transcendental

1. Introduction

The term “transcendental” is a technical expression in philosophy whose meaning has shifted significantly across historical periods and schools. It has been used to characterize, among other things, the most universal properties of being, the a priori conditions of experience, the constitutive achievements of consciousness, and the structural presuppositions of knowledge, culture, or practice.

Two broad historical lineages are usually distinguished:

• In medieval scholasticism, transcendentalia are attributes such as unity, truth, and goodness that are said to be coextensive with everything that exists and to “go beyond” the Aristotelian categories.
• In modern philosophy, beginning decisively with Immanuel Kant, “transcendental” designates an inquiry into the conditions that make possible experience, knowledge, or objectivity, particularly those that operate a priori rather than being derived from experience.

Later traditions—German Idealism, Neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, and various strands of analytic philosophy—adapt and reinterpret this Kantian sense, often while engaging critically with the scholastic legacy.

The term must also be distinguished from “transcendent”, which typically refers to what lies “beyond” possible experience (for instance, God, absolute reality, or things in themselves). Many discussions of the transcendental are devoted to clarifying this contrast.

Because “transcendental” functions as a family-resemblance term rather than a single, fixed concept, scholarly treatments often focus on:

• its philological origins in Latin,
• the system-specific definitions given by major thinkers,
• and the methodological role it plays in arguments about what must be presupposed for there to be beings, experiences, or valid knowledge at all.

This entry surveys these uses and clarifications in historical sequence while analyzing their key conceptual contrasts and interrelations.

2. Etymology and Linguistic Origins

The adjective “transcendental” originates from Medieval Latin transcendentalis, derived from the classical verb transcendere (“to climb over, go beyond, surpass”) plus the adjectival suffix -alis (“pertaining to”). The literal sense thus evokes a relation to what goes beyond a boundary or limit.

Latin roots

In classical Latin, derivatives like transcendens and transcensus remain largely non-technical, used metaphorically or descriptively. It is scholastic Latin that first stabilizes transcendentalis and transcendentalia as philosophical terms, tied to metaphysical reflection on being (ens).

Transmission into vernacular languages

From scholastic Latin, the term passes into:

• Early modern Latin philosophical and theological works,
• Romance languages (e.g., French transcendental, Italian trascendentale),
• and German as transzendental, notably in Kant.

In each case the word remains morphologically close to the Latin, but its conceptual role is reshaped. Kant’s definition of transzendental as concerned with the conditions of possibility of experience becomes especially influential, and modern vernacular uses often reflect this Kantian layer more than the scholastic one.

Relation to “transcendent”

The cognate “transcendent” corresponds to Latin transcendens and transcendens ens (“a being beyond”). Historically they share roots but diverge semantically: transcendentalis comes to mark what is formally more universal (in scholastic usage) or structurally conditioning (in Kantian usage), while “transcendent” generally designates what lies beyond the reach of ordinary experience or categories.

3. Semantic Field and Philological Context

Philologically, “transcendental” belongs to a cluster of Latin and later European terms that encode relations of beyondness, universality, and conditions. Scholarship often situates it within a semantic field that includes:

In scholastic Latin, transcendentalia are contrasted with categories (praedicamenta): while categories divide being into highest genera, transcendentalia are said to be above or across those genera, predicable of every thing whatsoever.

In German Idealism and phenomenology, transzendental occurs in systematic opposition to terms such as empirisch (empirical), psychologisch (psychological), or transzendent (beyond experience). Philologically, this opposition shapes the later sense of “transcendental” as neither empirical nor transcendent, but immanent as a condition.

Lexical studies note that the term often operates meta-theoretically:

• In scholasticism, it concerns meta-categorical determinations of being.
• In Kantian and post-Kantian thought, it concerns meta-empirical structures of cognition or meaning.

The semantic field is thus double-layered: one axis is beyond vs. within categories (medieval), the other conditions vs. objects (modern). This dual heritage underlies many interpretive disputes about how to read the term in different authors and languages.

4. Pre-Philosophical and Classical Latin Usage

Before its technical philosophical crystallization, derivatives of transcendere in classical Latin are used in ordinary, often rhetorical, contexts. They describe physical, quantitative, or qualitative surpassing rather than metaphysical or epistemological conditions.

Typical usages include:

• Physical crossing or climbing: armies or travelers transcendunt montes (“cross mountains”).
• Quantitative exceeding: numbers, sums, or measures that “go beyond” a given amount.
• Qualitative surpassing: a person’s virtues, eloquence, or achievements that exceed expectations or rivals.

In these contexts, the sense is straightforwardly descriptive: there is a standard or boundary, and something goes beyond it. There is no implication of:

• universality across categories of being, or
• a priori conditions of cognition.

The adjective transcendens may be applied to a person or deed to indicate exceptional excellence or extraordinary status, again in a largely rhetorical sense.

Philological evidence suggests that transcendentalis itself is not a classical Latin word; it emerges later in medieval scholastic Latin as a technical neologism. As a result, classical authors like Cicero, Seneca, or Lucretius do not employ the specifically philosophical vocabulary of transcendentalia, although their works provided the general lexical resources—transcendere and its participles—that scholastic thinkers later adapt.

Commentators emphasize that the pre-philosophical usage already encodes a basic spatial or comparative metaphor of crossing a limit, which subsequent metaphysical and epistemological uses will abstract and systematize. The shift from “surpassing a rival” to “surpassing categories” or “conditioning experience” builds upon, but also significantly transforms, this original lexical core.

5. Medieval Scholastic Transcendentalia

In medieval scholasticism, the transcendentalia are the most general properties of being (ens) that “transcend” the Aristotelian categories in extension. This doctrine develops between the 13th and 17th centuries in thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Francisco Suárez.

Core transcendental attributes

A common set of transcendentalia includes:

Not all authors accept all of these as distinct transcendentalia, and there is debate about how they relate to ens and to each other.

Relation to categories and being

For scholastics, the categories (substance, quantity, quality, etc.) classify beings into highest genera. The transcendentalia, by contrast:

• are coextensive with being itself—whatever is, is one, true, and good;
• are therefore “above” or “across” the categories, not another category alongside them;
• express different aspects or “modes” of the same underlying reality of ens.

Aquinas, for instance, writes that the transcendentals are “convertible” with being, meaning that each can be predicated wherever the others can:

"

“Good and true and being are really the same and differ only in idea.”

— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 5, a. 1

Systematic roles and debates

Proponents treat the transcendentalia as foundational for:

• metaphysics (the study of being as being),
• natural theology (e.g., identifying God as ipsum esse subsistens, the fullness of truth and goodness),
• and moral theory (linking being and goodness).

Scholastic debates address whether:

• the transcendentalia are really distinct or only conceptually distinct;
• they are derived from intellectual reflection on being or grounded in divine ideas;
• additional transcendentalia (e.g., pulchrum – the beautiful) should be admitted.

Later commentators view this scholastic doctrine as an important precursor to modern questions about universality, predication, and the scope of metaphysics, even though the meaning of “transcendental” will shift with Kant.

6. Kant’s Redefinition of the Transcendental

Immanuel Kant introduces a new, influential sense of “transcendental” in the Critique of Pure Reason. For Kant, transcendental no longer describes the most universal predicates of being, but instead:

"

“I call all knowledge transcendental that is occupied not so much with objects as with our mode of knowledge of objects insofar as this is to be possible a priori.”

— Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, B25

Transcendental philosophy as conditions-of-possibility analysis

Kant’s transcendental philosophy investigates the a priori conditions that make experience and synthetic a priori knowledge possible. Central examples include:

• the forms of sensibility (space and time),
• the categories of the understanding (causality, substance, etc.),
• and the principles that govern their use.

These are called “transcendental” because they function as conditions of possibility for any object to appear to us as an object of experience. They are neither empirical facts nor transcendent entities; they belong to the structure of our cognitive faculties.

Distinction from “transcendent” and “transcendental realism”

Kant contrasts:

Transcendental philosophy is critical: it sets the bounds of reason by distinguishing legitimate use of a priori concepts (within experience) from transcendent misuse (as in certain metaphysical claims about the soul, world as totality, or God).

Impact on the concept

Kant’s redefinition transforms “transcendental” into a methodological label: it marks a reflective standpoint that turns from objects to the subject’s cognitive capacities. Later thinkers will variously radicalize, modify, or contest this approach, but the Kantian sense of “transcendental” as conditions-of-possibility analysis becomes a key reference point for modern philosophy.

7. Post-Kantian and Neo-Kantian Developments

After Kant, the term “transcendental” is reinterpreted by German Idealists, Neo-Kantians, and other post-Kantian thinkers, who both draw upon and revise Kant’s notion of conditions of possibility.

German Idealism: Fichte, Schelling, Hegel

J. G. Fichte reconceives transcendental philosophy as a genetic account of the self-positing I (Ich). The transcendental standpoint becomes that of the absolute I whose activity posits both subject and object:

"

“The I posits itself and by virtue of this mere self-positing it exists.”

— Fichte, Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre (1794/95)

Here “transcendental” marks reflection on the productive acts of consciousness rather than static forms.

Schelling and Hegel incorporate and criticize transcendental approaches, tending to move from an individual subject to absolute spirit or identity systems. Some interpreters see their work as transforming transcendental philosophy into systematic metaphysics, while others emphasize continuities in the analysis of conditions for objectivity.

Neo-Kantianism

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Neo-Kantian schools (Marburg: Cohen, Natorp; Southwest/Baden: Windelband, Rickert) revive and adapt Kant:

• The Marburg School emphasizes the transcendental logic of science: conditions for the possibility of scientific objectivity, often understood functionally rather than psychologically.
• The Southwest School extends transcendental analysis to values and cultural sciences, examining conditions for the possibility of historical and cultural meaning.

Ernst Cassirer generalizes this program with his theory of symbolic forms, interpreting language, myth, science, and art as transcendental structures through which reality is objectified.

Other post-Kantian uses

Outside strict Idealism and Neo-Kantianism, the term influences:

• early hermeneutics and phenomenology (often in dialogue with Neo-Kantianism),
• and later critical theory, which sometimes employs “transcendental” to describe structures of rationality, communication, or society.

Across these developments, “transcendental” remains associated with a reflective, non-empirical investigation of the conditions under which specific domains—science, culture, history—become intelligible and objectively valid.

8. Transcendental Phenomenology and Husserl

Edmund Husserl develops a distinctive version of transcendental philosophy under the name “transcendental phenomenology.” He integrates Kantian themes of conditions of possibility with a detailed analysis of conscious experience.

Phenomenological reduction and the transcendental ego

Husserl introduces the phenomenological reduction (Epoché) as a methodological shift from the natural attitude (everyday belief in an independently existing world) to a transcendental attitude. In this shift, the existence of the world is “bracketed” to investigate:

• how objects are constituted in consciousness,
• which intentional structures (noesis–noema, temporal synthesis, horizonality) make this possible.

Through this reflection, Husserl claims to disclose a transcendental ego—a pure, constituting subjectivity that is not an empirical person but the source of all objectivity:

"

“All worldly being derives its whole sense and existential status, which it has for me, from me myself, from my own experiencing and thinking.”

— Husserl, Cartesian Meditations, §8

Transcendental in Husserl’s sense

In Husserl, “transcendental” refers to:

• the level of subjectivity at which the world’s sense and validity are constituted,
• the eidetic (essential) structures uncovered by phenomenological analysis as conditions of possibility for experience, meaning, and knowledge.

Unlike Kant, Husserl seeks to describe these structures through intuition of essences (Wesensschau) rather than primarily through transcendental deduction.

Debates and developments

Interpretations differ on:

• whether Husserl’s transcendental ego is solipsistic or essentially intersubjective (developed in works on the lifeworld and intersubjectivity),
• how his method relates to Kantian a priori structures versus lived experience,
• and to what extent later phenomenologists (Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc.) preserve or critique the transcendental dimension of phenomenology.

Nonetheless, Husserl’s project consolidates a powerful sense of “transcendental” as rigorous reflection on constituting subjectivity, distinct from both empirical psychology and metaphysical claims about transcendent entities.

9. Transcendental Arguments in Analytic Philosophy

Within analytic philosophy, “transcendental” is most often encountered in the notion of a transcendental argument. These arguments attempt to show that certain concepts or structures must be presupposed as conditions of possibility of some undeniable feature of experience, language, or practice.

General form

Although formulations vary, a standard schema is:

1. Start from an apparently indubitable fact (e.g., that we make meaningful judgments, that we experience objects in time).
2. Show that this fact would be impossible unless certain conditions obtain.
3. Conclude that those conditions must obtain (at least for us as knowers or agents).

Key figures and applications

Prominent uses include:

These arguments are often described as “Kantian” insofar as they echo Kant’s strategy of inferring the categories from features of experience, though they frequently avoid Kant’s full metaphysical or epistemological commitments.

Support and criticism

Proponents argue that transcendental arguments:

• provide anti-skeptical resources (e.g., against external-world or other-minds skepticism),
• clarify the conceptual preconditions of central practices (science, communication, morality).

Critics contend that:

• such arguments may only establish what is necessary given our conceptual scheme, not what is objectively the case,
• the move from “we must think X” to “X is (in some sense) true” is fallacious or equivocal,
• some proposed “necessary conditions” are themselves contestable.

Debates also concern whether transcendental arguments are best understood as deductive, regressive, pragmatic, or interpretive. Despite these disputes, the label “transcendental” in analytic contexts typically signals this conditions-of-possibility argumentative strategy, rather than scholastic or phenomenological meanings.

10. Conceptual Analysis: Transcendental vs. Transcendent

Philosophical literature often emphasizes a conceptual distinction between “transcendental” and “transcendent”, even though the terms share etymological roots.

Core contrast

In Kantian usage, this contrast is especially sharp:

• Transcendental: analysis of how objects of possible experience are constituted for us through a priori forms and categories.
• Transcendent: use of these concepts beyond their legitimate bounds, e.g., in speculative metaphysics about the soul, world, or God as they are in themselves.

Medieval and modern nuances

In scholastic metaphysics, the distinction is less formalized. There:

• Transcendentals (transcendentalia) are attributes that “go beyond” categories in universality.
• Transcendent may designate God or a being beyond the created order.

In post-Kantian and phenomenological contexts:

• “Transcendental” often refers to constituting subjectivity or structural conditions of objectivity.
• “Transcendent” can refer to what shows up as beyond the immanent flow of consciousness (e.g., the object as transcendent to any single act).

Sources of confusion

Colloquially, “transcendental” is frequently used as a near-synonym for “transcendent,” meaning mystical, otherworldly, or beyond ordinary experience. Scholarly discussions typically regard this as imprecise, because:

• “Transcendental” usually concerns immanent structures (of being, cognition, or meaning),
• whereas “transcendent” concerns that which is beyond or “on the other side” of such structures.

Some philosophers exploit the ambiguity deliberately, while others insist on strict terminological discipline to avoid conflating conditions-of-possibility analysis with claims about entities beyond experience.

11. Related Concepts: A Priori, Categories, and Conditions of Possibility

The concept of the transcendental is closely linked to several other key philosophical notions, particularly in modern thought.

A priori

The a priori typically designates what is independent of particular experiences. In Kantian and post-Kantian contexts, “transcendental” is often associated with a special kind of a priori:

• not merely truths knowable without experience,
• but structural features that function as conditions for the possibility of experience and knowledge.

However, some authors distinguish between:

Thus not all a priori claims are necessarily transcendental in the strict sense.

Categories

In Aristotle, categories are the most general kinds of predication. In Kant, the categories of the understanding (e.g., causality, substance, quantity) are a priori concepts that structure experience.

In both scholastic and Kantian frameworks, “transcendental” stands in a specific relation to categories:

• Scholastics: transcendentalia are more universal than categories, predicable of any being whatsoever.
• Kant: transcendental philosophy includes a “Transcendental Analytic” that investigates categories as conditions of possible experience.

Later thinkers extend “categories” to include broader structural or formal features (e.g., of culture or language), often under a transcendental description.

Conditions of possibility

The phrase “conditions of possibility” becomes almost synonymous with the transcendental approach, especially since Kant. It denotes whatever must be:

• presupposed,
• or constitutively in place,

for certain phenomena—experience, objectivity, communication, moral responsibility—to be possible at all.

Different traditions interpret these conditions in diverse ways:

• as forms of intuition and concepts (Kant),
• as acts or structures of consciousness (Fichte, Husserl),
• as normative or logical frameworks (Neo-Kantians),
• or as pragmatic presuppositions of practices (some analytic philosophers).

The interplay of a priori, categories, and conditions of possibility thus furnishes the conceptual environment in which “transcendental” operates, with varying emphases depending on the author and school.

12. Translation Challenges and Terminological Confusions

Translating and interpreting “transcendental” presents several well-documented difficulties, particularly because of its proximity to “transcendent” and its shifting historical meanings.

Distinguishing “transcendental” and “transcendent”

In many modern languages, both terms are rendered with closely related forms (e.g., French transcendant vs. transcendantal; Spanish trascendente vs. trascendental). This fosters confusion between:

• conditions-of-possibility (transcendental),
• and beyond-experience reality (transcendent).

Translators often must preserve the formal distinction while clarifying contextually which sense is intended, especially in Kant and later German texts where transzendental and transzendent are carefully differentiated.

Scholastic vs. Kantian senses

The Latin transcendentalia in scholastic works and the German transzendental in Kant do not denote the same concept, even though they share a root. Translators and commentators face choices such as:

• whether to render transcendentalia as “transcendentals” (preserving technicality but risking anachronistic Kantian associations),
• how to explain that medieval transcendentals are universal properties of being, not conditions of experience.

Scholars sometimes resort to explanatory footnotes or glossaries to mark this historical shift.

Modern colloquial usage

In everyday English and other languages, “transcendental” is often used loosely to mean:

• “mystical,” “spiritually elevated,” or “otherworldly” (e.g., in some spiritual movements),
• or as an intensifier for “profound” or “extraordinary.”

This usage tends to blur the line with “transcendent” and bears little relation to either scholastic or Kantian technical meanings. Academic authors commonly note this divergence to avoid misinterpretation.

Strategies in scholarship

To mitigate confusion, scholarly practice includes:

• retaining the original-language terms (transzendental, transcendentalia),
• specifying the author and period whenever the term is introduced,
• using paraphrases such as “conditions-of-possibility analysis” or “meta-categorical properties of being” alongside “transcendental.”

Disagreements persist about how best to render certain nuances—for example, whether Husserl’s transzendentale Subjektivität is best captured as “transcendental subjectivity,” “constituting consciousness,” or similar phrases—illustrating that translation of “transcendental” often involves interpretive decisions about a thinker’s system.

13. Applications in Metaphysics and Epistemology

The notion of the transcendental has had significant applications in both metaphysics and epistemology, though in different ways across traditions.

Metaphysical applications

In medieval scholasticism, transcendentalia provide a framework for metaphysics as the science of being qua being. They are used to:

• articulate the structure of reality at its most universal level,
• connect metaphysics with theology (e.g., identifying God with perfect unity, truth, and goodness),
• ground accounts of participation, where finite beings participate in transcendentals in limited ways.

In some post-Kantian systems (especially German Idealism), transcendental reflection on the subject is extended into comprehensive accounts of reality (e.g., absolute idealism), though interpretations differ on whether this should be seen as a metaphysical expansion of transcendental philosophy or a departure from its critical character.

Epistemological applications

In Kantian and Neo-Kantian contexts, “transcendental” is central to epistemology:

• It designates investigations into the a priori forms and principles that structure knowledge,
• and underpins distinctions between empirical and a priori, appearance and thing in itself, transcendental idealism and transcendental realism.

Transcendental arguments in analytic epistemology apply this approach to issues such as:

• the existence of an objective external world,
• the possibility of communication and shared meaning,
• and the justification of basic beliefs or frameworks.

Some epistemologists regard transcendental strategies as offering anti-skeptical resources, while others question whether they deliver substantive knowledge beyond our own conceptual commitments.

Intersections and tensions

Metaphysical and epistemological uses can intersect or diverge:

• Scholastic transcendentalia belong primarily to ontology, yet have epistemological implications (e.g., the intelligibility of being).
• Kantian transcendental philosophy is often classed as epistemological or critically metaphysical, since it concerns the structure of objects for us rather than things in themselves.

Debates continue over whether transcendental inquiry should be understood as a form of metaphysics, a theory of knowledge, or a distinct third kind of critical reflection.

14. Transcendental Method in Ethics, Politics, and Culture

Beyond metaphysics and epistemology, the transcendental method has been applied to ethics, political philosophy, and cultural theory, typically by examining the conditions of possibility of normative practices and cultural forms.

Ethics and practical reason

In Kant’s moral philosophy, some interpreters identify a transcendental dimension in the analysis of:

• what must be presupposed for agents to be morally responsible,
• the form of lawgiving required for maxims to be universally valid.

Later thinkers use transcendental-style arguments in ethics to claim that:

• certain norms (e.g., respect for persons) are conditions of the possibility of agency,
• or that certain presuppositions (freedom, accountability) are necessary for ethical discourse.

Others in analytic ethics adopt transcendental arguments to explore the presuppositions of reactive attitudes, moral practices, or practical reasoning more generally.

Politics and social philosophy

Some strands of critical theory and discourse ethics (e.g., Jürgen Habermas, Karl-Otto Apel) employ quasi-transcendental analyses of:

• the conditions for the possibility of rational communication,
• the pragmatic presuppositions of argumentation, such as mutual recognition and freedom from coercion.

These presuppositions are treated as normative constraints built into the very practice of communicative action, thereby grounding political ideals of deliberative democracy or rational consensus.

Culture and symbolic forms

In Neo-Kantian cultural philosophy, especially in Ernst Cassirer, the transcendental method is applied to symbolic forms:

• language, myth, art, and science are analyzed as formative structures that make specific kinds of worlds accessible.
• each symbolic form has its own quasi-transcendental rules of formation that condition how reality appears within that cultural domain.

Contemporary cultural theory sometimes adopts similar approaches, speaking of transcendental structures of discourse, genres, or practices that shape possibilities of meaning and action.

The appropriateness and limits of extending “transcendental” analysis from cognition to normativity, social institutions, and culture remain subjects of ongoing discussion.

15. Contemporary Critiques and Alternatives

Contemporary philosophy features numerous critiques of transcendental approaches, along with proposals for alternatives or revisions.

Critiques from phenomenology and hermeneutics

Some later phenomenologists and hermeneutic thinkers (e.g., Heidegger, Gadamer) question:

• whether a purely transcendental subject or a fixed set of conditions of possibility can be meaningfully isolated,
• and whether such an approach neglects historicity, facticity, and linguistic mediation.

They often emphasize being-in-the-world, historical tradition, or language as more basic than the formal structures highlighted by transcendental analysis.

Analytic critiques

Within analytic philosophy, critics of transcendental arguments contend that:

• they risk a “verificationist” or “conceptual” circle, showing only how we must think rather than how things are,
• purportedly indubitable starting points may themselves be disputed,
• and the inference from conceptual or practical presuppositions to objective truths is not straightforward.

Some propose more modest, pragmatic or deflationary readings of transcendental reasoning, limiting its conclusions to claims about our conceptual schemes or norms of discourse.

Post-structural and postmodern critiques

Post-structuralist and postmodern authors (e.g., Derrida, Foucault) often criticize the search for stable transcendental structures as overlooking:

• the play of difference and instability in language and meaning,
• the historical contingency of epistemic and social formations.

From this standpoint, “conditions of possibility” themselves may be subject to deconstruction or genealogical analysis, revealing underlying power relations or exclusions.

Naturalistic and empirical alternatives

Naturalistic philosophers and cognitive scientists sometimes propose replacing transcendental analysis with:

• empirical investigations of cognitive mechanisms,
• or evolutionary and biological accounts of our capacities.

On this view, what transcendental philosophy treats as a priori structures may be explained as contingent products of human evolution, development, and culture.

Despite these critiques, some contemporary thinkers seek reformulated transcendental projects—for example, quasi-transcendental or minimal transcendental approaches that acknowledge historical and empirical factors while still identifying robust structural constraints on knowledge, meaning, or normativity.

16. Legacy and Historical Significance

The concept of the transcendental has left a substantial legacy across the history of Western philosophy, influencing debates about being, knowledge, subjectivity, and culture.

Historical trajectory

This trajectory illustrates how a term rooted in medieval metaphysics becomes central to modern theories of knowledge and subjectivity, and then diversifies into multiple specialized usages.

Enduring influences

The transcendental tradition has shaped:

• the idea that philosophy can legitimately investigate conditions of possibility rather than only particular objects,
• conceptions of a priori structure, categories, and frameworks,
• critical projects that set limits to what can be known or meaningfully asserted.

Even critics of transcendental philosophy often frame their work in relation to it—by rejecting, revising, or historicizing its claims.

Ongoing relevance

In contemporary debates, transcendental notions continue to inform:

• anti-skeptical strategies,
• discussions of conceptual schemes, normativity, and rationality,
• analyses of subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and cultural form.

At the same time, concerns about historicity, embodiment, language, and power have prompted more nuanced or limited understandings of what “transcendental” inquiry can accomplish.

The historical significance of “transcendental” thus lies both in its role as a core organizing concept for several major philosophical systems and in its capacity to serve as a point of contestation, around which alternative visions of philosophy’s scope and method have been articulated.