Do (any) philosophers question how there can be a priori truths about a changing world -- has anyone worried whether this is possible, or if those different modes, of timeless truth and contingent existence, are in some way irresolvable?

I'm asking cos I wondered whether something like geometry can be known to apply to shapes coming into and out of existence. What sort of ways, if at all, have philosophers challenged the potentiality of a priori truth about contingent events?

I would have thought that any succesful challenge to them, and so I think geometry, would then mean that extension is a fiction, so that occurences in time and space (tokens) are ideal (whether or not that disposes of all physicalisms).

  • apologies if this has come up -- but the question seems like one with broad interest – anon Apr 3 '17 at 13:43
  • 1
    You appear to be using a priori and necessary as synonymous. For the purposes of your question, can you pick one? (perhaps necessity unless you want to tangle this very tightly with Kant and/or kripke) – virmaior Apr 3 '17 at 13:57
  • @virmaior i'm not, i'm just calling geometry a priori. i'm particularly interested in geometry, and will edit the question to reflect that -- thans – anon Apr 3 '17 at 14:00
  • in body: So especially any problems with there being apriori truth about contingent events. in title: Do (any) philosophers worry if there can be necessary truths about a changing world? / are these sentences supposed to express something similar or am I misreading them? – virmaior Apr 3 '17 at 14:02
  • @virmaior like i said, i'm assuming geometry is a priori – anon Apr 3 '17 at 14:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.