So I've been reading my HCJ book for a while now. And I'm not going to lie I finding one thing really hard and it keeps reappearing, the a priori a posteriori knowledge.
After having my review on Friday I've found out this was one thing I got wrong in the exam.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds it confusing. I've read Russell's explanation of it all over and over and it confusing me more.
When reading about Kant 1724-1804 it looks like there is no way of running from the issue. So I'll try and nail it.
In Kant's most important work 'The Critique of Pure Reason' he looks at synthetic and analytical propositions as well as a priori and empirical propositions like Hume had looked at knowledge that it could be a priori and a posteriori
Analytical propositions- The precedent is part of the subject for example a tall man is a man.
Synthetic propositions- We know only through experience. We cannot discover the truths by analysis of concepts.
A priori propositions do not rely on experience.
Kant rejects a posteriori knowledge of analytical statements. If something is true by definition we do not need to rely on experience to verify it.
I think that makes it clearer to me what the definitions are of these types of knowledge.
But for now I'll carry on reading. With my next blog post to be about The Romantic movement, Rousseau, Kant and Cobbett.
If you can give me any more detail about a priori knowledge please do!