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 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 transcendental arguments in 'Individuals' operate within a single framework of experience without appealing to logical necessity across all possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The relevant modal force for transcendental arguments is intra-framework necessity: what must hold given our cognitive constitution, not metaphysical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If transcendental arguments only need to defeat skepticism within the actual framework of human experience, natural necessity scoped to that framework is sufficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction undermines the sharp boundary between natural and logical necessity that the supporting argument presupposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If natural and logical necessity lie on a continuum rather than being categorically distinct, excluding natural necessity claims arbitrarily weakens transcendental arguments without principled justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a transcendental argument's claim is one of only natural necessity, then there are possible worlds (e.g., where the laws of physics do not hold) in which the claim is false
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If there are possible worlds in which the claim is false, the skeptic can challenge whether we are in such a world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A transcendental argument must be immune to the skeptical challenge of showing we are not in an abnormal possible world
      ?

      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.