more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

---

Single Idea 3696

[filed under theme 13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / d. Rational foundations ]

Full Idea

A proposition will count as being justified a priori as long as no appeal to experience is needed for the proposition to be justified - once it is understood.

Gist of Idea

A priori justification requires understanding but no experience

Source

Laurence Bonjour (In Defence of Pure Reason [1998], §1.2)

Book Ref

Bonjour,Laurence: 'In Defense of Pure Reason' [CUP 1998], p.10

---

A Reaction

Could you 'understand' that a square cannot be circular without appeal to experience? I'm losing faith in the pure a priori.

---

The 15 ideas from 'In Defence of Pure Reason'

3695	Philosophy is a priori if it is anything [Bonjour]

3696	A priori justification requires understanding but no experience [Bonjour]

3697	The concept of possibility is prior to that of necessity [Bonjour]

3698	Indeterminacy of translation is actually indeterminacy of meaning and belief [Bonjour]

3699	The induction problem blocks any attempted proof of physical statements [Bonjour]

3701	Externalist theories of justification don't require believers to have reasons for their beliefs [Bonjour]

3702	Externalism means we have no reason to believe, which is strong scepticism [Bonjour]

3700	Coherence can't be validated by appeal to coherence [Bonjour]

3704	Moderate rationalists believe in fallible a priori justification [Bonjour]

3703	You can't explain away a priori justification as analyticity, and you can't totally give it up [Bonjour]

3651	Perceiving necessary connections is the essence of reasoning [Bonjour]

3706	A priori justification can vary in degree [Bonjour]

3707	Our rules of thought can only be judged by pure rational insight [Bonjour]

3708	All thought represents either properties or indexicals [Bonjour]

3709	Induction must go beyond the evidence, in order to explain why the evidence occurred [Bonjour]