Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reconsidering Kant’s Rejection of Indirect Arguments in Transcendental Philosophy

Reconsidering Kant’s Rejection of Indirect Arguments in Transcendental Philosophy <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>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.</jats:p> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis CrossRef

Reconsidering Kant’s Rejection of Indirect Arguments in Transcendental Philosophy

History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis : 1-19 – Oct 19, 2021

Reconsidering Kant’s Rejection of Indirect Arguments in Transcendental Philosophy


Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>

Loading next page...
 
/lp/crossref/reconsidering-kant-s-rejection-of-indirect-arguments-in-transcendental-J3mFpAe2Cw
Publisher
CrossRef
ISSN
2666-4283
DOI
10.30965/26664275-bja10018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>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.</jats:p>

Journal

History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisCrossRef

Published: Oct 19, 2021

There are no references for this article.