A priori knowledge (knowledge that is independent of empirical justification) has been a topic of controversy throughout the history of philosophy. Rationalists (Descartes, Leibniz, Kant) defended the very idea of the a priori and used it as a foundation in their theory of knowledge. Empiricists (Locke, Hume, Mill), in contrast, rejected the possibility of such knowledge and any conception that relied on it. The topic of a priori knowledge became again very prominent in the 1950's with Quine's landmark paper"Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and his rejection of a priori knowledge which has influenced the debate ever since.
In this course we will approach the very idea of a priori knowledge from a historic background. You will cover the classic conceptions and rejections of the a priori and work towards the most recent attempts to define and defend, as well as, undermine and reject, a priori knowledge. During the course our guiding questions will be (a) is there a priori knowledge, (b) if so, what exactly is the distinction between a priori and a posterior knowledge, and (c) what is the value of this specific category of knowledge especially in relation to our philosophical methodology.
Core Text
TBA
| Pritchard, D H | What is this Thing Called Knowledge? | (Routledge 2006) |
| Steup, M | 'Knowledge, Analysis of' | Stanford Encyclopoedia of Philosophy |
| Klein P | 'Skepticism' | Stanford Encyclopoedia of Philosophy |
If you would like to know more about this module please contact Tom Cunningham.