Some Kantian terminology:
"A priori" -- a Latin
term (literally, "from what is before") which refers to the kind of
knowledge that does not depend on experience but only on reasoning. A priori knowledge can be discovered without
doing experiments or carrying out observations. For example, we can prove that the sum of the angles of a
triangle is always 180 degrees by reasoning; we do not have to carefully
measure thousands of triangles. Much
mathematical knowledge is clearly of this kind. Kant also thought that certain basic propositions about the
physical world (like "Every event has a cause") and the fundamental
principles of morality could be known a priori.
The opposite term is "a
posteriori (literally, "from what
comes after"). A posteriori
knowledge does depend on experience, observation, etc. We know that water under standard conditions
boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit only because experiments were carried out and
measurements were made.
"Analytic" -- an
analytic judgment is one in which the predicate is 'contained in' the
subject. "All bachelors are
unmarried" is analytic because "unmarried" is part of the definition
of "bachelor." Analytic
judgments are thus, in a sense, uninformative.
They don't tell us anything about the world but only about way we use
certain terms.
The opposite term is
"synthetic." A synthetic
judgment joins (at least) two different concepts. "Bachelors tend to be tidy" is a synthetic judgment
because "tidy" is not part of the definition of "bachelor."
"Apodeictic" --
self-evident
“Empirical” - based on sensory
experience
Questions: At the beginning of the Grounding for
the Metaphysics of Morals (p.7) Kant claims that nothing is “good without
qualification” except a “good will.” He
then discusses a variety of “talents of the mind” and “qualities of
temperament” (including some “unconditionally ... commended by the ancients”),
arguing that none of them is good in itself (without a good will). Suppose this is meant as a criticism of
Aristotle’s ethics. Is it a valid
criticism? How might Aristotle’s view
be defended against this sort of criticism?
Do you think Aristotle would disagree with Kant? (What does Kant mean by a ‘good will’,
anyway?)