Talk:Transcendental arguments

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic

Importance Level[edit]

It's good not to make ideological assessments about the importance level. These arguments have been widely used, even if you think they shouldn't be. Examples of philosophers using these arguments: Kant, almost all German Idealists (Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, etc.), Husserl (in Meditations), Strawson (Bounds of Reason), Davidson (The conditions of thought), Putnam ("Brains in the Vat"), Kripke (in his work on Wittgenstein; at least according to Rorty), Chris Peacocke (Transcendental arguments in the theory of content), Korsgaard (The sources of normativity), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDDC:7040:507:526E:27F1:31D2 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is this an adequate quotation?[edit]

In my opinion this:

"Not all use of transcdental arguments are intended to counter skepticism, however. The Dutch philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd [7], used transcendental critique to establish the conditions that make a theoretical attitude of thought (not just the process of thinking, as in Kant) possible. In particular, he showed that theoretical thought can never be neutral but is always, necessarily based on presuppositions that are religious in nature."

does not belong in an encyclopedia article about transcendental arguments. Either other (more) relevant examples are added, or this one is removed. Moreover, it presents the claim made by the philosopher as if it was conclusively demonstrated as true, which is not the case, and which is particularly bizzarre in an article devoted to transcendental arguments, which, in their more typical meaning, are precisely the way of building a rational ground in the absence of revealed religious/metaphysical truths.

source[edit]

There is an excellent article by Charles Taylor on Hegel's "Phenomenology of Mind" in a volume edited by Alisdair MacIntyre that discusses transcendental arguments at some length. The article discusses such arguments in a general sense in order to prepare his attempt to clarify an important argument in Hegel's work as a transcendental argument. I don't have time now, but if others do they can look it up, otherwise, I will try to do so later. It also discusses the history of such arguments in both "contintental" and "analytic" traditions. --Jabot the Scrob 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as C20th analytic philosophy is concerned, Strawson and Stroud deserve mention. Stroud is particularly clear in explaining the basic reasoning involved, and the problems that typically arise. There was a good collection of essays published a few years ago, (ed. R. Stern) which although fairly technical, is excellent. I don't have much time now but will look to write something in the near future. Willg1000 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that more space is given to criticisms to transcendental arguments than to the explanation of what is the point of the discussion. Better to have a clear example of a T.A. - and AFTER that we may have a critical discussion of it.