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.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Epistemic: "Epistemic" relates to knowledge—how we know things, what counts as knowledge, and whether we can trust what we believe to be true. It comes from the Greek word for knowledge and is used to describe questions about the reliability and validity of our beliefs and understanding. For example, "epistemic humility" means acknowledging the limits of what you can actually know for certain.
Idealist supplement(as used in metaphysics): An addition to an argument based on idealism, the philosophical view that reality depends on the mind or experience—the idea that things only exist as they are experienced.
Stroud(referring to a specific philosopher's argument): Barry Stroud is a philosopher who has written about knowledge and skepticism—he questions whether we can really know things about the world, and his work often focuses on the limits of human understanding.
constitutive(an alternative type of relationship the grounding relation might be): Describes how something is made up of or formed from basic components that define its essential nature.
transcendental arguments(Epistemology of self-knowledge): Arguments that assume the existence of some sort of experience or capacity, then develop insights about the background conditions necessary for that experience or capacity, and finally conclude that those background conditions must in fact be met.

2 topics