In short, would it be a fallacy to presume that rational thinking (as opposed to empirical thinking) leads to the conclusion that all knowledge is innately contained a priori?

In that sense, all knowledge would be 'brought out', or 'activated', by some action of the mind, as has been claimed by Carl Gustav Jung.

  • A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, it applies to arguments, not claims. One can presume something false, but presuming is not a fallacy. An argument that rational thinking entails that all knowledge is innate a priori can be fallacious or not, that would depend on what "rational thinking" is taken to mean (premises) and how that is argued. Although I suspect that if it is not fallacious the premises would have to be rather implausible.
    – Conifold
    Aug 20 at 0:59
  • I see. So, in this example, given that I take "rational thinking" to mean a priori thinking, or innate, as opposed to empirical thinking, in consideration of a definite distinction between the two (rational and empirical thinking), would it follow that all knowledge is contained within the mind, perhaps activated by some mechanism that could involve innate concepts of a priori and a posteriori methods of learning - or is this fallacious? Aug 20 at 13:10
  • If you assume it to entail what you want then it will sure entail it. But the usual meaning of "rational thinking" does not make it innate or a priori. Innateness is not very popular even with many rationalist philosophers (Kant and the like), and there is a lot of ambiguity as to what "a priori" means. Can one be thinking a priori with concepts that can only be acquired empirically, etc.
    – Conifold
    Aug 20 at 19:11

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.