Reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
This post follows on from Syllogisms two weeks ago - logical systems by which philosophers try to build coherent arguments. "A Priori" reasoning is any form thinking which relies upon the meaning/definitions of words rather than observations about the world. A Priori knowledge is independent of experience.
Galen Strawson describes A Priori reasoning as an idea “that you can see that is true just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science.” (Sommers)
Examples include “all bachelors are unmarried men” and not “all bachelors are happy”. The obvious advantage of this kind of thinking is that everyone must agree with you because what you are saying is self-evident.
Galen Strawson describes A Priori reasoning as an idea “that you can see that is true just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science.” (Sommers)
Examples include “all bachelors are unmarried men” and not “all bachelors are happy”. The obvious advantage of this kind of thinking is that everyone must agree with you because what you are saying is self-evident.
There is only one major example of this type of argument in relation to the existence of God and that is the Ontological argument - that we know God exists because existence is part of his being (ontos). It was first formulated by St Anselm in the 11th Century in his Proslogion. In this work he argued that, as God is the greatest being that can be conceived and existence in reality is greater than existence only in the mind alone, God must exist in reality.
The Ontological argument, although revived from time to time by various scholars (including Descartes and recent versions by Hartshorne, Plantinga and Malcolm) has never been hugely popular because it is not a very convincing way of proving God - people tend to prefer to base their reasoning on our experience of the world and this is why other arguments such as the Teleological and Cosmological have been more popular since the time of Aquinas.
The Ontological argument, although revived from time to time by various scholars (including Descartes and recent versions by Hartshorne, Plantinga and Malcolm) has never been hugely popular because it is not a very convincing way of proving God - people tend to prefer to base their reasoning on our experience of the world and this is why other arguments such as the Teleological and Cosmological have been more popular since the time of Aquinas.
RSS Feed
