The experience - discovery - of it is a posteriori. Let's say you discover it. But I have not. Not so for me until I experience - discover - it?The argument is a posteriori because thinking has to be experienced. — TheMadFool
You need to put an "is" in there. The "therefore" implies it's analytic a priori, but as it sits, that's begging the question. — tim wood
What I'm surprised with is you agreeing that an observation of thinking has to be made and, in the same breath, saying Descartes' statement is a priori.
I don't see how that's possible? — TheMadFool
Dunno. But categorical statements - propositions, judgments, statements - all contain an implied if not an actual "is." — tim wood
I guess this points toward the topic often debated here over whether the Cartesian duality is identical to the one used by Kant and the other "Idealists." — Valentinus
I will say that it is an a priori epistemological claim. — Jamesk
So you don't believe that a priori is possible then? Because how would any statement be a priori without thinking being involved? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.