---
title: A priori is a myth
description: A rejection that justification exists prior to experience
date: 2022-08-29
tags: [rant, philosophy]
aliases:
  - /2022/08/29/a-priori-myth.html
---

Quine has
[helped me better understand](http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html#1a) why we
should reject **a priori** as a valuable concept at all.

It seems that most examples of a priori justification can be explained by
language and semantics.

> All bachelors are unmarried males.[^1]

The classic example of a priori justification is a synonym.

In order to understand this sentence, one must have prior knowledge of the
definition for these words. They must also understand the structure of a
sentence to fully grasp its meaning. The proposition requires knowledge from
experience.

Further, as a thought experiment, let's say we traveled to the future and looked
up the definition of **bachelor** and it comes to mean someone who is married
(the opposite of its current definition). Does that not reject the _a priori_
statement based on experience? The whole idea seems like a semantic game that
provides little value for knowledge. And yet, so much mental labor has been
devoted to comparing _a priori_ and _a posteriori_. This is a distraction.

I would also argue that without the reader, this statement cannot be understood.
A reader must read the statement, which requires time and space -- both of which
fall under the category of experience. All justifications must necessarily
require experience because they require space and time in order to read and
understand them. Like Kant, our world is perceived through the lens of the human
mind. Propositions, justifications, and knowledge also require the human mind.
The statement and the reader cannot be sufficiently separated.

After Quine dropped a bomb with _The two dogmas of empiricism_, it seems we have
moved the goal post from Kant's definition of _a priori_:

> knowledge that is absolutely independent of all experience[^2]

To a definition that is a little more lax:

> "independent of experience" should not be taken to mean independent of all
> experience, but, as a first approximation, to mean "independent of all
> experience beyond what is needed to grasp the relevant concepts involved in
> the proposition".[^3]

When reading this modified definition of _a priori_ I cannot help but ask: what
is the value in making this distinction? What value do we get from understanding
justifications prior to _some types_ of experience and _a posteriori_?

Let's look at a mathematical example of _a priori_ justification

> 2 + 2 = 4

Let's just say for a second that _a priori_ is legitimate and this is a good
example of one. What do we gain from this information?

I could go deeper into the mathematical example but it's been awhile since I've
thought about the philosophy of math and logic.

[^1]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#ExamIlluDiffBetwPrioPostEmpiJust

[^2]: Kant, Immanuel, 1787 [1965], Critique of Pure Reason [^3]:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#PrioJustJustIndeExpe