Theory of «A Priori» knowledge. My standings

There is no wonder that many philosophers like David Hume and John Locke argued about how unreliable our senses can be. As humans, we pretty much depend on our sense experience, considering it as the primary source of our knowledge. In some sense, we, in fact, can consider empirical knowledge to be true if we adopt the views of idealism and believe that reality is fundamentally mentally constructed. Here comes the reason why I’m in favour of the views of a priori knowledge, which one of the main goals is to know whether there we can gain knowledge independent of our senses and experience, and of course, understand the nature of metaphysical knowledge. Hence, my favoured theory of a priori knowledge is definitely a priori synthetic knowledge, and the paper will mostly focus on the views brought by German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Kant accepts the fact that our knowledge begins with experience, but it does not mean that all the knowledge we have arises from having some experience.  For example, 5+7=12 is a mathematical truth, which is independent from our senses, as there is no need of experiments for claiming the equation to be true. The statement needs to be necessary (not contingent) and universal (independent of its time and location) for it be considered a priori knowledge according to Kant.

If we only considered a priori knowledge to be true by definition, then we will definitely waste the prospective the theory can give to us. It is said that a priori knowledge must be analytical and necessary for it to become “a worthy statement”. However, such statements don’t change or add anything on the knowledge we have. The statement “All bodies are extended” is an example which Kant brought to show the difference between analytical and synthetic judgements. There is no need of going beyond the definition of “body” for being aware of that bodies are extended. In all judgements the relationship of the predicate to the subject can be understood in two ways. Either predicate already has the notion of a subject within its definition, or the subject adds on the knowledge that we have about the predicate. The later one (synthetic judgement) is ampliative. Hence, analytical judgements can only clarify or explicate the characteristic that the predicate already has. That is why, I believe that analytical judgements are empty and, in some sense, can only give information about the natural kind of a predicate, nothing more.

Here comes the reason why Kant was trying to argue that a prior knowledge can be synthetic, as in other case there will not be a way for gaining metaphysical knowledge. As an example of synthetic a priori knowledge, Kant argues with mathematical knowledge. We know that internal sum of the angles of any triangle is 180 degree. The statement “All angles of a triangle have 180 degree” is a synthetic a priori knowledge according to Kant, since it is ampliative (adds on the definition of a triangle, as triangles are geometrical figures known to have three sides) and it cannot be justified through our sense data. Synthetic a priori knowledge, Kant argues, is the prove that we have mathematical knowledge. From here Kant draws a conclusion that if there is a metaphysical knowledge hence it must be synthetic a priori. For defining the nature of metaphysical knowledge, there needs to be discovered truths that are universal and necessary. Certainly, it doesn’t have to be analytical a priori truths, as metaphysics does not have to be explicate but it has to add to the definition that we have (ampliative, hence synthetic). This is how Kant argues that synthetic a priori knowledge is the nature of having metaphysical knowledge, which I think can seem pretty much truthful.

Of course, philosophers can allow themselves to make such bold statements considering them to have that authority of being clever, witty and knowing more compared to ordinary people. That is why, I will go ahead and try to make such bold statement even if it may turn out to be wrong according to many philosophers, I will still believe that the statement is a priori and synthetic. I’ve already said this during our class but didn’t expand on it much. I know (not believe, because for me the following statement will be JTB) that feeling the existence of time is synthetic a priori knowledge. First of all, time is with us through our whole life. We are born with the knowledge of time, and the feeling of it is the motion that surrounds us. We feel the sense of time but since it is with us every single minute, we cannot truly examine and understand its nature, as time has intertwined with all our senses quite long ago. If we were supposed to smell the taste of watermelon from our birth till our death, will we be able to distinguish it from our senses (as there will always be hearing + taste of watermelon, seeing + taste of watermelon…)? I cannot give an answer for that, but let’s analyse and see whether knowledge of existence of time is synthetic a priori knowledge. As mentioned above, knowing that time exists can be done not through logic or experience but in fact it’s a sense data that we perceive on a loop. Hence, if time can be perceived than it is synthetic. And the question why it is a priori, we only need prove that the statement is necessary and universal (said by Kant). Knowledge of existence of time is necessary, because it does not change under any conditions and it is universal as its existence is independent of its location, as it exists everywhere, proving the fact of the expansion of the universe. Hence, time exists and the fact that we perceive it can be considered to be synthetic a priori knowledge. Maybe we are not capable of perceiving the real nature of it, just like our mind translates waves into colours, but the fact that we perceive time cannot be denied.