WHY KANT THERE BE A PRIORI?
There is no A Priori Knowledge:
i.) All knowledge comes from experience.
ii.) But knowledge, which is based on experience, can only be probable, and not certain.
iii.) A Priori Knowledge is supposed to be certain and necessary.
iv.) Therefore, there is no A Priori Knowledge.
I will defend this argument. Basically, I will use two examples of Kant’s to defend this argument. One is that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and the second is A + B is greater than A.
All knowledge comes from experience. We know a triangle has three sides from observing triangles. A triangle is a basic building block. It is probably true that the triangle was discovered through trial and error. Later, somebody called it a triangle and defined it as any figure having tri-angles formed by three joining sides. Certainly we know that all triangles have three sides, but not A Priori. We know from observing a triangle and being told all figures of this type have three sides. We cannot define something with a definition, and yet triangle = three sides joined together is just that if we try to argue it is A Priori Knowledge.
By the same token, it is not certain, except by definition, and definitions are only probable, for we cannot experience all they define and must accept the definition for their basic truth after all.
If we take two examples used by Kant in Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason, we will be able to see that experience is the only way to knowledge and that something considered A Priori can be uncertain. For one thing, we generally say 1 + 1 = 2 is a priori. But is 1 + 1 = 2 true in base two? That is simply a different set of numeric values, or a different definition of the same equation, but then, doesn’t that bring us back to our argument that A Priori depends on definition rather than definition being A Priori? If this is unclear at this point, let’s consider Kant’s claim that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This is A Priori, for it is obvious in itself, is it not? Not at all, for we must know not only the concepts of straight and points and distance, but we must know the conditions under which we wish to make the statement. If it is two points upon the Earth’s surface, then a curved line is the shortest distance between two points because of the Earth’s curve. And even in space, there can be some doubt, because some argue that space is curved. So it is not certain, but only probable that the shortest distance between two points in space is a straight line. And we can never be certain this is always true since we cannot follow the line to two points at the very ends of the universe.
If there is still any doubt that experience is necessary for knowledge, let’s examine Kant’s other example: A + B is greater than A. This is obvious, is it not? It is not. We can show that this is not very simply. Just line up all the numbers along side all even numbers. Which is longer? Is it the line containing all the numbers or the line containing only the even numbers? Well, they are both infinities, so in this case the whole may be equaled by the part. (Notice we say may, for we can never line up all the numbers and all the even numbers in order to be sure.) In other words, we can’t actually experience the equation A + B is greater than A, if A = all numbers and B = all even numbers.
Lastly, let’s consider Kant’s proposition that all bodies are extended, or at least, his concept of substance. He has us strip away all that our senses show us, somewhat as Descartes did, but in the end, he says we have to recognize the space that the substance occupied. But this space is actually nothingness. We cannot recognize this space, for we cannot conceive of a concept of nothingness, for we have never experienced nothingness. We only know something. In fact, we define nothing as the absence of anything. We do not say anything is the absence of nothing. We do not even recognize nothing, except by the presence of something. Nothingness is contained within the borders of something, and in this way, even a hole becomes something. This may seem a circular argument, and it is, but it does show that a doubt exists and even nothingness is only a probability unless we actually experience it.
In light of this and its application to our other examples, which can be done by us, and by the fact that I cannot prove it, because I cannot apply it to all examples of A priori Knowledge; therefore, there is no A Priori Knowledge.
For more information on Immanuel Kant, click on the title of this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment