transcendental argument


Also found in: Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

transcendental argument

n
(Philosophy) philosophy an argument designed to make explicit the conditions under which a certain kind of knowledge is possible, esp those of Kant
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
(2) In fact, over the last decades there has been a renewed interest in Kant's transcendental argument. (3) In light of contemporary literature, it is clear that studying this dimension of Kant's epistemology is essential for grasping the nature of his entire philosophical project.
In this essay I will follow the first reading of the fact of reason by arguing that it is best understood as the starting point for a transcendental argument for, or deduction of, the validity of practical reason and its moral concepts for cognition.
What is a Transcendental Argument? En Zur Zukunft der Transzendentalphilosophie, Neue Hefte fur Philosophie, 14, 1978, 19-22.
Kant's transcendental argument is the answer to the question of the condition of the possibility of phenomena.
Transcendental idealism is what explains the possibility of sound transcendental arguments. The conclusion of a sound transcendental argument is an item of synthetic a priori knowledge.
As Bhaskar explains, a transcendental argument has the following syllogistic form:
Because the first part of the argument is an analysis of presuppositions, it will be called a transcendental argument. The second part of the argument leads from proposition (9) to proposition (15) using theorems and rules of S5.
In defending Collingwood's conception of metaphysics as a form of transcendental argument, D'Oro is not denying that even for Collingwood presuppositions are deep-seated convictions to which adherents are often emotionally attached.
A transcendental argument has as its starting point a claim that concerns people's experiences or their cognitive states or capacities.
20) positions his thesis on the brink of extreme relativism by noting that: "the transcendental argument to claims of 'necessity' (in this case to the acceptance of the ontology of causal structures, powers, tendencies, and generative mechanisms, etc.) is like all cognitive claims also fallible and corrigible".
I have argued elsewhere for this claim that the only good transcendental argument is a parasitism argument.

Full browser ?