3 Answers

  1. The distinction between the transcendent and the transcendental was introduced by I. Kant, using the concepts of the previous (medieval, if I'm not mistaken) philosophy, in which they were similar in content and meaning. The philosopher of Koenigsberg used these concepts to describe the possibility and limitation (conditionality) of experience.�

    What is beyond (trans-) sensory experience cannot be the subject of experiential knowledge (but can be thought of and be the subject of other cognition) – it is the transcendent. What is also not present in the experience, but still not an alternative to it, is associated with it-the transcendental. It is not given in experience, but makes it possible, determines its content. Without transcendentals (not transcendences!), for example, space and time (forms of sensory intuition), concepts of the understanding, a priori ideas of the mind, no experience (and hence cognition) is possible, it “crumbles”, it does not exist as a certain experience, the experience of “something” or “about something”.

    A good metaphor for the transcendental is the border. and there is a border, a line). The border is connected with what restricts (keeps within its limits), otherwise it would be the border of something else, and does not coincide with this limited (it is “behind” it, “outside” it), otherwise it would not be a border.

  2. Transcendental is, as we said above, something that is beyond the scope of our knowledge (ontologically not knowable).

    The transcendental is that through which we know reality and the knowledge of which is inherent in us from birth (a priori). For example, space and time.

    And if it is simpler, then it is just a prism through which we see reality.

  3. Transcendent – lying beyond the boundaries of any knowledge. For example, God.

    Transcendental – independent of experience, a priori.

    P.S. In Kant's philosophy.

Leave a Reply