Transcendental Arguments and Transcendental Idealism
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This essay considers attempts to refute scepticism by transcendental argumentation; in particular I explore attempts to refute traditional "Cartesian" scepticism with idealistic transcendental arguments. My main conclusions are: Transcendental arguments are indispensable for a refutation of scepticism, not redundant; Idealistic transcendental arguments cannot refute Cartesian sceptical doubts; Traditional sceptical doubts can be reformulated so as to be effective against accounts of knowledge based on an idealistic theory of truth; It is possible in principle that idealistic ("Kantian") transcendental arguments can refute such idealistic sceptical doubts and also that non-idealistic ("Strawsonian") transcendental arguments can refute non-idealistic doubts; Merely to assume a theory of truth and just to dismiss certain sceptical doubts based on another theory of truth is to beg the question against the sceptic; but all arguments for a particular theory of truth beg the question against radical sceptics; Because radical scepticism must be taken seriously, a complete refutation of scepticism would require constructing both types of transcendental arguments, viz. Kantian idealistic arguments (to refute idealistic doubts) and Strawsonian non-idealistic arguments (to refute non-idealistic, "Cartesian" doubts). I argue that the allure of idealism as a way to refute scepticism is wholly unfounded, viz. because (1) sceptical doubts can be reformulated so as to be effective against idealistic conceptions of knowledge and (2) idealistic arguments cannot refute traditional Cartesian doubts. But although it doesn't lead where many have hoped, I argue that--in a strange way, for different reasons than are commonly supposed--idealism represents a road which must nevertheless be taken if scepticism is to be refuted. That is, though most of the essay attempts to establish that refuting Cartesian scepticism requires that they be separated, it also follows from my argument that transcendental arguments and transcendental idealism must not be kept apart if scepticism is to be fully refuted..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anthony Brueckner (1983). Transcendental Arguments I. Noûs 17 (4):551-575.
Robert Stern (2007). Transcendental Arguments: A Plea for Modesty. Grazer Philosophische Studien 74 (1):143-161.
John J. Callanan (2011). Making Sense of Doubt: Strawson's Anti-Scepticism. Theoria 77 (3):261-278.
Scott Stapleford (2005). Transcendental Arguments: Superfluity and Scepticism. Theoria 71 (4):333-367.
Robert Stern (2000). Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism: Answering the Question of Justification. Oxford University Press.
Oskari Kuusela (2008). Transcendental Arguments and the Problem of Dogmatism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (1):57 – 75.
Anthony Brueckner (1996). Modest Transcendental Arguments. Philosophical Perspectives 10 (Metaphysics):265-280.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1997). Affinity, Idealism and Naturalism: The Stability of Cinnabar and the Possibility of Experience. Kant-Studien 88 (2):139-189.
Robert Stern (2008). Kant's Response to Skepticism. In John Greco (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. Oxford University Press 265.
Sami Pihlström (2004). Recent Reinterpretations of the Transcendental. Inquiry 47 (3):289 – 314.
Sami Pihlstr (2004). Recent Reinterpretations of the Transcendental. Inquiry 47 (3):289 – 314.
Sami Pihlström (2004). Recent Reinterpretations of the Transcendental. Inquiry 47 (3):289-314.
Robert B. Pippin (1988). The Idealism of Transcendental Arguments. Idealistic Studies 18 (2):97-106.
Mark Sacks (2005). The Nature of Transcendental Arguments. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13 (4):439 – 460.
Robert Stern (ed.) (1999). Transcendental Arguments: Problems and Prospects. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads26 ( #115,510 of 1,725,157 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,161 of 1,725,157 )
How can I increase my downloads?