Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Is epistemology a priori, a posteriori or a combination of both? Why?

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    Its a combination of both. A priori is equate to innate ideas or nativism, and a posteriori to empiricism, in epistemology.

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    "Epistemology" was coined in the 19th c to describe "standing over" a thing--the complementary perspective to Plato's "hypothesis," or "under-standing."  A metaphor for Mom-Aristotle tasting a soup and "understanding"-guesstimating ratio of sweet and sour, and Mom-chef "standing over" the soup, and seasoning to taste.  Such "scientific" contemplation/experimentation is always a posteriori, aka after the "soup's on" fact.

    If one is clear about "What is experience?", the experiencer is already being/existing.  "A priority", if defined as knowing based on reasoning underived from prior experience, is always a subset of "a posteriority" experience, aka being/existence (one's own, or accepting another's experience).

    (Imho, one quality-control indicator of a given philosophy is the neuro-archetectonic accuracy of the philosopher's intuitions, especially prior to scientific explanations of same.  Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, Kant, and Husserl all do well with this metric.) 

    The chicken is always there--"a posteriority;" it is the "a priority" of the egg, which latter is "a posteriority's" ontological subset, e.g the egg may be kantian transcendental, husserlian epoche, etc., but before the egg says "I am a priori," it ought understand that it proceeded from the "a posteriority" of the chicken.  Ontology necessarily precedes and bases epistemology, and that which is, is always prior to reasoned "synthetic a priority."  

    The very nomenclature is illogical, valorizing reason.  What is actually "prior" is labeled "to the rear, a posteriori," and what is termed "a priori" is actually what is reared up upon prior experience:  reason seeking Platonic Dianoia, based on prior experience (Eikasia and Pistis).  Kant simply reversed the developmental logic in order to valorize his "transcendental" Dianoia as "pure" reason, a valorization which Plato correctly understood to be irreal dualism.   Necessary truths or maths, Dianoia, arise from empirical 5-sense data.  Kant's Copernican revolution reversed this, looking down upon epistemology's "looking down upon physis" (physis aka Eikasia-Pistis).  This process of a double looking down is simply von Neumannian framing, but Kant termed it "transcendental," deeming such reasoning completely separate from 5-sense data...as Yoda might say, "No sense makes 'transcendental'."  Both Plato and von Neumann were correct; Kant valorized "transcendental" reasoning as synthetic a priority, which simply does not fit the facts--i.e. rather that physis first (and is a continuum which) shapes or in-forms our mentation, which latter therefore in turn is a subset of the ontologicality of episteme, which latter is understood to be a conceptual point of view or framing which may interpret physis-objects in the Kantian Copernican revolution of "pure reason," which latter may be likened to a pure Dianoia lotus flower rooted in the physis of Eikasia and Pistis.

  • 2 months ago

    "Epi" means beyond try a different dictionary. Both--depending on reliability of data.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.