The one phrase that has stuck in my mind from tuesdays lecture is ‘A PRIORI,’ this Latin phrase stands for ‘independent of experience.' I know it sounds far fetched but when you break it down I guess it doesn’t seem that scary. An example of an a priori statement is ‘the grass is green,’ you don’t have to examine the point you just know it to be true, it is innate inside you as there isn’t a longing for you to find out the answers to how and why. You don't have to look to the outside world for advice, therefore showing that without prior experience you can know certain statements to be true or false.
‘There are 60 seconds in a minute’ is an a priori statement. Therefore could you say that time is a priori? (It's one of those points that if you think about it to much in an empirical way your brain starts to hurt, so just think 'a priori' and you'll be fine)
The philosopher Immanuel Kant once said that:
‘Although all knowledge begins with experience, it does not all arise out of experience.’
I think this idea lies between a priori and empiricism perfectly as it takes into account empiricists inability to accept assumptions, while also stating how knowledge doesn’t need to be experience for it to be known. However, in general a priori principles oppose empiricism. An example of an empirical argument is ‘what came first the chicken or the egg?' Relating this to current news stories, one example is:
'I revere this man (and his book on earthworms)... Andrew Marr on the real legacy of Darwin'
This is an example of an empirical argument because Darwinism challenges our beliefs and the meaning of what it is to be human. There is no straight forward answer as everyones views on the subject differ. This means that empiricists will question Darwin's theories and try to figure out the meaning behind them.
On the other hand an example of an a priori argument is:
'Can jumbo elephants really paint? intrigued by stories, naturalist Desmond Morris set out to find the truth.'
This article is an example of an a priori argument because we are brought up knowing that elephants can't paint, it is innate inside us as humans to know this and therefore we do not question this fact. As well as this the article doesn't actually answer the question as there is not yet any scientific knowledge to prove that elephants can paint. The answer given, as politicians are fond of saying, is 'yes and no.' A great example of how the mix of empiricism, a priori and politics cannot always be as straight forward as you expect.
No comments:
Post a Comment