the curse of the a priori

(Nosebleed.)
Background of the study: an april 2007 blogpost

It is innate yet hard to internalize.
It is always there though always left unaffirmed.
For its strength and permanence, we nail it to a place till eternity; but we leave it on its own.

When we'd like to believe that we can always overcome due to a very strong claim (say, this is already tested, proven and progressive - aha, synthetic a priori), I must say that the belief to the stability of anything is not enough.

Who knows, baka naman napapagod rin pala ang a priori. Masisisi mo ba sya? Hindi. A priori is presence - wala iyang sasabihin, andyan lang yan. Ikaw eh, pinako mo.

After all, it is but a mental designation. And who designates? No else but man, who is both culpable of wrong thought and wrong perception. Aha, a priori does not need perception, but who says that it does need attention?

So, KSP pala ang a priori. No, it is the philosopher's choice to think it over. And thinking is an experience, and a lived-one at that. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom -- which includes the love of their self-designated distinctions.

Hay Platon, kasalanan mo ang lahat.