Kant used the term “transcendental” in a specific and technical sense to describe the conditions that make knowledge possible. Unlike the metaphysical use of “transcendent,” which refers to something beyond human experience (e.g., God, the soul, or ultimate reality), Kant’s “transcendental” focuses on the a priori conditions that structure human experience itself. Here’s how he justified this term:
1. Distinguishing “Transcendental” from “Transcendent”
• Transcendent: Refers to things that go beyond the limits of human experience, such as noumena or the realm of the divine. Kant critiqued traditional metaphysics for attempting to know the transcendent.
• Transcendental: Refers to what is within the bounds of possible experience but is necessary for its structure. Kant defined “transcendental” as concerned with how we know, not with what we know.
By introducing the term “transcendental,” Kant carved out a middle ground between pure empiricism (which limits knowledge to sense experience) and speculative metaphysics (which claims knowledge of the transcendent).
2. The Role of Transcendental Inquiry
Kant’s transcendental philosophy investigates the conditions for the possibility of experience and knowledge. He argued that certain a priori (prior to experience) structures of the mind—such as space, time, and the categories of the understanding (e.g., causality, substance)—shape all human experience.
• Example:
• Space and time are not derived from experience but are the forms through which we experience objects.
• Causality is not “out there” in the world but is a transcendental condition that our mind imposes to organize sensory data into coherent experiences.
Kant justified the term “transcendental” by showing that these conditions are not transcendent realities but internal frameworks that make experience intelligible.
3. Transcendental Knowledge vs. Empirical Knowledge
• Empirical knowledge: Knowledge derived from sensory experience.
• Transcendental knowledge: Knowledge about the a priori conditions that make empirical knowledge possible.
Kant justified using “transcendental” because his critique focused on these conditions—not to describe things in themselves (noumena), but to explain the structure of appearances (phenomena). For example, when we observe cause and effect, Kant argued that causality is not something we observe in objects themselves but a rule our mind applies to organize sensory input.
4. Transcendental in the Critique of Pure Reason
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant defined the term explicitly:
“I call all knowledge transcendental which is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects, insofar as this mode of knowledge is possible a priori.”
This definition justifies his use of the term by emphasizing that transcendental philosophy investigates the preconditions of experience rather than the objects themselves.
5. Justification in Context
Kant’s justification for using the term “transcendental” lies in the novelty of his approach:
• Traditional metaphysics sought knowledge of transcendent realities. Kant critiqued this as speculative and unjustifiable.
• Kant’s transcendental philosophy turned the focus inward, asking, “What must be true about the human mind and its structures for experience and knowledge to be possible?”
By coining “transcendental,” Kant emphasized this shift from external speculation to internal critique, establishing his critical philosophy.
Conclusion
Kant justified the use of “transcendental” by redefining it to describe the a priori conditions that make knowledge and experience possible. This term marked a departure from speculative metaphysics and signaled a new focus on the structures of human cognition, cementing the foundation of his critical philosophy and the Copernican Revolution in epistemology.
