I read this statement concerning the TA:
Can someone give me some actual examples of the following statement: "if we should go back and negate the statement of that original belief the transcendental analysis (if originally cogent and sound) would nevertheless reach the same conclusion."
I have seen other people make this claim, but I have not really seen this illustrated or any examples given of how this would work in a specific context.
In the case of “direct” arguments (whether rational or empirical) the negation of one of their premises changes the truth or reliability of their conclusion. But this is not true of transcendental arguments: it begins with any item of experience or belief whatsoever and proceeds to ask what conditions would need to be true in order for that original experience or belief to make sense. But if we should go back and negate the statement of that original belief the transcendental analysis (if originally cogent and sound) would nevertheless reach the same conclusion.
Can someone give me some actual examples of the following statement: "if we should go back and negate the statement of that original belief the transcendental analysis (if originally cogent and sound) would nevertheless reach the same conclusion."
I have seen other people make this claim, but I have not really seen this illustrated or any examples given of how this would work in a specific context.