Are All Presuppositions A Priori?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
I've quoted the "rational realist" arguments of McCosh and Orr, and you ignorantly claim Orr as making a transcendental argument. It is a foundationalist argument based upon the a priori mental equipment, which I referenced in my first post, and you rejected.

Rev Winzer, I see exactly why he would call this argument transcendental: it's an argument based on finding the conditions for the possibility of knowledge. It is most definitely post-Kantian in its direction. It may be foundationalist, but so was Kant---he was not a direct realist, but he was defnitely foundationalist rather than coherentist.

I think possibly that both you and James are talking past one another.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
Rev Winzer, I see exactly why he would call this argument transcendental: it's an argument based on finding the conditions for the possibility of knowledge. It is most definitely post-Kantian in its direction. It may be foundationalist, but so was Kant---he was not a direct realist, but he was defnitely foundationalist rather than coherentist.
I believe Kant rejected the a priori mental equipment Rev. Winzer discusses. Kant rejected all sorts of preformation views in favor of psychological necessity, effectively reducing his views to skepticism, a logically self-defeating position in itself. But all of this is perhaps the stuff of separate threads.

I think possibly that both you and James are talking past one another.
Again, the term here is "classical foundationalism".

Rev. Winzer's second post in this thread laid the pipe for his use of classical foundationalism. I don't find an honest attempt made to appreciate his position in what followed.

Rather than being met on the terms he set out, what followed were frequent unsolicited "correctives" attempting to school Rev. Winzer, some laced with not a little bit of indignation. Rev. Winzer even pointed to specific sources of his classical position, both old, and new (Nash) for deeper inquiry. Reason dictates that rather than continuing to lecture another about what he "really means" based upon one's own "many years of study", one would immediately seek the sources explicitly offered and turn a few of their pages beforehand. I'm just sayin'. ;)

AMR
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
That seems a good place to shut this down.
Rather than being met on the terms he set out, what followed were frequent unsolicited "correctives" attempting to school Rev. Winzer, some laced with not a little bit of indignation. Rev. Winzer even pointed to specific sources of his classical position, both old, and new (Nash) for deeper inquiry. Reason dictates that rather than continuing to lecture another about what he "really means" based upon one's own "many years of study", one would immediately seek the sources explicitly offered and turn a few of their pages beforehand. I'm just sayin'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top