-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Lukewarm Defence of Transcendental Realism
Uffelen et al., (2024) propose four normative paradigms for thinking/acting (specifically design-thinking), namely: moral agnosticism, pragmatism, unificationism and transcendental moralism. I will begin by saying that I think it is great this formulation explicitly links epistemology and morality as I believe they are inextricably linked. Epistemology is not this formal, boring, objective field, but a highly political field which partially enacts the objects and subjects which we can know and therefore engage with. To pretend otherwise is peak pseudorationalism (Neurath, 1913). This becomes super clear where science intersects with practice (e.g. in the science-policy interface), where linear models are maintained despite practitioners actively questioning their ability to capture complexity and unpredictability due to the quantificatory needs of capitalism (Maas et al., 2022, pp. 3, 7, 9).
However, I disagree with the article about transcendental moralism necessarily resulting in deadlock when confronting wicked problems. In my view there is no contradiction between believing in an objective, antecedent, Real Good, and constructively engaging with the equally Real normative pluralism present in society. It is completely possible to accept that you (and rationality as a whole) are flawed and limited, while believing in a Reality (at least partially) independent of human construction. In fact, this is what classical rationalism, as exemplified by Descartes, was about: reason and its limits (Neurath, 1913). It is, therefore, entirely consistent with the transcendentalist position to engage in deliberation, epistemological humility and "muddling through” (Uffelen et al., 2024, p. 454). Basically, one can do as the moral unificationist does while being a transcendentalist.
As such, it is at least as capable of dealing with wicked problems as the other normative paradigms. In fact, I would argue that it is way more capable of dealing with them then the pragmatic and agnostic paradigms. Which, instead of questioning the Real only attempt to fulfil the desires of their employers, thereby uncritically reproducing the systems they act in (Uffelen et al, 2024). At least transcendental moralism is critical of conceptions of Reality, whether that be of other’s incongruent conceptions of the Real, or - more rationally - real self-criticism as well.
Ultimately, I sincerely believe that while critiques of (especially modern) rationalisms are necessary, correct, and incredibly productive (essential even) - abandoning rationalism makes us weaker.