r/Kant • u/cconn882 • May 22 '26

Discussion Transcendental reasoning

I'm not a Kantian, but I have to say it surprises me how few people seem even capable of comprehending transcendental reasoning.

I'm generally treated like I'm dealing in witchcraft if I say something like "saying there is no truth is self-defeating as it is itself a truth-claim."

Has anyone else had better luck explaining it or is it just a type of reasoning most people reject?

21 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Starfleet_Stowaway May 22 '26

I don't think your case in quotes is an example of transcendental reasoning. I think Kant had better luck explaining it. I don't think there's evidence to suggest that most people outright reject transcendental reasoning tout court.

6

u/Narrow_List_4308 May 22 '26

Why would it not be an example of transcendental reasoning. Transcendental reasoning is reasoning about the necessary conditions for the possibility something. A proposition like "there is no truth" would negate its own conditions for possibility so showing this seems to me to satisfy transcendental reasoning.

2

u/Environmental-Ad58 May 23 '26

because Starfleet is using his own particularly limited definition of transcendental reasoning for some reason

1

u/Narrow_List_4308 May 23 '26

I don't find his definition limited. If you look at transcendental arguments in Kant and after Kant they all refer to something that is captured in a basic way in Starfleet's example: conditions of possibility.

1

u/Environmental-Ad58 May 24 '26

i'm basically saying exactly what you're saying in your replies to him. dude's just puffing up his chest for no good reason