A transcendental argument is a philosophical argument that starts from what a person experiences, and then deduces what must be the case for the person to have that experience.^[1]

Contents 1 Transcendental arguments explained 2 Use of transcendental arguments 3 Kant 4 Criticisms of transcendental arguments 4.1 The skeptics' response 5 References 6 See also

[edit] Transcendental arguments explained

So called progressive transcendental arguments begin with an apparently indubitable and universally accepted statement about people's experiences of the world, and use this to make substantive knowledge-claims about the world, e.g., that it is causally and spatiotemporally related. They start with what is left at the end of the skeptics process of doubting.

Regressive transcendental arguments, on the other hand, begin at the same point as the skeptic, e.g., the fact that we have experience as of a causal and spatiotemporal world, and show that certain notions are implicit in our conceptions of such experience. Regressive transcendental arguments are more conservative in that they do not purport to make substantive ontological claims about the world.

It is controversial whether Kant's own transcendental arguments should be classified as progressive or regressive.^[2]

[edit] Use of transcendental arguments

Transcendental arguments are often used as arguments against skepticism.^[1]

[edit] Kant

Immanuel Kant developed one of philosophy's most famous transcendental arguments in his chapter 'On the Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding' in the Critique of Pure Reason.^[3] Kant attempted to use transcendental arguments to show that our experiences could not be as they are without the existence of, for example, time and space.^[4]

Stephen Palmquist has argued that Kant used a type of argument very similar to a transcendental argument to defend his controversial claim, in Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1793), that all human beings are susceptible to an evil propensity at the outset of their decision making.^[5]

[edit] Criticisms of transcendental arguments

[edit] The skeptics' response

As stated above, one of the main uses of transcendental arguments is to use one thing we can know, the nature of our experiences, to counter skeptics' arguments that we cannot know something about the nature of the world. There are two ways that the skeptic can reject the claim that transcendental arguments give us knowledge of the world; the skeptic can object to the premise of the argument - the claim that we know about the quality of our experiences, or object to claims that we can draw conclusions about the world from the characteristics of those experiences.^[1] First, a skeptic could respond to such transcendental arguments by claiming that the arguer cannot be sure that he is having particular experiences. The claim that a person cannot be sure about the nature of his or her own experiences may initially seem bizarre. However, the very act of thinking about or, even more, describing our experiences in words, involves interpreting them in ways that go beyond so-called 'pure' experience.^[1] Second, skeptics can object to the use of transcendental arguments to draw conclusions about the nature of the world by claiming that even if a person does know the nature of his or her experiences, the person cannot know that the reasoning from these experiences to conclusions about the world is accurate.^[1]

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Transcendental idealism

This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e