.nietzsche once wrote: imagine the uncomfortable position, of having to speak for the whole of humanity... that's what i think of, in terms ever bothering to read an English philosopher; after reading Leviathan by Hobbes, i was so put off by English thought, that i became a recluse among the Germans... i still can't explain why i dislike English philosophy, but then again, i do: it's so... so... politicized! all of English philosophy is endeared by its culmination in Darwin, that... i rather look at an individual, rather than the entire schematic stratum of society, of human organization... if an individual can organize himself to fit an already rigid social structure, a seemingly predetermined social structural "pathos"... i don't think i will ever be convinced.

Kant among the ancients Greeks...
it's a simple schematic:

    a priori (prior)                    a posteriori (after)
the skeptic,                                  the stoic,
the cynic,                                      the Epicurean...

sometimes... language requires
a momentary borrowing from the simple
abstract of mathematics -
well, arithmetic...
                                 2 x 2 = 4...
the cynic's inclination to believe...
can only have an a priori ontological
orientation, leading up to experience...
hence the a posteriori realm...
wasn't Descartes the prime
example of skepticism?
                     cynicism is skepticism
whereby an inclination to believe
is replaced with a determination to doubt...

now the divide...
knowledge...
                a priori there is no knowledge
to be spoken of lightly...
instead... there's intuition...
or... der instinkt... hey, i still don't
know which definite article is
required for a certain expression in
German... it could also be das instinkt
or die instinkt... never mind...

i settled on this Kantian backwards
and forwards for some "strange" reason...
well... it's niche...
   and doesn't attract mobs...
it's not the sort of "problem" you'd
really see in life,
other than in the leisure time
you could ascribe to periods of prolonged
thinking, or not thinking,
reflecting, rather than itemizing
thought: as an insatiable reflex of
consciousness...
  that dreaded persistence of narration...
bundled together with
empirical bombardment via
the senses...

hence i lean toward stoicism and toward
the Epicurean side of things...
needless to say...
if i can know anything, anything at all...
it cannot exactly come from...
oh wait... yeah... knowledge
does exist a priori,
simply put: history repeats itself...
so you can learn from the past...
****...
                     well, the statement was
about to become hyperbolic anyway...
point being: that knowledge is
of a collectivist nature...
  to my understanding at least...
to generalities,
to succumbing to other people's
"realities"...
                        a pseudo-universal
knowledge of...
  but even if that is so...
having knowledge of the past /
a priori, from what came prior...
implies that you can't have knowledge
of the future!
you can have speculation,
you can take to gambling,
you can guess...
             and you can also hope (for the best)...
but...
a priori knowledge is exclusive
with regards to a posteriori knowledge,
they're not mutually inclusive,
they're mutually exclusive...
oddly enough, this is not a paradox,
but the ontology of... zeit-wissen...
time-knowledge...
                       space... oddly enough,
without being attached to time in
a relativism is... a bit like photographic
memory... when orientating yourself
in a new city, for the weekend...
tall buildings as compass pivots...
yet knowledge a priori
       (instinct, intuition,
    "knowing" how to throw a ball
a certain way
   cannot translate into a posteriori
knowledge through... whatever it is
that allows to make the transition...
instinct and intuition are prone
to the fault of mortality...
i.e. an aging baseball player will not
throw the same ball 30 years apart,
a priori "knowledge" is mostly
associated with a gift...
an inheritance, such knowledge is
nothing more than an inheritance...
   it's an ontological phenomenon per se,
but the knowledge isn't learned
as such... it it inherent, inherent,
   particular to the instance of its expression,
and unlike the a priori knowledge
of the expression: history repeats itself,
we can learn from the past...
it is unique, particular, not universally
viable, it's not collectivist...

a posteriori knowledge... well...
trial & error...
   empiricism...
              with no knowledge prior,
having some sort of empirical experience
provides a mostly new knowledge,
all of science is tinged
with an a posteriori methodology...
it is accumulative knowledge,
on the collective sense...
on the individual grounding...
wisdom...
        to not repeat the same mistakes
twice, which then, "magically"
is supported by cynicism...
    once a person has grasped a glimpse
of human nature,
   and concludes that self-interest
is the prime motivation...
he learns to respect his fellow beings...
in that, said trust...
is a cautionary standard for further
interactions...

all in all...
        a priori knowledge cannot
peer into a posteriori knowledge...
   on a personal level,
  a mere hyphen helps...
i.e.
             a priori can only peer
   into a- posteriori realm;
i.e. (a-) without an after...
  while, likewise,
   a posteriori can only peer into
a- priori realm,
  i.e. (a-) without a prior...
why?
well in the first instance,
whatever was known prior...
is what is known without an after...
likewise in the second instance,
whatever is known after,
has already discredited what was known
prior...

a posteriori knowledge is accumulative,
but it is also erasive in nature...
i.e. it erases preconceptions,
   and all that is a priori...

a priori knowledge is inherent,
but it is also tied, subtly with empiricism,
in that... if thinking was a sense,
a sense of sight... e.g.
   then we would call thinking:
intuition, instinct...
or rather the absence of thought,
and a synchronicity of all the senses...
given that the existence of thought:
cannot be categorized by
the synchronicity of all our five senses,
at the same time...
   the existence of thought is
predicated on 5 - 1 = 4...
at least one sense needs to be absent
from what the remaining senses
synchronize...
i.e.
        i see this text, i hear this music
(chant of the templars),
       i feel this keyboard and the clothes
on me...
but... i can't exactly smell anything
specific,
    or taste anything specific either...
saliva like water... doesn't exactly
have a taste;
ergo: i can think of something akin to this.