more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Transcendental arguments ran: "If it weren't that P, we couldn't know (now 'say' or 'think' or 'judge') that Q; and we do know (now…) that Q; therefore P". Old and new arguments tend to be equally unconvincing, because of their empiricist preconceptions.
Gist of Idea
Transcendental arguments move from knowing Q to knowing P because it depends on Q
Source
Jerry A. Fodor (In a Critical Condition [2000], Ch. 3)
Book Ref
Fodor,Jerry A.: 'In Critical Condition' [MIT 2000], p.27
22274 | 'Transcendent' is beyond experience, and 'transcendental' is concealed within experience [Kant, by Potter] |
5577 | Transcendental ideas require unity of the subject, conditions of appearance, and objects of thought [Kant] |
23696 | Transcendental cognition is that a priori thought which shows how the a priori is applicable or possible [Kant] |
2470 | Transcendental arguments move from knowing Q to knowing P because it depends on Q [Fodor] |
21443 | Transcendental proofs derive necessities from possibilities (e.g. possibility of experiencing objects) [Gardner] |