Why do you say it wasn't called 'a priori' knowledge? No one is trying to hide their advocacy of a priori knowledge. And just because you point out that this is a reference to a priori knowledge does not refute the argument. You are begging the question here. As far as Kant trying to prove logic invalid, too bad for him. But that is not an argument against a priori knowledge either.
This word [faith] ceases to have any meaning. A concept is only as valuable as that which it represents, it denotes, and if a concept's definition becomes so muddy that it can mean anything anybody wants it to, then it means nothing. And no communication is possible.
I agree. That's why I posted a definition of the word in post 965. I'm willing to negotiate.
Go watch the Miracle Worker, or watch it again, and ask yourself why Helen Keller, with any 'a priori' knowledge she may have had, will all the sensory experience she had, with all the prayers in the world, with whatever you think is an a prior axiom to sensory experience, she remained an animal until she got that first concept stuffed in her head that represented a sensory experience. And she could only get that concept through sensory experience. It only took one, but once she had that, she could gain all the others. Refutes Kant, refutes Robbins, refutes you.
She had plenty of sensory experiences already stuffed in her head, as you noted. What is this "first concept" you are referring to? What do you mean by a representation of a sensory experience? Is that a memory, an abstraction, what? And what was the mental process she went through to distinguish it from the sensory experiences she had to date? Oh, but I forgot, there was no mental process (tabula rasa-remember?) until the first concept. What was so magical about the particular sensory experience that kick started her mind? Was it a gift from the god of sensory perception?
The devil is in the details. Roll it back into the shop, the engine won't start.
Why do you say it wasn't called 'a priori' knowledge? No one is trying to hide their advocacy of a priori knowledge. And just because you point out that this is a reference to a priori knowledge does not refute the argument. You are begging the question here. As far as Kant trying to prove logic invalid, too bad for him. But that is not an argument against a priori knowledge either.
This is why I’m starting to get tired of this discussion. I lay a whole bunch of stuff out there and you guys just say, ‘well, that’s not true’ without giving anything to back up your argument that can be analyzed for validity. I used Kant because Kant made the best argument for a priori which I can, and have, shown is based upon a non-sequitur. I agree. That's why I posted a definition of the word in. I'm willing to negotiate.
When people redefine words that already have a common and agreed upon definition it is usually because their arguments will not hold up under the common one. I see no reason to modify the old one. Call this, faithiness or something else to distinguish it from the common definition. She had plenty of sensory experiences already stuffed in her head, as you noted. What is this "first concept" you are referring to? What do you mean by a representation of a sensory experience? Is that a memory, an abstraction, what? And what was the mental process she went through to distinguish it from the sensory experiences she had to date? Oh, but I forgot, there was no mental process (tabula rasa-remember?) until the first concept. What was so magical about the particular sensory experience that kick started her mind? Was it a gift from the god of sensory perception?
The mental process was identifying the symbol as representing the concrete experience. The ’tabula rasa’ is at the point of birth, maybe a little earlier. You, as Robbins, misunderstand here. Understanding the first concept gave her the ability to associate other experiences with concepts. The world ceased to be a chaotic flow and became understandable.