A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE Not all human knowledge springs from education and experience. The most fundamental knowledge is innate. Such knowledge we call "a priori". An a priori fact is one which is axiomatic; that is to say, it is self-evident and its contradiction appears an absurdity. An a priori datum is not open to analysis cannot be reduced to constituent parts and cannot be proven. An example of an a priori fact is that a man makes choices. Said in another way; a man prefers some things to other things. Or we may say; no man is neutral in regard to all things or circumstances. These have been three ways to state the same fact. But, they are not descrip- tions, they are not analyses. The datum that man chooses is complete and irreducible. Nor can the fact that man chooses be proven. Some people might wish to contradict this. They would contend that the very fact that men do choose everyday is proof enough. But, what these people fail to understand is that the idea of choosing is that by which we interpret certain of man's behaviors. There is no possibility of a test to prove that man chooses. If we offer a man any one of several items, none of which he is indifferent to, and upon this offer, he selects one, we have proven nothing. We saw his hand extend and grasp an item, and draw it back. We say he chose one. But, the stimulous-response psychologist will interpret the event differently. He will say that the man behaved as a puppet to stimuli. He did as he must, and could do no other. Choosing is out of the question, the man could not help himself. (Whether the psychol- logist actually conducts his affairs based on this interpretation is another question.) The point is that everyone has certain ideas by which he makes sense out of what would otherwise be a meaningless Kaleidoscopic world. And some of these ideas are universally held. Those universal ideas which are innate are termed "a priori". Another example of an a priori fact is that the ego The "self" exists. From the standpoint of an individual, an equivalent state - ment is, "I am". This too is self evident and not open to proof. de Carte was wrong when he asserted, "I [ think therefore I am". Implied in his "I think" were the logically prior cognitions of this own existance, that he was a creative agent, and that the thoughts he detected were his own. His statement did not prove his existance. There are people who claim that man's knowledge derives only from experience and education. Many fine intellectuals have erred in this