Posted: Jun 01, 2011 6:57 pm
Cito di Pense wrote:
I don't do philosophy, Sweenith. I just recognise it when it comes my way. I don't say that postulating a priori knowledge entails anything except an assertion blown out of some philosopher's arse.
A priori knowledge is a postulate, and postulates are not a priori knowledge. They're just postulates.
I don't know why somebody would traffic in necessary truths unless he wanted to assume his conclusions.
Hmm well if a priori knowledge is a postulate and a postulate is not a priori knowledge, that would mean that a priori knowledge is not a priori knowledge. so that can't be right.
'trafficing in' already makes it sound like the guy is being dishonest. But there's nothing sinister about necessary truths, we use them all the time (mathematical statements for instance). A necessary truth is just one that couldn't have failed to be true (e.g., that 2 and 2 make 4, that water is H20, etc.)