Chicken or Egg? Something always has to come first.

The discussion this week concerning the differences between a priori and a posteriori has left me with a lot of food for thought. In my opinion, a priori knowledge hardly exists beyond the presence of instincts, such as the necessity of breathing. The common example of a priori knowledge is that “all unmarried men are bachelors”. However, to truly understand this statement, one still had to learn the definition of a bachelor, not to mention the definitions of the other words in the statement. That is the main flaw in the theory of a priori knowledge: all language must be learned, and no idea can be either expressed or understood without language. Following this line of reasoning, all knowledge must be learned, or a posteriori. True a priori knowledge must arise completely in and of itself, which, short of the Big Bang Theory or the infinite existence of some higher power (neither of which can be proven), is not possible, for all things, including ideas, have to be produced from elsewhere.