Reply #82: Semiotics makes this interesting. [View All]

[Selwynn]

The only place I can ever even see a priori possibility is in things we consider tautologies, logical constants.

The interesting thing is, 2+2+=4 can be - probably should be I think - seen as representational signs, what we are really doing is using "sign" language to represent a empirically perceived reality. This still doesn't get us to absolute certainty that our entire representation or sign or what we perceive isn't distorted in some way. We also know that many of the things human beings at one point considered logical absolutes have been called into question in modern times. For example, the "laws" of the macro world, fall apart at the quantum level, where things do not play by the "rules" we assumed were absolute, well.. a priori, just brute facts. But guess what, those assumptions have been called into question.

How then, can we ever be certain about any of our assumptions?

I would submit to you that an even more challenging obstacle for skeptic would be to try to argue against the claim, "I know a square cannot be a circle." Because now you're talking about logical contradictions and, unless you want to break out some Derrida, its extremely difficult to even try to think of a possible world in which squares can be circles, etc.

Still though, where this all gets really fascinating to me is when it comes to thinking about even logical contradictions in terms of language and signs. A "circle" is what if not a construct, a representational word/sign for a concept....

Bah... this is getting way to in depth for me at this time of night. Now I'm thinking about how much I want to talk about a priori concepts in general, is there really something known prior to experience of it? I don't think so, but that's way too big of a discussion for now. :)