[hist-analytic] Frederick's conception of the A Priori
Roger Bishop Jones
rbj at rbjones.com
Sun Apr 12 16:23:12 EDT 2009
On Sunday 05 April 2009 17:12:20 Danny Frederick wrote:
>I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood most of what I said.
Thankyou for the various clarifications which you have
offered, which might possibly have improved my understanding
of your position.
I shall briefly state my present (mis)understanding of
your stand in relation to the position I intend to articulate
in my proposed monograph in relation to the
a priori/a posteriori distinction.
My position hinges on the use of the terms a priori and
a posteriori to classify, in the first instance, justifications,
and then derivatively, propositions.
You reject my proposal because your usage in epistemic
contexts of the term justification entails that there are
The fact that my usage of the term justification, even
in epistemic contexts, is clearly distinct from yours
(regardless of whether either of us thinks our usage is
other than normal), places you in the position of rejecting
my proposal, not on the basis of what I intend the proposal to be,
but rather, on the basis of what you believe it says,
contrary to my intentions.
Thus we remain at cross purposes.
You reject a proposal I never intended to make.
I know no reasonably way of expressing my proposal that you
are likely to be willing to understand.
I suppose we are not quite at cross purposes on epistemic use
of the word justification.
The position I posted was very brief and did not include
an account of what I meant by "justification", which I will
now certainly include. Presumably this will be a proposal
for usage which you will reject.
I guess we also disagree on the following point concerning
the methods of philosophy.
I think it desirable to use terms in whatever way seems
to me best in articulating my philosophical position.
I suspect that you would deny that I should exercise
More information about the hist-analytic