This man Kant take no for an answer!

It is a mixture of both. Knowledge acquired in a vaccum is useless without the tempering of life experience.

red: "I was sitting on the phone one day and talking to my friend"

first i would suggest that you might find it more comfortable
2 sit on a chair!

u might also want 2 look here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10055

knowledge is an ephemeral thing, not only is it's source an enigma, but also its accuracy is completely unreliable (except 4 mine, of course).

initially knowledge comes from the brain's bios, that is the imprinted set of reaction controls, genetically bestowed on an individual allowing it 2 function safely (more or less) and 2 survive untill such time as it has experiences from which it can learn, and begin 2 modify those reactions 2 suit its environment. this is innate programming, what is often refered 2 as 'instinct'.
the main difference intellectually, between human behaviour and that of most other animals, is the degree 2 which they 'fall back on' instinct in a situation; being 'civilized' is learning not 2!

rationalization has nothing 2 do with knowledge, it is the way we twist reality to align with the way we wish ourselves, or others 2 perceive reality. it is more closely associated with fantasy, than knowlege and understanding.

There is an apple sitting in front of me I know that it is solid and if I grab it this object will remain in my hand! OH LOOK THAT IS INNATE KNOWLEDGE!

That is empirical knowledge.

Regarding this "I believe that our ability to utilize logic is inherent throughout millions of years of evolution.", an inate ability to utilize logic is by no means a priori knowledge. I accept the statement, but don't see it's relationship to the first sentence of the introduction to The Critique of Pure Reason.

Ah well, I will admit to having both the the Critique and Ewing's short commentary on the shelf, without having finished either.

Cav is right, of course.

Knowing that my body serves an interfacing tool in this reality is a priori! Our anatomy has adapted in accordance with our environment which consists of air and objects and etc. The observation of the substance the color and the hardness which acquired through the senses is apriori That is not empirical. THat cannot be learned. When an infant sticks things in his mouth and grabs them, he knows that he can interact with objects however empirically he would like to hold the object and test what he already knows. That is how the two coincide with one another, but in order to sense the object begins with a priori knowledge of knowing the color and knowing that it is an object. That is innate. As well as knowing that your body can effect the object. All of that is innate. Without experience and the ability to recognize that we can interact with the object naturally (an innate function) we can never acquire knowledge. We began when the first man and the first woman had sex. Instinctually they know that the both wanted to do something to the other, however they innately knew that they would have to conduct the process of experimentation in order to find out how to have sex. I believe that there cannot be an existance of empirical knowlege without some form of innate knowledge. Morality is innate. If all knowledge is the derivative of experience in which each of us individually has to experience then how would we have progressed this far? There is no such thing as pure empirical knowledge!

In conclusion (contradictory to Kant) knowledge is a mixture of experience and the innate. I now believe that both are equally included to seek knowledge. I suggest you actually read the critique of pure reason and understand it thoroughly. Kant is one of the hardest philosophers to read. I thank all of you for your point of views. I learned that both depend upon one another. I believe before I continue the debate I must briefly analyze the innate with more clarity and draw the boundary of that between the instinctual. It is obvious in which Kant never mentioned that these instincts and innate knowledge are so closely linked together throughout evolutionary processes. In conclusion as far as concerning evolution it is evident that the experiences of our ancestors, according to the sociobiological theory become ingrained as innate knowledge. In order to define the boundaries between the instinctual and the innate knowledge that is another topic of it's own. A priori and A posteriori rely so much upon one another intertwined like a chain. Or maybe we can never truly come to a conclusion because it is so much alike as the serpent eating it's tail. Once again I thank all of you!

A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is supposed to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence. For instance, if I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples. This is knowledge gained deductively. I did not actually need to get the three other apples and place them with the first two to see that I have five. To this extent, the term A Priori is valid.

The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality. One example is inborn knowledge. Another example often used is mathematics. To understand why this second definition, which is how the term is really used, is flawed, we have to look at exactly what is being said and meant.

Let's look at mathematics. It's easy to see, in the apple example above, that mathematics fits under first, valid meaning of the term. If this were all that was meant by saying that mathematics is a priori, there would be no problem. However, this isn't it. Philosophers then go on to say that mathematics is true without reference to reality. The knowledge of mathematics (as opposed to the knowledge created by mathematics) is a priori. It is known without reference to reality. It is claimed that mathematics is a higher form of knowledge. That even if the world around us doesn't exist, mathematics is still true. That it is a form of knowledge that we can be certain of, even if we deny reality.

How do they make such a statement? First, they see that mathematics is the science of units, and any units are acceptable. I could have said trucks instead of apples above. The validity would be the same. It is true without reference to any unit.

This sounds okay at first. The problem stems from the method of deriving the mathematical abstractions. Teach a child to do simple arithmetic, and you'll recognize that to gain the knowledge of math, one must use some units. Maybe apples. Maybe oranges. It doesn't matter which units. It does matter, though, that some unit is picked. To grasp math, one needs a foundation. Particulars from which an abstraction can be made.

Calling mathematics a priori, or knowledge independent of reality, is to undercut its base. This is the essence of the second meaning of a priori. The meaning that is actually used. An abstraction is made from particulars. Once the abstraction is made, the process from which it was derived is then ignored. The base on which it was built is denied. The abstract knowledge is then said to exist without reference to reality, since the reference is ignored.

In this way, certain kinds of knowledge are said to exist without being dependent on reality. Various explanations for how we are aware of the knowledge are put forward. Some say it is inborn, and we were always aware of it. Others say that although it was inborn, it takes awhile for us to recognize the knowledge. Others decide that it is revelation from some higher power.

The consequences to accepting the claim that knowledge can be a priori is that it leads to faith. When it is suppose that some knowledge exists and is valid without our need of deriving it from reality, it opens the door to pretending all knowledge can be like this. By denying the use of reason to form these abstract ideas, it claims there are alternative methods of gaining knowledge. By severing the tie to reality, it allows any idea to be accepted.

Incidentally, I did read the Critique of Pure Reason, and found it rather rambling and dull.

I agree that the critique of pure reason is dull, but I was looking for was to see if there is clear understanding within the post. Language serves as a form of innate knowledge. Inductive and deductive reasoning=a priori. I apologize if I didn't present my argument with enough clarity. I do agree with your point of view and I also felt that I have learned something from you as well. This was the purpose as to why I posted this was to see the reactions and all the several arguments in which I can include within my book "the new conciousness" Once again thank you! And if you feel the need to talk more about the development of mathematics considering a priori I hope you continue to say more. If anyone has any evidence of language being some form of innate knowledge please cite it and present it to me. I also would very much like it if some of you would look into the sociobiological theory and how it is relative with the topic. -Thanks

Cool...I will look into it and most likely post something on one or another of your threads, and I think others will too.

Jeez, I didn't even notice....if you are interested in the theory of language as innate knowledge, it's a no-brainer. Chomsky. Here is a link to a site "Chomsky for philosophers". You may find some of the articles on his work inspiring enough to look into reading Chomsky himself:

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~pbohanbr/Webpage/New/newintro.html

Red; i couldn't DISagree with u more! relative 2 u're 'inate' comments;
re: the apple, an infant doesn't understand 'appleness' at all, in fact 4 the 1st few days of existence it cannot even discern objects from background.
all this is learned, at a furious rate as the infant sponges in everything in its ken. it does, however, eventually learn that an apple is solid, sweet (depending on the apple first experienced), juicey, and (a logic deduction) desirable, or not depending on its own personnal, 'inate' set of preferrences.
u know that some things, beer, cigars, oysters, etc., etc., are referred 2 as aquired tastes; this is in reference 2 the fact that most poeple's 'inate' (inborn, or instinctive - part of the genetic makeup) preferrences find these things initially somewhat offensive, but largely due 2 peer pressure, they keep experimenting, and begin to appreciate the subtle flavours - 'aquire' a 'taste' 4 them.
the newborn infant also will react 2 an extreme sensory message, a loud noise, flash of light, sour taste, etc., with a 'fear' reaction, immediately crying 4 parental protection from whatever it was; this is instinct; inate reactions genetically programmed 2 protect the infant from possible harm.
sex is another area where instinct plays (or at least used 2) a sizeable role; a sexually arroused couple, instinctively know what 2 do in the throws of mating, be they humans, or donkeys. they do 'what comes naturally'; however what they do not understand (in the case of the humans, this is relative 2 the distant past) is the connection between sexual activity, and procreation; intercourse was always considered as a pleasurable activity, and only when it became apparent that it in some way related to pregnancy, did sex aquire the immoral stigma placed upon it to minimize the social dammage that imature parenthood could do to struggling post primitive societies (unfortunatley it stuck, a bit too long).
it is VERY important 2 recognize the difference between instinctive, and learned behaviour, and if u look at it logically it is pretty obvious!
i also read most of Kant's critique of PR, and found it boring, and seriously flawed; i would suggest more accessible philosophers who have had the benefit of contemporary knowledge, such as Bertram Russell e.g. 4 bebinning 2 build a personnal philosophical base.

This is the wrong thread, but what if BoGoWo dropped the '2' and '4' and devised a writing system based around the simple 0,1 binary code he is fond of, and left the rest of the language alone...

"1 c0uldn't d1sagree with you m0re, relat1ve to your '1nate' c0mments" now that would be cool for SF literature....

i hate it when that happens!

first i would suggest that you might find it more comfortable
2 sit on a chair!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA OH HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEEEEEEHOOOHHAHAHAHAHAHA OH YEAH HAHAHAHAAHAHA HA HA HUM HA HAHAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAHEE HOO HOO HOO HOO HUM!

Like I said, if you were to read the posts more carefully, I was simply trying to set up a debate for not the sake of being right but for the sake of hearing all corners of the argument in it's entirety. And yes you can sit and talk on the phone not to be taken in a literal sense.

oh hoo hoo... That was the funniest thing I've seen in like a Malinagam!

Um, I put topics up for the same reason before I go to act philosophy out to the pedestrians, just in case they try to come back with a quip like BOGOWOGUS, who I try to add to all stories now.

BoGO GO woogie is a meanie with a large EGO! But I love him anyways!