RESUMO O artigo pretende mostrar o sentido da noção de transcendental no interior do método reconstrutivo de Jürgen Habermas. Para isso, ele procura apresentar em primeiro lugar a diferença entre a argumentação transcendental como argumentação anticética e a prova transcendental em Kant e, em seguida, a diferença entre Habermas e Apel sobre a possibilidade de uma fundamentação última da racionalidade comunicativa. Segundo minha interpretação, há razões de ordem lógica para a recusa da fundamentação última em Habermas, mas também razões ligados (...) à historicidade da compreensão da razão. ABSTRACT The article aims to show the meaning of the notion of "transcendental" inside the reconstructive method of Jürgen Habermas. For such, first of all, it attempts to present the difference between the transcendental argumentation as anti-skeptical argumentation and the transcendental proof in Kant and, then, the difference between Habermas and Apel about the possibility of an ultimate foundation of communicative rationality. According to my interpretation, there are reasons of logical order for the refusal of the ultimate foundation in Habermas, but also reasons related to the historicity of understanding of reason. (shrink)

This paper deals with Popper's little-known work on deductive logic, published between 1947 and 1949. According to his theory of deductive inference, the meaning of logical signs is determined by certain rules derived from ?inferential definitions? of those signs. Although strong arguments have been presented against Popper's claims (e.g. by Curry, Kleene, Lejewski and McKinsey), his theory can be reconstructed when it is viewed primarily as an attempt to demarcate logical from non-logical constants rather than as a semantic foundation for (...) logic. A criterion of logicality is obtained which is based on conjunction, implication and universal quantification as fundamental logical operations. (shrink)

Husserl and Frege reject logical psychologism, the view that logical laws are psychological 'laws of thought'. This paper offers an account of these famous objections and argues that their crucial premise, the necessity of logical laws, is justified with reference to a problematic metaphysics. However, this premise can be established in a more plausible way, namely via a transcendental argument which starts from the practice of rational criticism. This argument is developed through a discussion of Quine's holism, which at first (...) appears to make the idea of the necessity of logical laws even less plausible, but eventually turns out to speak in favor of this view. (shrink)