Reconsidering Kant’s Rejection of Indirect Arguments in Transcendental Philosophy
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisAbstract
Immanuel Kant states that indirect arguments are not suitable for the purposes of transcendental philosophy. If he is correct, this affects contemporary versions of transcendental arguments which are often used as an indirect refutation of scepticism. I discuss two reasons for Kant’s rejection of indirect arguments. Firstly, Kant argues that we are prone to misapply the law of excluded middle in philosophical contexts. Secondly, Kant points out that indirect arguments lack some explanatory power. They can show that something is true but they do not provide insight into why something is true. Using mathematical proofs as examples, I show that this is because indirect arguments are non-constructive. From a Kantian point of view, transcendental arguments need to be constructive in some way. In the last part of the paper, I briefly examine a comment made by P. F. Strawson. In my view, this comment also points toward a connection between transcendental and constructive reasoning.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Smith, N. K. (tr.), 1969. Bedford: St. Martins Press. (= CPR)
-
Albert, H. 2003. Kritik des transzendentalen Denkens: Von der Begründung des Wissens zur Analyse der Erkenntnispraxis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
-
Chiba, K. 2012. Kants Ontologie der raumzeitlichen Wirklichkeit. Versuch einer anti-realistischen Deutung der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin—Boston: De Gryuter.
-
Chiba, K. 2014. Kants Ablehnung des apagogischen Beweises in der “Transzendentalen Methodenlehre” XXIII. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Philosophie. Münster. URL: <https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-52329368383>.
-
Dummett, M. 2000. Elements of Intuitionism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-
Frege, G. 1995. On Sense and Meaning. In: Geach, P. (ed.) & Black, M. (ed., tr.), Translations From the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78.
-
Grundmann, T. 2004. Was ist eigentlich ein transzendentales Argument? In: Heidemann, D. & Engelhard, K. (eds.), Warum Kant heute? Systematische Bedeutung und Rezeption seiner Philosophie in der Gegenwart. Berlin: De Gruyter, 44–75.
-
Hösle, V. 1997. Die Krise der Gegenwart und die Verantwortung der Philosophie. Transzendentalpragmatik, Letztbegründung, Ethik. München: Beck.
-
Iber, C. 2011. Zu Kants Lehre von den Antinomien im Weltbegriff. In: Dorflinger, B. & Kruck, G. (eds.), Über den Nutzen von Illusionen. Die regulativen Ideen in Kants theoretischer Philosophie. Hildesheim: Olms, 71–83.
-
Kuhlmann, W. 1985. Reflexive Letztbegründung. Untersuchungen zur Transzendentalpragmatik. Freiburg: Alber.
-
O’Neill, O. 2015. Constructing Authorities. Reason, Politics and Interpretation in Kant’s Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Pissis, J. 2012. Kants transzendentale Dialektik. Zu ihrer systematischen Bedeutung. Berlin—Boston: De Gruyter.
-
Rockmore, T. 2016a. Epistemic Constructivism, Metaphysical Realism and Parmenidean Identity. In: Epistemology & Philosophy of Science 48(2), 59–74. URL: <https://doi.org/10.5840/eps20164829>.
-
Rockmore, T. 2016b. German Idealism as Constructivism. Chicago—London: The University of Chicago Press.
-
Sacks, M. 2000. Objectivity and Insight. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-
Stapleford, S. 2008. Kant’s Transcendental Arguments. Disciplining Pure Reason. London: Bloomsbury.
-
Stern, R. 2006. Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism. Answering the Question of Justification. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-
Strawson, P. F. 1964. Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Routledge.
-
Strawson, P. F. 1966. The Bounds of Sense. An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London—New York: Routledge.
-
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Anscombe, G. E. M. (tr.), 2000 (3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 378 | 378 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 13 | 13 | 0 |
Reconsidering Kant’s Rejection of Indirect Arguments in Transcendental Philosophy
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisAbstract
Immanuel Kant states that indirect arguments are not suitable for the purposes of transcendental philosophy. If he is correct, this affects contemporary versions of transcendental arguments which are often used as an indirect refutation of scepticism. I discuss two reasons for Kant’s rejection of indirect arguments. Firstly, Kant argues that we are prone to misapply the law of excluded middle in philosophical contexts. Secondly, Kant points out that indirect arguments lack some explanatory power. They can show that something is true but they do not provide insight into why something is true. Using mathematical proofs as examples, I show that this is because indirect arguments are non-constructive. From a Kantian point of view, transcendental arguments need to be constructive in some way. In the last part of the paper, I briefly examine a comment made by P. F. Strawson. In my view, this comment also points toward a connection between transcendental and constructive reasoning.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 378 | 378 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 13 | 13 | 0 |