Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori

This thesis studies whether there is a tenable distinction between a priori justification and a posteriori justification. My research considers three possible conceptions of a priori: (1) Justification Independent of Experience, (2) Mere Meaning Based Justification and (3) Justification by Rational...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: CHAN, Hiu Man
Format: Others
Language:en
Published: Digital Commons @ Lingnan University 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:https://commons.ln.edu.hk/philo_etd/10
https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=philo_etd
id ndltd-ln.edu.hk-oai-commons.ln.edu.hk-philo_etd-1009
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-ln.edu.hk-oai-commons.ln.edu.hk-philo_etd-10092019-11-02T15:16:51Z Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori CHAN, Hiu Man This thesis studies whether there is a tenable distinction between a priori justification and a posteriori justification. My research considers three possible conceptions of a priori: (1) Justification Independent of Experience, (2) Mere Meaning Based Justification and (3) Justification by Rational Insight, and examines whether they can provide a sound and significant distinction between a priori and a posteriori. This thesis contains five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the background knowledge of the a priori/a posteriori distinction. Chapter 2 analyzes the traditional conception of a priori, i.e. justification independent of experience, and considers whether the distinction based on it is tenable. Five approaches for defining “experience” are examined, but none of them succeed in providing a distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Chapter 3 focuses on the empiricist conception of the a priori, i.e. a priori as mere meaning based justification, and argues that the distinction based on it has a problem of classification. Chapter 4 concerns the rationalist conception of the a priori, i.e. a priori as justification by rational insight, and argues that neither the idea of justification by rational insight itself nor the distinctive features of rational insight could provide a distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Given that none of the current major accounts seem to work, we should not be optimistic about the potential for success in accounting for the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. In the last chapter, I will conclude the thesis and point out the implication of abandoning the a priori/a posteriori distinction: a need to reform our understanding of the nature of different sources of justification and knowledge. 2014-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://commons.ln.edu.hk/philo_etd/10 https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=philo_etd Theses & Dissertations en Digital Commons @ Lingnan University Philosophy
collection NDLTD
language en
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Philosophy
spellingShingle Philosophy
CHAN, Hiu Man
Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori
description This thesis studies whether there is a tenable distinction between a priori justification and a posteriori justification. My research considers three possible conceptions of a priori: (1) Justification Independent of Experience, (2) Mere Meaning Based Justification and (3) Justification by Rational Insight, and examines whether they can provide a sound and significant distinction between a priori and a posteriori. This thesis contains five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the background knowledge of the a priori/a posteriori distinction. Chapter 2 analyzes the traditional conception of a priori, i.e. justification independent of experience, and considers whether the distinction based on it is tenable. Five approaches for defining “experience” are examined, but none of them succeed in providing a distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Chapter 3 focuses on the empiricist conception of the a priori, i.e. a priori as mere meaning based justification, and argues that the distinction based on it has a problem of classification. Chapter 4 concerns the rationalist conception of the a priori, i.e. a priori as justification by rational insight, and argues that neither the idea of justification by rational insight itself nor the distinctive features of rational insight could provide a distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Given that none of the current major accounts seem to work, we should not be optimistic about the potential for success in accounting for the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. In the last chapter, I will conclude the thesis and point out the implication of abandoning the a priori/a posteriori distinction: a need to reform our understanding of the nature of different sources of justification and knowledge.
author CHAN, Hiu Man
author_facet CHAN, Hiu Man
author_sort CHAN, Hiu Man
title Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori
title_short Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori
title_full Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori
title_fullStr Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori
title_full_unstemmed Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori
title_sort is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori
publisher Digital Commons @ Lingnan University
publishDate 2014
url https://commons.ln.edu.hk/philo_etd/10
https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=philo_etd
work_keys_str_mv AT chanhiuman isthereadistinctionbetweenaprioriandaposteriori
_version_ 1719285834933338112