According to Kant, "4 is greater than 3" is a priori,

>>9935912

I see the name "Kant" and I want to jump off a bridge

Korsgaard was one of my professors in college. I did well in her class but we never did get that deep down the rabbit hole

>>9935912
I am not an expert, but I think the way you have addressed 4>3 is correct as it ultimately would be a posteriori, or an impure a priori. Still, this does not discredit all a priori as tautologies, such as 1=1, or 'all bachelors are single' remain true and pure.

Any recommends on attacks against the a proriri?

File: IMG_0013.jpg (89KB, 677x541px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 677x541px

>>9935912
u tryin to refute aspects of kant's texts boi? maybe you should slow your fuckin roll. you're clearly mixing up deontological a posteori with the impurities of reason.

>>9935912
I hate it when philosophers try to casually implement numerics/mathematics into their work. It occupies a completely different part of the brain than language or moral reasoning, so why the fuck do they try to equate the processes. Just seems like lazy "proof" to me.

>>9935912
No expert (and I hate Kant), but from the littles I could get from what I read (the few I had) and what I watched and heared in college (the few I done), the logic that follow is that the human being is rational and can understand that 4>3 by simply looking at. Problem is, the symbols we use for numbers are learned, and arent natural.
Let's say that you are a have some sheep, and you counting the sheep. Even if you have no prior understanding of mathematics you will have a visual representation right before you, that is, your sheeps.
You may dont know what is 1, 2 or 3, but you know by experience that 3 sheeps take more space and behave differently than 2. And now talking, that "you know by experience" is the wrong expression, you natural feels it to be wrong*.
But let me tell you what I know a bit from my college classes now: I am learning how intelegence evolves and from what I learned, is that they younger you are, they harder is for you to understand abstract concepts (aka, math, other people, etc); your first connection to they world is more "material" based (this isent they term we use in classes, but fuck it, idk they right way to speak), while we grow older it gets more abstract.

Kant seens to go with the logic tha you dont need experience to understand that 4>3 because you naturaly understand this, although you understanding there symbols is completely empirical.
I am no expert, but maybe some anon who is in philosophy college or had gone through can better tell you and correct me if I am wrong (with I may well be because I fucking hate Kant).

>>9935978
>>9936015
I wonder how this mathematical proof applies to Tribesmen who can only count 1, 2, many; and whom, despite training from researchers, cannot come to understand 3,4,5.etc

Also >>9936015
Are you just talking about Piaget in regards to brain development, or do you have more juicy recs?

>>9935912
Honestly who gives a fuck. I read 300pages of the Critique of Pure Reason with secondary sources and already forgot most of it because it is irrelevant to my life

>>9936085
wait, what? so that shit in Watership Down where the rabbits cant understand anything between 1000 and infinity is based on bushpeople?

>>9935941
Hello fellow Harvardian. What brings you to this degenerate shithole of a website?

>>9936085
Well if you want to develop a theory regarding counting you must go to the very nature of men, with is animalistic and isent as sarcastic to think as a form of tribalism.

My classes of education psycologhy are using Piaget, Wallon and Vygotsky as basis for it.
I dont know the exact technical terms, but I do have the feeling that I do get the point of the classes, even tho I score only average in them.
It fucking sucks these classes, they are boring, tho I liked a little Vygothisk approuch.
PS: fuck wallon.

Woah you must be smarter than Kant dude.

Bruh, he says on the first page of CPR that of course all knowledge begins with experience but not all knowledge derives from it.

Holy shit why do I come here

>>9935912
>But even reason is derived from experience, same with language to express that statement.

Now read Derrida!

>>9936127

Whoa, you too? You never leave this place, I swear.

>>9935912
An untought (no language) deaf mute would be able to differentiate between 3 and 4 trees. You don't need reason or language for that.

>>9935912
how does he get up there?

woah

Is it a priori, to a posteriori before you a priori?
Everything you are begins with a priori.
The "outside world" is a posteriori. But you only know it through imperfect means.

The only true a posteriori that exist, is: Cogito ergo sum.

>>9936674
And math ofc, but math is abstract, abstract things aren't "real real".
They're pointless in actuality.
I guess this thread and everything is "pointless in actuality".
>Oh no,
>who are you?
>I AM SCHOPENHAUER
>noooooooo
>NOT EXISTENTIALISM
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>9936674
False

>>9936085
>I wonder how this mathematical proof applies to Tribesmen who can only count 1, 2, many; and whom, despite training from researchers, cannot come to understand 3,4,5.etc
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/aboriginal

>>9936688
Oh yes.
Reverse my use of a priori and a posteriori.
Everything is a posteriori except existence and abstract concepts, whatever that is.

>Phew I manage to hide from existentialism, how Absurd :^)

>>9936586
The deaf mute might measure trees in terms of approximate volume of wood rather than counting them numerically.

>>9935912
People talk about philosophy of mathemathics as if they were first graders who only know arithmethics. 4 > 3 is an a priori mathematical relation because, being so simple, anyone can reinvent it. A child can see two groups of apples, analyze them and give them symbols for communication.

What about the numbers 4.65 - 5i and - 5 + 4.65i ? Is the relation between them a priori too?

>>9936674
uses words learned through experience

the a postermoriori is inexpressible

and what can cannot be spoken

we must passover in silence like the good ch*stains we are

praise god

///

but for real, intellectuaizing one's lived experience in the way of the solipsist le it's all relative to ME AND MY EGO (--praise stirner--) is fucking retard patrol. we are always already within a world that we pre-thereorectally understand as us (asses) *inhabiting*, it's a lived space external to our bodies

you ca't just deny this funamental way in which we inhabit this lived through environemnt

because when you do GUESS WHAT HAPPENS:

SOLIPSISM
IDEALISM
NOUMEA

read the first three letters cunt!

fucking praise god, bathe in his light you fucking heathens. HELL- A - FUCKING - UGULA

yeah and one last thing your moms a bitch cunt white nigger like iggy with a fat posteriori, get to the pews, squirt

>>9936713
>that link
/thread

>>9936085
>I wonder how this mathematical proof applies to Tribesmen who can only count 1, 2, many; and whom, despite training from researchers, cannot come to understand 3,4,5.etc
>that fucking meme again
I bet you also think eskimos have like 100 words for "snow", don't you?

>>9936772
>Is the relation between them a priori too?
no
what then?

>>9936764
>instead of using natural numbers they might just make an entire system of units and measurements

>>9936789
Then there is no a priori in mathemathics (at least).

>>9936847
wut? only the naturals are natural, mate

>>9936847
Indeed. Even the base structure is agreed upon.
>Axiom
>Rules derived from axiom
>Presupposition
>Proposition
>Proof

>>9935978
It is irrelevant which "part of the brain" a concept occupies you idiot.

>>9936873
The naturals and their operations are so basic that they're not really mathematics. OP should not be concerning himself with the relation between the abstract entities 4 and 3 but with whether the knowledge that four apples are more than three apples is a priori or not.

>>9936786
>Curiously, although not unprecedentedly,[10] the language has no cardinal or ordinal numbers. Some researchers, such as Prof. Peter Gordon of Columbia University, claim that the Pirahã are incapable of learning numeracy. His colleague, Prof. Daniel L. Everett, on the other hand, argues that the Pirahã are cognitively capable of counting; they simply choose not to do so. They believe that their culture is complete and does not need anything from outside cultures. Everett says, "The crucial thing is that the Pirahã have not borrowed any numbers—and they want to learn to count. They asked me to give them classes in Brazilian numbers, so for eight months I spent an hour every night trying to teach them how to count. And it never got anywhere, except for a few of the children. Some of the children learned to do reasonably well, but as soon as anybody started to perform well, they were sent away from the classes. It was just a fun time to eat popcorn and watch me write things on the board."[5]
-Wikipedia on Piraha people

Even anon's article affirms this 'meme': >>9936713

>>9936772
>>9936789
Yes, their relation would be a prori; just because their relation is difficult does not mean they would not be eternally true. A propri means that it would be true if we worked out without experience. We can get to imaginary numbers using only pure reason. These may not be analytic a priori, but synthetic a priori.

>>9935912
I agree that 3 being greater than four isn't really aposterori, though the general underlying concept I think is.

The way primitive man carved women out of rock. How magical thinking seems to be inherent in our biology. I think that there is "something greater" is a priori.