# Grammar question: A priori

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-a-priori/226673>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [January 30, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-a-priori/226673 "2004-01-30T00:58:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Linty\_Fresh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Linty\_Fresh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linty_Fresh)\
**Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-a-priori/226673/1 "2004-01-30T00:58:27Z")

</div>

I’ve heard this sort of phrase quite a bit lately:

“He rejected _a priori_ the concept that anyone would find him attractive.”

Meaning that he took the fact that no one would find him attractive as a given with no need to prove or disprove it either way.

Now I remember–or think I remember–from reading Kant that _a priori_ refers to statements that are able to be intuited from the statement alone without resorting to sensory experience or other modes of deduction, for instance “The red barn is red.”

Is this a legitimate way to use _a priori_, or has the term been co-opted in the same way “ironic” has come to mean “anything and everything unexpected cropping up in someone’s life?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-a-priori/226673/2 "2004-01-30T02:16:02Z")

</div>

[You are correct.](http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0322349.html)

> [@](#):
>
> valid independently of observation.