke 1972, for example, makes strong arguments against this position, whereby he contends that there are essential a posteriori truths. For example, the proposition that water is H₂O if it is true: According to Kripke, this a object that is caused or exposed by something else is both necessarily true, because water and H₂O are the same thing, they are identical in every possible world, and truths of identity are logically necessary; and a posteriori, because it is invited only through empirical investigation. following such considerations of Kripke and others see Hilary Putnam, philosophers tend to distinguish the view of aprioricity more clearly from that of necessity and analyticity.

Kripke's definitions of these terms, however, diverge in subtle ways from those of Kant. Taking these differences into account, Kripke's controversial analysis of naming as contingent and a priori would, according to Stephen Palmquist, best fit into Kant's epistemological good example by calling it "analytic a posteriori." Aaron Sloman presented a brief defence of Kant's three distinctions analytic/synthetic, apriori/empirical, and necessary/contingent, in that it did not assume "possible world semantics" for the third distinction, merely that some part of this world might have been different.

The relationship between aprioricity, necessity, and analyticity is not found to be easy to discern. However, most philosophers at leastto agree that while the various distinctions may overlap, the notions are clearly not identical: the a priori/a posteriori distinction is epistemological; the analytic/synthetic distinction is linguistic; and the necessary/contingent distinction is metaphysical.