Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 13, 2021 16:00:34 GMT
I'm not sure I'm following either of these ways: a Kantian, or a Husserl's, but I'm interested in those kinds of logic which use transcendental premises or inner (intrinsic) thoughts. So, let me put some examples before.
I. Everything changes. Imagine that everything is changing. So, there's nothing to stand still. However, there must be some kind of a principle that doesn't change. This principle doesn't change, because if this principle would be changing, everything wouldn't be changing. Therefore, if everthying is changing, and there is a principle by which this change is performing, so this principle exists transcendentally to the other ones, and the premise that "everything is changing" taken as a principle is a transcendental premise.
II. The selfawareness. To registrate the existence of "I" the selfawareness is required. Indeed, no selfawareness implies no "I'. But "I" is not selfaware only, while without any selfawareness there is no "I". Therefore, "I" and the selfawareness exist both simultaneously, and thus the premise that the selfawareness supposes the existence of "I", and vice versa - is a transcendental premise.
III. The randomness. If everyting that exists is determined, then there is no randomness. For the random to exist some principle is needed. But how any principle be a determinant for the randomness? If some principle is behind randomness, then this random sequence is determined, and, therefore, there is no randomness. However, if this principle is a special one, that exists and don't exists in a usual sense, then technically or somehow it can bring us this idea, and in turn, may be this principle - the principle of randomness. Thereby, if such a principle of randomness exists, then this principle is transcendental one.
I guess these I-III are enough to demonstrate what this transcendental logic is. It finds those premises which don't take the main part, but they exist somehow, and those premises are necessary for some things to exist. We can see that some of those transcendental lines are presented in our reality most of the time (II), or always (I). And some of those principles are interesting to investigate whether their existence is in our heads only (III)?
I. Everything changes. Imagine that everything is changing. So, there's nothing to stand still. However, there must be some kind of a principle that doesn't change. This principle doesn't change, because if this principle would be changing, everything wouldn't be changing. Therefore, if everthying is changing, and there is a principle by which this change is performing, so this principle exists transcendentally to the other ones, and the premise that "everything is changing" taken as a principle is a transcendental premise.
II. The selfawareness. To registrate the existence of "I" the selfawareness is required. Indeed, no selfawareness implies no "I'. But "I" is not selfaware only, while without any selfawareness there is no "I". Therefore, "I" and the selfawareness exist both simultaneously, and thus the premise that the selfawareness supposes the existence of "I", and vice versa - is a transcendental premise.
III. The randomness. If everyting that exists is determined, then there is no randomness. For the random to exist some principle is needed. But how any principle be a determinant for the randomness? If some principle is behind randomness, then this random sequence is determined, and, therefore, there is no randomness. However, if this principle is a special one, that exists and don't exists in a usual sense, then technically or somehow it can bring us this idea, and in turn, may be this principle - the principle of randomness. Thereby, if such a principle of randomness exists, then this principle is transcendental one.
I guess these I-III are enough to demonstrate what this transcendental logic is. It finds those premises which don't take the main part, but they exist somehow, and those premises are necessary for some things to exist. We can see that some of those transcendental lines are presented in our reality most of the time (II), or always (I). And some of those principles are interesting to investigate whether their existence is in our heads only (III)?