Transcendental Knowledge?

[Exian]

I gotcha, it's a placeholder of sorts?l

[Neo-Scholastic]

…I'm not quite sure what to make of Idealism, of which I still have not seen a convincing rebuttal…

Just because we only know the world by means of the senses does not mean that you cannot reason about the parts of reality that exist apart from the senses. Form this process someone can know of real things that exist apart from particular knowing subjects. For example, the truthes of mathematics are discovered, not invented. They are necessary truths that do not depend on a knowing subject for their validity. Secondly, perceptions are contingent upon the existence of an independent perceiver. The perceiver must exist prior to its perceptions, unless you posit a perfectly self-perceptive preciever ;-) or a real unifying and insensate principle that binds experiences into identifiable knowing subjects.

"The function of the understanding... constitutes the basis of empirical reality."

“The realist forgets that the Object ceases to be Object apart from its reference to the Subject, and that if we take away that reference, or think it away, we at once do away with all objective existence.”

Is it true that the object of consciousness ceases to exist apart from a knowing subject? Again I would refer to the truths of mathematics whose objects are immaterial and thus can be known by the intellect apart from any particular sensible form.

With respect to the "Objects in themselves", the fact that we are limited in our understanding and do not observe objects in their fullness all at once doesn't mean we don't know about the objects. Why must we think that since we do not have god-like omniscience of something that the something remains ineffable. I say it just means there are things about it that you don't yet know. That notion is hardly problematic.

[Exian]

How does a self-perceptive perceiver work around needing to exist prior to perceiving itself?

[One Above All]

Ignoring the wall of text and focusing on the thread title, there's no such thing as "transcendental knowledge" (or "transcendental" anything, really, but that will become obvious in a second).
"Transcendental" means that it transcends everything. Your thread title literally means "Knowledge that transcends knowledge". This is nonsensical.

[Exian]

I think (by which I mean 'I have no clue') transendental means making the leap from the noumenal to the phenomenal. Wait, instead of a "." let me end that previous sentence with a "?".

[Neo-Scholastic]

How does a self-perceptive perceiver work around needing to exist prior to perceiving itself?

I agree and do not think the idea is coherent. My point was that something must be logically prior to the act of perception. BTW Aquinas argues that God's omniscience comes from being fully in act which would include His perception. I disagree for reasons that go beyond the scope of the OP.

[Chas]

Just because we only know the world by means of the senses does not mean that you cannot reason about the parts of reality that exist apart from the senses. Form this process someone can know of real things that exist apart from particular knowing subjects. For example, the truthes of mathematics are discovered, not invented. They are necessary truths that do not depend on a knowing subject for their validity.

No, mathematics is invented. There are no 'necessary truths' until one creates a formal system.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ignoring the wall of text and focusing on the thread title, there's no such thing as "transcendental knowledge" (or "transcendental" anything, really, but that will become obvious in a second). "Transcendental" means that it transcends everything.

I think in this context 'transcendental' lacks the connotations given to it by the American Transcendentalists. I think it refers to universal knowledge that spans over and above knowledge of particulars. Pick-up?

[The Grand Nudger]

Just because we only know the world by means of the senses does not mean that you cannot reason about the parts of reality that exist apart from the senses.

Good luck with "reasoning" about anything that exists "apart from the senses" - care to explain how this is even possible? Why would you assume that reason even applies to things "apart from the senses" even if there were such things in this category in principle...and how have you determined that there are?

[Neo-Scholastic]

No, mathematics is invented.

Then I challenge you to invent your own personal form of mathematics.