0:00 A.C. Grayling (British Philosopher) Applies The Observations of Donald Davidson (An American Philosopher) To Show There Is Only ONE Possible CONCEPTUAL SCHEME (The general system of concepts which shape or organize our thoughts and perceptions…. – Source: oxfordreference.com)
0:17 Michael Butler Gives Preparatory Remarks For A Thumbnail Sketch Of Donald Davidson’s Argument Regarding CONCEPTUAL SCHEME/SCHEMES
0:52 Davidson Was Influenced By Willard Van Orman Quine (American Philosopher & Logician) … THE INDETERMINACY OF TRANSLATION * “…Fundamentally, The Way You Interpret Another Tongue (language) Is Going To Have Indeterminacy Embeded Within It.” e.g. The Linguist & The Aborigine … Our Theory Of The World Determines Our Manual Of Translation… Meaning Has No Objective Value
4:05 Davidson Notes Quines’ Argument In His Book, Word and Object (Published 1960), But Believes We Have To Translate That Person In A Way That’s Appropriate With Our Way Of Looking At The World. In Order To Recognize A Language At All We Have To Translate It In Terms That Are Intelligible To Us.
5:02 Davidson’s Argument Is That There Is No Such Thing As A Conceptual Scheme Simply Because You Cannot Translate Somebody Else’s Language Into A Different Conceptual Scheme Other Than Your Own … If Somebody Really Had A Different Conceptual Scheme, You Wouldn’t Be Able To Recognize That Person As A Speaker Of Another Language … To Recognize Someone As Speaking A Language, You Have To Presuppose That The Individual Is Operating Within The Same Conceptual Scheme As Yourself. Otherwise, You Would Never Recognize What They’re Doing As Speaking A Language.
6:13 MB Asserts That Grayling Translated Davidson’s Argument That THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A CONCEPTUAL SCHEME, Into Meaning, THERE’S ONLY ONE POSSIBLE CONCEPTUAL SCHEME. (MB Begins To Quickly Make His Case…)
6:32 Grayling’s Use Of Davidson’s Argument (An Anti-Relativistic Argument) To Supplement His OPTION B TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (*NOTE “OPTION ‘B’ ARGUMENT” : THIS REFERENCES THE PREVIOUS LECTURE @ 55:24 : Grayling’s NON-ONTOLOGICAL, THE CONCEPTUAL TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS aka OPTION B TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS” Only Leads To Relativistic Conclusions…THESE ARGUMENTS HAVE NOT DEFEATED THE SKEPTIC BECAUSE THEY LEAVE THE SKEPTIC AN OUT.)
7:10 MB Expands On Davidson’s Language Argument To Help Student
8:05 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class)
8:31 MB Asks, How Well Does Davidson’s Argument Fare Against THE SKEPTIC? … The Way Grayling Uses Davidson’s Argument Is To Simply Show That We Can Never Epistemologically Recognize A Different CONCEPTUAL SCHEME … MB Contends That The Argument Fails To Negate Other Conceptual Schemes
9:31 MB Theologically Debunks Davidson’s Argument That We Cannot Conceive Of Something That Doesn’t Conceive Of The World In The Way We Do.
11:21 MB Concludes Reading Grayling’s Essay, “TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS” From The Blackwell Companion To Epistemology … Otto Neurath’s Rebuilding A Ship At Sea Analogy
12:31 MB Takes Issue With The Otto Neurath Analogy (Piecemeal Method) To Critiquing/Building TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS. This Piecemeal Method That Grayling Suggests Is Fundamentally Opposed By WORLDVIEW TRANSCENDENTAL Type Arguments…Van Til’s TRANSCENDENTAL Method Of Arguing Essentially Dry Docks Neurath’s Ship, As It Were, And Shows What Are The Necessary PRECONDITIONS For All Experience…The Means To Do This Is By Evaluating WORLDVIEWS..
13:36 MB Quickly Summarizes The Similarities & Differences Between The Modern Contemporary Debate Of TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS To Van Til’s WORLDVIEW TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT – Formally They Share Some Aspects In That They Both Try To Show TRANSCENDENTALS Through Reductio Ad Absurdum…But The Scope Of Them Are Different, And The Manner Of Which They’re Argued.
14:10 MB Assesses Grayling’s Failer To Consider Van Til’s WORLDVIEW TRANSCENDENTAL Method Was Because He Started With Man Being Autonomous
14:41 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class)
14:50 MB Rants About The Impotent Nature Of Grayling’s Argument To Refute THE SKEPTIC.
15:37 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class)
15:40 MB Continues His Rant And Expands To How The Modern Contemporary Transcendental Arguing Philosophers End Up In The Same Type Of Pedantic (Trivial) Situation That The Analytical Philosophers Do…THEY DON’T CONSIDER WHAT THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS ARE FOR ARGUING TRANSCENDENTALLY. …So, They Come Into It With Certain Assumptions And Are Never Able To Justify Them, And Are Never Able To Tie Their Transcendentals Together.
16:12 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class)
16:37 Greg L. Bahnsen Comes In (Audio Issues) …Contends That A Large Scope Worldview Transcendental Argument Is Necessary For The Smaller Scope Type Arguements To Be Meaningful…Without This The Smaller Scope Arguement Is Like A Rock In A Bottomless Ocean!
17:34 MB’s Conclusion About The Contemporary Transcendental Argument Debate Is That It Is Much Ado About Nothing (It’s Trivial). …They Neither Can Account For The Relationship Between Concepts, Nor How We Can Even Reason Transcendentally. …”These Are Examples Of What True Transcendental Arguments ARE NOT LIKE…” “These Are Really Wimpy Arguments.”
18:42 MB Gives Preview About Discussing Van Till’s Promising Transcendental Argument, and Opens The Floor For Questions.
18:55 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class) … Discussing Otto Neurath’s Analogy … Suppression Of GOD’s TRUTH.
20:11 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class)
20:40 GLB Thanks MB … Affirms MB’s Conclusion And Gives Preparatory Remarks On The Advantage Of Being Familiar With Dealing With The Sort Of Criticisms That Are Directed At Transcendental Arguments In General For They Are Are The Same Criticisms Directed At Van Til’s WORLDVIEW TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT In Particular.
22:30 GLB Takes A Moment To Reflect About THE SKEPTIC, Before Talking About Transcendental Interpretation & Argumentation. (GLB IS QUICKLY REVIEWING POINTS MADE IN PART 3 OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL SERIES: KANT IN CONTEXT @ TIMESTAMP 54:00 : THE THREE ATTEMPTS TO MEET THE SKEPTICAL CHALLENGE)
22:54 #1) THE FOUNDATIONALIST (A) Conceptual/Logical (B) Perceptual (C) Common Sense
23:07 #2) PRAGMATISM (A) Appealing To The “Model” Of Science (B) Appealing To The Success/Fruitfulness Of Science
23:19 #3) TRANSCENDENTALIST – The Transcendental Argument Takes The Form Of Saying That We Know Something Is True From The Impossibility Of The Contrary; Or, What We’re Looking For Is The Precondition For The Intelligibility Of Experience
23:32 GLB Discusses The Famous LIAR PARADOX, “This Sentence Is False.” … [SOME BACKGROUND-Source AI Overview] The liar’s paradox is a logical paradox that arises from a statement that contradicts itself: The paradox: If the statement is true, then it is false, and if it is false, then it is true. The liar paradox – Sketchplanations The liar’s paradox is also known as Epimenides’ paradox, named after the Cretan prophet Epimenides who is said to have claimed that all Cretans are liars. Since Epimenides was a Cretan, his statement would apply to himself, making him a liar. There is no true solution to the liar’s paradox because it’s impossible to assign a truth value to the statement.
24:58 GLB Uses The LIAR PARADOX As An Anology To THE SKEPTIC’S Behaviour – ….GLB POINTS OUT THAT THE PROBLEM WITH THE SKEPTIC IS THAT HE/SHE DOESN’T REALLY WANT TO BE A SKEPTIC, BUT THE SKEPTIC DOESN’T WANT TO CONCEDE THAT RATIONALITY CAN BE JUSTIFIED; THEREFORE, THE SKEPTIC IS IMPOTENT IN PRODUCING AN ARGUMENT.
26:43 GLB “IN APOLOGETICS, IN ESSENCE WE’RE SAYING, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE REASON GIVING GAME, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE A CHRISTIAN.”
27:46 GLB Expands His Point About THE SKEPTIC’s Behavior … The Basketball Analogy
29:04 THE SKEPTIC & Two Different Ways Of Picturing Ourselves As Knowers:
29:16 1) GOD Created Us & Our Minds. And GOD Created The World We Know With Our Minds … Therefore, Our CONCEPTUAL SCHEME Is Automatically In Touch & Corresponds To The Objects Of Experience On This Presupposition. GOD Is The Connecting Link.
30:34 …Philosophers Likely Will Point Out That This Is Theology Not Philosophy To Which GLB Proceeds To Show What Happens To Philosophy Without Theology.
30:45 2) We Cannot Know Anything About GOD…We Have A Mind And We Assume Its Efficiency…We Find That There Are Objects Out There That The Mind Can Know (Everything Is Loose And Disjointed/Random…The Objects Of Knowledge Are Neither Connected To GOD Nor Man’s CONCEPTUAL SCHEME…All Minds Are Loose And Separate As Well)
31:32 Cont. Philosophy Is To Be Done Autonomously … Begin With Man, And Work Out From Man … The Mind Of Man, Uses A Certain CONCEPTUAL SCHEME … THE SKEPTIC Asks, How Do You Know There’s A Connection Between Your CONCEPTUAL SCHEME And The Objects In The World?
31:59 Cont. By Definition, This Worldview Cannot Answer THE SKEPTIC, Because It Begins With A Separation Between The Mind & The Objects In The World…There’s No Connecting Link. And So, Any Attempt To Devise A Connecting Link Is Going To Be Easily Criticizable By THE SKEPTIC.: THE EGOCENTRIC PREDICAMENT
32:46 Cont. THE SKEPTIC Can Push Even Harder Into SOLIPSISM – (philosophy) the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist (Source: WordWeb)
33:29 Cont. THE SKEPTIC Can Pose To The EGOCENTRIC Philosopher, THE PROBLEM OF OTHER MINDS… THE PROBLEM OF OTHER MINDS is a philosophical problem traditionally stated as the following epistemological question: Given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds? The problem is that knowledge of other minds is always indirect. (Source: Wikipedia)
33:49 When The SKEPTIC Asks A Christian How Can They Be Sure Their CONCEPTUAL SCHEME Corresponds To The World, Our Answer Is That It Is Our Presupposition….GLB Expands On GODLESS Philosophy
34:39 GLB Begins Presenting The Three Possibilities:
34:47 1) You Can Be A Skeptic In Which Case You Can Be Dismissed If You Want To Argue Rationally.
35:12 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class) … GLB Responds
36:46 2) The Autonomous Picture Of The Knower As Self-Sufficient = THE EGOCENTRIC PREDICAMENT…A Rock In A Bottomless Ocean.
37:09 3) The Christian Worldview … Starts With The Presupposition That The Mind’s CONCEPTUAL SCHEME Corresponds To Objects In The World … GLB Expands
38:42 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class) … Playing The Reason Giving Game…GLB Responds
40:06 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class) … The Skeptic & The Liar Paradox…GLB Responds
41:17 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class) … GLB Responds
41:59 Question/Comment From The Class Regarding Acts Chapter 17. …All Men Are In Contact With GOD. …GLB Expands…
42:52 GLB Concludes His Meandering About SKEPTICISM
43:10 Preparatory Summary Remarks … Preview Of The Next Lecture … Van Til’s Unique Way Of Doing Transcendental Argumentation (ARGUES WORLDVIEWS) … Will Look At The Criticisms Of Transcendental Apologetics … Even Children Can Use The Transcendental Argument
44:44 SERIES RECAP: Started With The Notion Of Proof; Historical Context; Contemporary Epistemology; Contemporary Transcendental Arguments.
46:11 SUMMARIZING TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS, THEIR VALUE & USEFULNESS
46:21 David Hume Quote: “…if reason be considered in an abstract view, it furnishes invincible arguments against itself”. – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part 1.
46:41 GLB Compares John Locke’s (An Empiricist) definition of REASON to David Hume’s Aforementioned quote to demonstrate that Empiricism refutes itself
48:47 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class) … GLB Responds : 19th Century Philosophy … Hume’s Skepticism Arguments Resulted In A Turn Toward Nihilism In The Philosophical Community. Nihilism [Definition] The rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless. “they condemned the show for its cynicism and nihilism” (Source: Oxford Languages)
49:17 Cont. GLB Comments On The Philosophy Of Romanticism, Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, And Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. …REASON UNDERMINES THE AGE OF REASON!
49:58 Philosopher Immanuel Kant Is Disgusted By The SKEPTICISM Situation, And Expresses HIs Notion Of TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTATION. e.g. KANT’s Awakening To A New View Of Reason He Thought Of As A Copernican Revolution…Kant Believed The Mind Was Active & Not Passive As Did Locke…Kant Believed The Mind Makes Our Thoughts Intelligible By Attributing Time & Space Predicates To The Sensations Coming Into It…i.e.The Mind Actively Imposes Order To The Chaos Of The World That We Encounter. * From TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (3 of 10) — Kant In Context (Timestamp 32:44)
51:40 Kant’s TRANSCENDENTAL PROGRAM Is Caught In The Same Aforementioned Autonomous Web; HIS WORLDVIEW’S PRESUPPOSITIONS WILL DESTROY HIM.
52:21 Cont. IMPORTANT: Immanuel Kant quote – “The conclusion of a transcendental argument should be entitled a principle not a theorem, because it has the peculiar character that it makes possible the very experience which is its own ground of proof. And that in this experience it must always itself be presupposed.”
52:49 Cont. GLB Points Out THE WIDE SCOPE Of Kant’s TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, And That THE CONCLUSION OF A TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT OR THE EXPERIENCE ITSELF, ALREADY PRESUPPOSES THE TRANSCENDENTAL (CONDITION/PRECONDITION)….SO, WHEN WE’RE TALK ABOUT TRANSCENDENTALS, WE’RE ASSUMING THE TRANSCENDENTALS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THEM. A.C. Grayling Quote: “If A CONCEPTUAL SCHEME is transcendentally necessary, then you need to use it even when you talk about itself.”
54:00 GLB Addresses Van Til Being Accused Of CIRCULAR REASONING By His Critics. GLB Refers To The Aforementioned Historical Presuppositional Aspect Of TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS In Defending Van Til From Critics Of His PRESUPPOSITIONAL CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC
54:46 KEY POINT: What Van Til said is, “If what I’m arguing is true (about Christianity being the presupposition of all intelligibility) then you’ve got to presuppose Christianity even when you argue about Christianity.” GLB EMPHASIZES: And that you see is the strength of the proof: IT’S THAT I CAN’T TALK ABOUT IT WITHOUT ASSUMING IT, AND YOU CAN’T TALK AGAINST IT WITHOUT ASSUMING IT!
55:11 THE SUMMARY OF TRANSCENDENTAL METHOD FOR APOLOGETICS:
55:21 What The Argument Looks Like In Its Broadest Form: Take (ANYTHING) “P” And Then Show That “Q” Is The Precondition Of “P” (ANYTHING) … GLB Expands To Explain What He’s Not Arguing.
56:09 Cont. MORE DETAIL: When I say take “P” I’m referring to some general principle, OR, take any OPERATIONAL FEATURE of experience or thinking. [A general principle would be: Every Event Has A Cause; No Proposition Can Be True If Its Opposite Is True; …etc.] Take any principle and then perform the next step, which is to show that “Q” is the precondition of that principle.
56:58 Cont. MORE DETAIL: GLB Simplifies The Language… OPERATIONAL FEATURE: e.g. When people argue with each other they’re going through certain ACTS aren’t they? They’re OPERATING in a certain way: They’re using language; they’re reasoning (their minds are going from one premise to another). Take any OPERATIONAL FEATURE of experience or thinking.
57:21 Cont. MORE DETAIL: GLB Emphasizes The Wide Scope Of The TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT And How It Targets The Centermost Point Of Someone’s WEB OF BELIEFS … * More On The Web Of Beliefs In The Apologetics Series: The Place of Evidence in Apologetics (1 of 3) @ Timestamp 49:34 Ultimacy Of Beliefs:Presuppositions:Willard Van Orman Quine-A Web Of Beliefs * For More, Type The Phrase Into The Website’s Search Bar
58:43 Cont. MORE DETAIL: GLB Recaps The Steps Of Using The TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT In Simpler Terms … THE INDIRECT METHOD & DILEMMA METHOD
1:00:12 THE INDIRECT METHOD: Not Q (Christian Worldview) implies an absurdity or renders the operational feature impossible. If you deny the Christian worldview, it would imply an absurdity or contradict P which is undoubted. When we argue, we start with something that is not doubted. When we argue with someone, we start with something that he doesn’t doubt. Take what is some undoubted operational feature and show that if you deny the Christian worldview, you either have an absurdity or you are led to contradict the P which you didn’t have any doubt about or you render the operational feature that you’re talking about (scientific methodology, abstract objects), you render that feature impossible. Ask the unbeliever what are they willing to assert, from that show that the Christian worldview if denied, that operational feature is either impossible or the P that you’ve taken for granted is in fact false. You take the opposite position and show that it creates this intellectual difficulty. (Source: Defense of Faith, By PAT)
1:04:42 THE DILEMMA METHOD: Take P and show that it implies Q and show that the denial of P implies Q as well. We can take the opposite of P and show that it shows that God exists too. What if P is “God exists?” and not-P is “God doesn’t exist?” If God exists then that implies that God exists. If you argue that God does not exist that also implies that God exists. Take any experience and any point of view, even the atheistic point of view, to argue that point you have presupposed the existence of God. (Source: Defense of Faith, By PAT)
1:06:50 * INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO (Question/Comment From The Class) … GLB Responds
1:07:06 Cont. THE DILEMMA METHOD (GLB Gives An Interesting Additional Scenario) “Anti-Theism Presupposes Theism” * More Can Be Found In These Apologetic Series: The Apologetic Implications of Self-Deception (1 of 2) @ 10:18; Hasn’t God Made Foolish the Wisdom of This World? (3 of 3) @ 53:45. “What if somebody says, well, what if P is, um, God doesn’t exist? Van Til says, okay. Or let’s say P is God exists and not P is God does not exist. Van Til says, you want to show that (this is the easy part) if God exists, that implies that God exists. No problem. Okay. Everybody says, that’s wonderful. However, and this is the fascinating thing, if you argue not P, that also implies that God exists. At one point, Van Til summarizes what he’s getting at when he says, anti-theism presupposes theism. Not P wouldn’t be intelligible unless P were true. Now, do you see why this is such a strong approach to apologetics? You don’t have to worry about whatever a person has up there. Take any experience about fuel bills, about the cause of cancer, about a historical fact, about miracles. And take any point of view you want to argue, even the atheistic point of view! And the transcendental argument says to argue that point you have presupposed God.…That’s right. Van Til, many times says, any statement, any fact can be used to prove the existence of God.”
1:09:03 The transcendental method is useful for either interpretation of the transcendental argument: a) conceptual b) existential … Conceptually, if you wish to argue at all, then you must presuppose the existence of the Christian worldview to make sense of your own argument. The “must” is a psychological interpretation. If you want to make sense of your reason you must psychologically presuppose the Christian worldview. The Existential interpretation says if you want to give an account of your ability to know anything, then your explanation must presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview. The “must” here isn’t psychological (you can’t escape thinking about the Christian God when you argue). The explanation must include a reference to the Christian worldview. (Source: Defense of Faith, By PAT)
- 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)
