0:00 Greg L. Bahnsen’s Opening Remarks…REVIEW OF THE SERIES:
0:20 – TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (1 of 10) – Four Types Of Proof
1:33 – TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (2 Of 10) – Van Til’s Why I Believe In GOD
1:47 – TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (3 Of 10) – Kant In Context
2:46 …The Way In Which You Respond To SKEPTICISM Is Going To Fall Into One Of Three Schools Of Thought (At Least In Modern Philosophy): #1) THE FOUNDATIONALIST (A) Conceptual/Logical (B) Perceptual (C) Common Sense #2) PRAGMATISM (A) Appealing To The Model Of Science (B) Appealing To The Success/Fruitfulness Of Science #3) TRANSCENDENTAL
3:43 Randy’s Simplified RECAP/SUMMARY Of TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (3 Of 10) – Kant In Context (FOR BUBBA)…The Problem With All Non-Christian Philosophical Attempts To Offer Proof For Understanding Our Experience In The World That We Live In, Is That They All Start With Man Instead Of With GOD…They All Lead To Subjectivism & Skepticism
7:15 Michael Butler’s Introduction To CONTEMPORARY TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS…MB Seeks To Examine The Contemporary Debate Of Transcendental Arguments & To See If Any Criticisms Apply To Van Til’s View Of Transcendental Arguments
7:56 MB’s Layout Of The Land Approaching The Issue Of Contemporary Transcendental Arguments Of The Last 40 To 50 Years
8:20 Most Philosophers Today Don’t Believe That Transcendental Arguments Are Any Good; Nevertheless, There’s Been A Resurgence Of Interest In Them In Order To Rebuff SKEPTICISM
9:11 Modern Philosophy Is Very Narrow In Its Outlook & Thus Partly Explains Why Transcendental Arguments Are Not That Prevalent Today…
9:43 MB’s Narrow Interest Example (University Of California, Philosophy Of Language – DIRECT REFERENCE)
10:35 MB’s Preparatory Remarks Regarding The Question As To Why There Are Not More Philosophers Interested In Transcendental Arguments If They’re As Powerful As Dr. Bahnsen & Dr. Van Til Maintain.
11:20 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CONCEPTUAL SCHEME – That Scheme Through Which We Interpret Our Experience, By Bringing To Bear On Our Experience Our Conceptual Resources. …MB Expands With An Illustration:
12:13 eg, A TELEVISION (The American & An Aboriginal Interpretation) … MB Asks If They Would See The Same Television? (The Answer Being, Yes & No) …Yes; Because They Have The Same PHENOMENOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE. No; Because They Have Different CONCEPTUAL SCHEMES
14:01 eg, DEAD GRASS IN A FIELD (Greg Bahnsen & A Native American Guide)
14:48 MB Reiterates The Importance Of Knowing The Distinction Between “Seeing” & “Seeing As/An Interpretation” To Understand The Modern Debate On Transcendental Arguments
14:57 eg, A CALCULUS TEXTBOOK (Michael Butler & A Mathematician)
15:38 THREE LEVELS IN OUR CONCEPTUAL SCHEME OF CONCEPTUAL CENTEREDNESS
15:56 eg, A GAME OF BILLIARDS (A Concept That’s Not Very Central At All To Our Conceptual Scheme)
16:48 eg, A GAME (A Concept That’s More Central To Our Conceptual Scheme Because It Is Much More General) …Ludwig Wittgenstein Reference To “A GAME” …There’s No One Definition Of It; Games Have A Family Relationship With One Another.
17:51 MB Stops To Emphasize That He’s Talking About CONCEPTS & Not Merely The WORD Which Labels The CONCEPT
18:05 eg, CAUSATION (A Concept That Is Much More Central To Our Conceptual Scheme) MB Defines CAUSATION As The Concept That Certain Events Happen For Certain Reasons For Causes Typically Antecedent Or Previous To Them
18:20 MB Demonstrates How Central CAUSATION Is To Our Conceptual Scheme By Asking What The Ramifications Would Be Without It
18:42 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS (The Relationship Of A GAME OF BILLIARDS With CAUSATION/CAUSE & EFFECT)
18:59 MB Reiterates He’s Merely Making The Point Here That CAUSATION Is More Central To Our Conceptual Scheme Than A GAME OF BILLIARDS
19:50 COMMENTARY/QUESTION FROM GLB (Since A Gambler’s GAME Is Based On Chance, Does A GAME Such As Craps Assume CAUSATION Or Denies It?)
20:05 MB Responds That The Answer Is Yes & No In A Sense…Nevertheless, He’s Just Laying Out THE THREE LEVELS Of Importance CONCEPTS Have In Our Conceptual Scheme
20:35 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS (Two Types Of Causes: SPECIAL CAUSES Vs. RANDOM CAUSES)
21:15 MB Responds To The Commentary, Agreeing That All Activities We Engage In (Like Games etc) Presuppose CAUSATION…It’s Just A Matter Of Understanding What It Is In A Particular State
21:42 eg, The Ramifications Of Losing CAUSATION From Our Conceptual Scheme … A List Of Things You Couldn’t Do: Life; Play Games; Science; Go To Work; Theology; Make Meaningful Decisions; etc…
22:20 MB Reiterates How Central CAUSATION Is To Our Conceptual Scheme & Thus Our Outlook On Life & The World
22:40 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS (Audio Issues)
22:49 MB Comments On Some Philosophers Who Believer There Could Be A CAUSELESS Conceptual Scheme Or A Conceptual Scheme Without Cause
23:01 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS (The CAUSELESS Conceptual Scheme Can Be Disproven By The Impossibility Of The Contrary)
23:09 MB Agrees That TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS Try To Show The Necessity Of Certain Types Of Concepts
23:30 COMMENTARY FROM GLB (Modern Philosophers Who Would “Say” You Can Have A Causeless Conceptual Scheme, Cannot Say That Without Assuming Causation)
23:42 MB Concurs & Expands
23:51 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS (Audio Issues…CAUSATION & FATE)
24:27 MB Responds
24:38 Loosely Speaking, The Concept Of Causation Is What’s Called In Philosophy, A TRANSCENDENTAL. The Word Transcendental (Used As A Noun) Is A Condition Of Experience. SOMETHING TRANSCENDENTAL, IS THE CONDITION FOR SOME KIND OF EXPERIENCE
25:08 eg, The Concept Of “CAUSATION” Is A TRANSCENDENTAL (Condition) For Most Of Our Experience; The Concept Of “GAME” Is A TRANSCENDENTAL (Condition) For A Game Of Billiards
25:44 MB Emphasizes That He’s Merely Pointing Out That There Are DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSCENDENTALS (Conditions) & That They Are Usually INDEXED To A Certain Type Of Experience Or Concept.
26:02 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSCENDENTAL & TRANSCENDENCE … MB Defines TRANSCENDENCE As That Which Goes Beyond Human Experience
26:18 MB Expands Upon The Contradistinction Of TRANSCENDENCE To IMMANENCE As It Relates To GOD’s Revealed WORD About HIMSELF To Man … TRANSCENDENTAL—Refers To The Precondition For Certain Types Of Knowledge
27:07 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS … (MB Interacts With The Knowledge Of GOD Being The TRANSCENDENTAL (Condition) To ANY KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER)
28:37 MB Emphasizes That The Conclusions Of Transcendental Arguments Try To Get Us To TRANSCENDENTALS (Conditions For Experiences). It’s Important To Know How They (Transcendental Arguments) Stand In Contrast To DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE Types Of Arguments
29:00 A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT – The Conclusion Necessarily Follows From The Premises
29:18 DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS, Refer To The Form Of The Argumentation, & Which The Conclusion Can Be Any Number Of Things..(1-2 EXAMPLES BELOW). TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS, Although They Refer To A Form Of Argumentation, They Also Include The Type Of Conclusion That’s Drawn In The Argument Itself
29:44 (1) MB Illustrates The Conclusion Of A DEDUCTIVE Argument (Notre Dame Vs USC)
30:11 (2) MB Illustrates The Conclusion Of A DEDUCTIVE Argument That The Concept Of CAUSATION Is Legitimate (Bill & Diedrich’s Coffee)
30:30 MB Reiterates The Aforementioned Differences Between DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS (Refer To The Form Of Argumentation & Make No Reference To The Type Of Conclusions Drawn) Vs. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (Which Is Also A Form Of Argumentation, However, It Includes The Type Of Conclusion That’s Drawn In The Argument Itself & Aims To Be TRANSCENDENTALS/Conditions Of Experience)
31:24 MB Expands Upon Argument Distinctions…To Say DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, & TRANSCENDENTALS Are Types Of Arguments That Are Only Different In Form, Is A Category Mistake
32:06 CATEGORY MISTAKE eg, (Asking, “What Does Green Taste Like?”) … MB Gives Category Mistake Example From Philosopher Gilbert Ryle’s Book, THE CONCEPT OF MIND (Published 1949)
33:09 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS (Wanting More Clarification About The Distinctions Between DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, & TRANSCENDENTAL Arguments) … When You Talk About DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS, It’s Not The Conclusion That You’re Drawing Attention To: IT’S SIMPLY THE FORM. Vs. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS Have More To Do Than Mere Form: THEY TRY TO GET TO OR CONCLUDE TRANSCENDENTALS (CONDITIONS OF EXPERIENCE)
34:05 THE TYPICAL FORM OF MOST TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS
34:22 – For “X” To Be The Case “Y” Would Have To Be The Case, “BECAUSE” “Y” Is A Precondition Of “X.” “X” IS THE CASE, SO “Y” IS THE CASE. …”BECAUSE” Is Proven By A REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM ARGUMENT. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS Try To Show That If You Didn’t Have “Y” Then You Couldn’t Have “X.” So You Assume, Not “Y.” And You Show That, Starting With Not “Y,” That You Couldn’t Have “X.”
35:35 REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM ARGUMENTS (Formal) – Arguments Where You Assume The Opposite Of Something & You Show That When You Assume The Opposite Of Something, Then Whatever You Wanted To Hold To Previously You Couldn’t Hold To (In Other Words, It Would Generate A Contradiction).
36:10 MB REITERATES THE TYPICAL FORM OF MOST TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS
37:12 COMMENTARY FROM THE CLASS (Wanting Clarification About The “Y” Precondition For “X”) … MB Expands Upon Arguments For “Y”
37:36 TWO BASIC EXAMPLES OF THE FORM OF A TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT:
37:41 (1) eg, Carpeting & The Floor
38:41 (2) eg, The Concept Of Creation & Causation
39:55 MB Quickly Gives The Type Of Argument Distinctions Between The Aforementioned Examples:
40:02 (1) ONTOLOGICAL – Ontology Is The Study Of What Types Of Things Exist.
41:04 (2) CONCEPTUAL & GENERAL … You Can Mix & Match These Categories (SMALL & LARGE SCOPE ARGUMENTS) … Van Til … Most MODERN TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS…
42:32 SMALL SCOPE CONCEPTUAL TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT EXAMPLE:
42:35 – A Polar Concept Argument: A polar concept argument is a type of argument that posits the understanding of one concept, from the mere understanding of its polar opposite. A well-known instance of a polar concept argument is Gilbert Ryle’s argument against skepticism (1960)(Source: Wikipedia).
42:49 – John Landshaw Austin’s Use Of The Word “REAL”
43:31 – Transcendental Arguments (Large In Scope) Vs. Polar Concept Arguments (Small In Scope)
43:57 – Van Til’s Transcendental Argument (Large Scope) Vs. Contemporary Transcendental Arguments (Small Scope) … MB Briefly Revisits Causation & Conceptual Scheme … Buddhist Monks Reference
45:36 A FEW WORDS ABOUT IMMANUEL KANT (“Kantian” Transcendental Arguments Vs. Contemporary Transcendental Arguments) [BACKGROUND]
49:54 MORE BACKGROUND … Modern Transcendental Arguments Are Different From The Arguments Kant Has In His First Critique …Nevertheless, Though Not Strictly Kantian, Modern “Transcendental” Arguments Need To Be Put To The Test & Evaluated …Kant Doesn’t Have A Copyright On The Term, Transcendental Argument…
52:50 MORE BACKGROUND …Kant’s Version Of Transcendental Arguments, Always Dealt With The Mind & How It Imposes Certain Things On Our Experience
53:27 MORE BACKGROUND …Kant’s Transcendental Arguments Are Constructive Knowledge Concepts Vs. Modern Transcendental Arguments Which Are Conceptual Only
54:26 MORE BACKGROUND …Reality Cannot Truly Be Known From Kant’s Transcendental Argument Because Of The Mind’s Role In Doing Its “Filtering” Of “Imposing” Things On Our Experience; Kant’s Version Of A Transcendental Argument Disintegrates Into Subjectivism & Skepticism.)
55:39 COMMENTS FROM THE CLASS (Audio Issues)
56:20 MB Responds…What A Unregenerate Man’s Ability To Know Things About GOD Vs. A Regenerated Man’s Ability To Know Things About GOD.
56:52 COMMENTS FROM GLB (Audio Issues)
57:42 THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATE
57:53 Contemporary Transcendental Arguments Are Always Aimed At The SKEPTIC … RECAP
58:31 The Most Famous Contemporary Transcendental Argument Is Found In Sir Peter Strawson’s Book, INDIVIDUALS: An Essay In Descriptive Metaphysics (Published 1959) … MB Reads From Portions Of The Book To Enable You To Get A Feel Of The Argumentation, And To Enable You To Compare Them To Van Tillian Transcendental Arguments, Draw Analogies Between Them, Look & Criticisms Of Strawson’s Arguments, & Then See If They Apply To Van Til.
59:21 Page 35, INDIVIDUALS: An Essay In Descriptive Metaphysics (THE PROBLEM OF IDENTITY)
1:00:55 SKEPTIC Challenge To Strawson: WE CAN NEVER KNOW THINGS HAVE IDENTITY THROUGH TIME
1:02:12 Strawson Turns To The Hub Of His Argument (LAYS IT OUT IN THE TYPICAL TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FORM) – For “X” To Be The Case “Y” Would Have To Be The Case, “BECAUSE” “Y” Is A Precondition Of “X.” “X” IS THE CASE, SO “Y” IS THE CASE. …”BECAUSE” Is Proven By A REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM ARGUMENT. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS Try To Show That If You Didn’t Have “Y” Then You Couldn’t Have “X.” So You Assume, Not “Y.” And You Show That, Starting With Not “Y,” That You Couldn’t Have “X.”
1:05:13 THE CRUX OF STRAWSON’S ARGUMENT: THINGS HAVING IDENTITY THROUGH TIME IS AN ASSUMED PRECONDITION (IN THE SKEPTIC’S OWN CONCEPTUAL SCHEME) FOR THE SKEPTIC TO EVEN BE ABLE TO RAISE THE QUESTION.
1:08:04 COMMENTS FROM GLB (Two Types Of SKEPTICISM: Particular & General) … Strawson Is Talking About General SKEPTICISM … Why Doesn’t The SKEPTIC Just Make The General Claim That We Cannot Know Anything? Because To say That Is To In Fact Know Something & Thus The SKEPTIC’S Claim Is Self-Defeating …Reiterates The Crux Of Strawson’s Argument
1:09:31 Closing Remarks Before The Break
- Four Types of Proof (1 of 10)
- Van Til’s Why I Believe in God (2 of 10)
- Kant in Context (3 of 10)
- Contemporary Transcendental Arguments, Part 1 (4 of 10)
- Contemporary Transcendental Arguments, Part 2 (5 of 10)
- Summary of Transcendental Arguments, Part 1 (6 of 10)
- Summary of Transcendental Arguments, Part 2 (7 of 10)
- Apologetical Transcendental Argument (8 of 10)
- Back to Basics (9 of 10)
- Van Til’s Critics: Hoover, Dooyeweerd, Frame (10 of 10)
