In Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason he is trying to investigate the origin of human knowledge, which is done by an examination of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Along with examining a priori and a posteriori knowledge he states that each type of knowledge is acquired through a faculty. A priori knowledge is obtained by cognitive faculty (analytic) and a posteriori knowledge is obtained by sensorial faculty (synthetic).
In Kant’s Of the difference between Pure and Empirical knowledge, he explains the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. “Knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, …show more content…
Math is a prime example of a priori knowledge. For example, “ 4 + 2 = 6” one can see how this is constant and universal. It is a truth that is valid without experience. It cannot be different from person to person like a posterior knowledge can be; it remains constant through all scenarios. It is extremely difficult to be proven false, because we cannot say 4 +2 = 9, that will never be true, no matter who is doing the calculations. Mathematics has a set of rules and concepts behind it that make it a priori knowledge. When Kant discusses the faculties responsible for knowledge this falls into the reasoning or thinking. In his expert he states, “The first faculty is the power of receiving representation, the second is the power of cognizing by means of these representations” (Kant). In the mathematics example we are using the second faculty, cognition. This requires us to think and use the concept of addition in order to arrive at the answer. Kant’s first faculty “power of receiving representation” is based solely on experience and involves the senses, which is known as a posteriori knowledge. An example is, your friend might tell you that you have to try this amazing German chocolate cake and she goes on and on about how it is the best cake in world. You try the cake, and it doesn’t taste good to you, so you conclude you don’t like German chocolate cake and will never eat it again. The experience of trying the cake has given you a posteriori knowledge that you will never eat it again. A posteriori knowledge is not constant to everyone like a priori knowledge is, and we can see that with the mathematic and cake examples, one requires cognition the other requires
In Kant’s Of the difference between Pure and Empirical knowledge, he explains the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. “Knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, …show more content…
Math is a prime example of a priori knowledge. For example, “ 4 + 2 = 6” one can see how this is constant and universal. It is a truth that is valid without experience. It cannot be different from person to person like a posterior knowledge can be; it remains constant through all scenarios. It is extremely difficult to be proven false, because we cannot say 4 +2 = 9, that will never be true, no matter who is doing the calculations. Mathematics has a set of rules and concepts behind it that make it a priori knowledge. When Kant discusses the faculties responsible for knowledge this falls into the reasoning or thinking. In his expert he states, “The first faculty is the power of receiving representation, the second is the power of cognizing by means of these representations” (Kant). In the mathematics example we are using the second faculty, cognition. This requires us to think and use the concept of addition in order to arrive at the answer. Kant’s first faculty “power of receiving representation” is based solely on experience and involves the senses, which is known as a posteriori knowledge. An example is, your friend might tell you that you have to try this amazing German chocolate cake and she goes on and on about how it is the best cake in world. You try the cake, and it doesn’t taste good to you, so you conclude you don’t like German chocolate cake and will never eat it again. The experience of trying the cake has given you a posteriori knowledge that you will never eat it again. A posteriori knowledge is not constant to everyone like a priori knowledge is, and we can see that with the mathematic and cake examples, one requires cognition the other requires