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 Transcendental arguments must not rely on merely causal or natural necessity claims

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's 'descriptive metaphysics' grounds transcendental arguments in our actual conceptual scheme, which is itself causally shaped by evolved cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If causal-naturalist accounts of concept formation (as in Quine's naturalized epistemology) are correct, then transcendental necessity and natural necessity cannot be cleanly separated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A transcendental argument that presupposes causally-grounded concepts cannot coherently exclude causal necessity from its own justificatory structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hilary Putnam's externalist semantics entails that the content of our concepts is partly constituted by causal relations to the world, not purely by internal rational structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If conceptual content is causally constituted, then arguments about what must be presupposed for coherent thought necessarily invoke causal-natural facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Transcendental arguments target skeptics who challenge all empirical knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Empirical observations of causal necessity (e.g., light and sound transmission wavelengths) cannot be used against a skeptic for whom all empirical knowledge is in question
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A position that is less open to empirical doubt is required when arguing against such a skeptic
      ?

      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.