Abstract
The usual logical analysis of argument focusses on the content and form, and not on the performative aspects. But, as it is proposed here, it is the proponent’s claiming (i. e. making a claim) that allows for an opponent in a dialogue situation to succeed with a transcendental argument. To work out this idea, a dialogical-logic inspired model of argumentation-as a fair game between a proponent and an opponent-is sketched. It is discussed what it means to play well, and to win in this game. It is also shown how, in different versions of transcendental arguments, the success of such arguments depends on the successful attribution of claiming. Such attribution relies on interpretation and on a -to some extent-shared praxis of interpretation. This does not require us to presuppose any common core of shared propositions, though; it is enough that we presuppose sufficiently large similarities in our beliefs and practices to make sense of ourselves as acting, reflecting and deliberating together. Only then, however, transcendental arguments can be successful.
