Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A transcendental argument establishing uniformity as constitutive of experience would be demonstrative yet immune to Hume's conceivability objection.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Transcendental arguments prove only what's necessary for *our* experience, not that uniformity is constitutive of experience itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates psychological necessity (what we must assume) with metaphysical necessity (what must actually obtain).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even if uniformity conditions our cognition, this doesn't immunize the argument from Hume's core point: we can still conceive alternatives without logical contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Transcendental arguments identify conditions necessarily presupposed by experience itself, not merely conceivable alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Uniformity is constitutive of experience: without it, sensory data lacks the minimal coherence required for any representation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Hume's conceivability objection fails because conceiving a world without uniformity doesn't show non-uniformity is genuinely possible—only that imagination outpaces rational constraints.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.