Does all knowledge come from experience? I f not where does it come from? If so, how do you explain our knowledge of necessary truths?

Introduction

Knowledge is defined as being justified true belief. There is little consensus in the philosophical world as to whether, as it is typical for Empiricists to believe, knowledge comes purely experience or, as is the typical Rationalist line of thought, some of the knowledge we have is gained a priori. In this essay I will first establish that our knowledge of analytic truths is known a priori, which most Empiricists and Rationalists alike agree upon. I shall then argue that all synthetic knowledge is gained a posteriori, through experience. I will then finally show how this idea is consistent with our knowledge of necessary truths.

Analytic Knowledge

Analytic knowledge have their truth contained in the meaning of the words themselves for example the statement all vixens are females is true because of the meaning of the word vixen; female fox. Knowledge of the analytic does not come from experience unlike synthetic knowledge as it instead comes from the words themselves not their relation to the outside world; vixens and females could not exist in the outside world yet the above statement would still be true.

However some philosophers, most notably Quine, disagree about the analytic/synthetic distinction. Instead Quine argues that many beliefs that are considered to be analytic beliefs actually rely on the specific situation and therefore the outside world, hence are actually synthetic not analytic. Specifically we can construct counterexamples for which the analytic truth can be shown to be false. For example the analytic statement frozen water is ice is true because of the definition of ice however frozen water vapour in the atmosphere though it fits this definition of ice arguably is not not ice as it is not solid...

... middle of paper ...

...edge. Though this system exists a priori it is simply what makes human being rational animals not an actual type of knowledge. Therefore all synthetic knowledge is gained a posteriori, through experience.

Conclusion

In this essay I have established a number of things. First that analytic truths and synthetic truths are distinct from one another through the disproving of counterexamples given by Quince. Next that though analytic truths can be known a priori synthetic knowledge can only be known a posteriori in part using the ideas of the the Empiricist Hume. Finally I showed how the theory of purely a posteriori synthetic knowledge is in fact consistent with the knowledge of necessary truths by establishing logical laws as not being knowledge but instead a structure with which we gain knowledge and the other widely held necessary truths as in fact being a posteriori.