Abstract

In this paper it is argued that Strawson's transcendental arguments, due to the fact that they operate with the principle of significance, partly fall short of the minimum requirement Stroud sets out for such an argument to be successful. It is further argued that in view of the deficiencies of its classical paradigm, Strawson's version of analytic Kantianism, that is informed by the semantic tradition, can nevertheless be received as a progressive problemshift in transcendental philosophy.