Are a priori arguments inevitable?

by phil on Friday May 2, 2003 11:03 AM
Sartre, a priori introduction, existentialism, free will debate

Are a priori arguments inevitable? Can man exist without something that he holds onto just because. Not because of his own instinct, but, is holding up something a priori an aspect or proof of man's free will? Is the idea that someone will accept Christianity on faith alone, and not because it is right, is that the essence of man? Is man all faith and nothing else? Even as non-religious as Nietzsche was, he always made sure to balance his book by poking at philosophers who had a faith in truth. His criticism was also in the idea that as much truth as the philosophers claimed to have had, they always introduced something a priori somewhere. For Sartre, it's authenticity. For Nietzsche, it's certainty. For Christian's, it's strength of faith. For Mother Teresa, it's the power of love.

The only thing that can be devoid of a priori introductions is math. Unfortunately nobody has a good philosophy that is based completely in mathematical Tautologies. This is why I attempted the formation of the Tautrix. However, a true Tautrix would be irrelevant to man's condition because we don't think in abstract tautologies, we think in terms of emotions, automatic responses, intuition, etc.

It's almost like a priori introductions ARE man. Sartre's Existentialism illustrates this point very well. It is true, we invent what is now to be man. Our action determines what, to us, is real, what is right, and we change all the time. We make everything up. Conjecture is the rule, not the exception.