|
A transcendental argument is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates that which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.〔Transcendental-arguments and Scepticism; Answering the Question of Justification (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 2000), pp 3-6.〕〔Strawson, P., Skepticism and Naturalism: Some Varieties, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985) Premise-10.〕 Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments.〔 "Transcendental arguments… have to formulate boundary conditions we can all recognize. Once they are formulated properly, we can see at once that they are valid. The thing is self-evident. But it may be very hard to get to this point, and there may still be dispute… For although a correct formulation will be self-evidently valid, the question may arise whether we have formulated things correctly. This is all the more so since we are moving into an area () that the ordinary practice of life has left unarticulated, an area we look through rather than at." Charles Taylor, "The Validity of Transcendental Arguments", ''Philosophical Arguments'' (Harvard, 1997), 32.〕 ==Transcendental arguments explained== Typically, a transcendental argument starts from some accepted aspect of experience, and then deduces what must be true for that type of experience to be possible. Transcendental arguments are often used as arguments against skepticism, usually about the reality of the external world or other minds.〔 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. An example is used by Kant in his refutation of idealism. Idealists believe that the experience of objects independent of our mind is not legitimate. Briefly, Kant shows that *since idealists acknowledge that we have an inner mental life, and *an inner life of self-awareness is bound up with the concepts of objects which are not inner, and which interact causally, *then we must have legitimate experience of outer objects which interact causally. He has not established that outer objects exist, but only that the concept of them is legitimate, contrary to idealism.〔(The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Transcendental Arguments ), Adrian Bardon section 8, third paragraph.〕〔Stapleford, Scott. Kant’s Transcendental Arguments: Disciplining Pure Reason - Continuum Publishing 2008 (ISBN 978-0-8264-9928-8 - hb)〕 Not all use of transcendental arguments are intended to counter skepticism, however. The Dutch philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd,〔Dooyeweerd, H. 1984 () ''A New Critique of Theoretical Thought'', Paideia Press, Jordan Station, Ontaria CA. See also http://www.dooy.info/tc.html〕 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「transcendental arguments」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|