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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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