Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Stroud's objection to transcendental arguments is not lim... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Stroud's objection to transcendental arguments is not limited to the specific cases proposed by Strawson and Shoemaker, but holds broadly across transcendental arguments.

    Modality & PossibilitySkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Stroud's 1968 paper targeted specific arguments by Strawson and Shoemaker, which might suggest his critique is narrow.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In subsequent work, Stroud substantiated his objection in a way that makes it applicable across the board, not merely to those particular cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stroud's 1968 critique specifically targets the verificationist bridge premise that Strawson and Shoemaker each rely on.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Transcendental arguments that eschew verificationism—such as those advanced by Korsgaard or Longuenesse—lack the structural feature Stroud identifies as the core vulnerability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a shared structural flaw, Stroud's objection cannot generalize beyond the verificationist variants he actually examines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Transcendental arguments aimed at constitutive rather than epistemic conclusions—establishing what must be the case for experience, not what we can know—do not require the idealist supplement Stroud demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cassam and Peacocke have developed transcendental arguments grounded in the possession conditions for concepts, which sidestep Stroud's gap between our conceptual schemes and external reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If even one class of transcendental arguments is structurally immune to Stroud's objection, the claim that his critique holds 'broadly across' all such arguments is falsified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Cassam and Peacocke have developed transcendental arguments grounded in the poss...If even one class of transcendental arguments is structurally immune to Stroud's...In subsequent work, Stroud substantiated his objection in a way that makes it ap...Stroud's 1968 critique specifically targets the verificationist bridge premise t...
    +4 moreShow less
    Stroud's 1968 paper targeted specific arguments by Strawson and Shoemaker, which...Transcendental arguments aimed at constitutive rather than epistemic conclusions...Transcendental arguments that eschew verificationism—such as those advanced by K...Without a shared structural flaw, Stroud's objection cannot generalize beyond th...

    Similar

    Strawson's transcendental argument is susceptible to Stroud's line of ...90%Strawson's transcendental argument is effective not by refuting skepti...84%Stroud's criticism shows that transcendental arguments cannot move fro...84%The transcendental claim must be weakened in response to Stroud's obje...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: transcendental-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    Now, in the 1968 paper, Stroud appears to get to his conclusion by arguing from an analysis of specific cases (viz. arguments proposed by Strawson and Shoemaker in Strawson 1959 and Shoemaker 1963 respectively). But then, this may seem to leave open the hope that even if these arguments fall to his critique, others may not. However, in subsequent work, Stroud has said more to substantiate his objection and make it seem more likely to hold across the board. For, while he allows that we might reas
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit