Talk:antitranscendentalism

Your non-definition is vague
anti- is an etymon. Etymology isn't tautological to definition.

The 19th century antitranscendentalism, wasn't a pure form of antitranscendentalism. It accepted the hypernymous criteria of transcendentalism; the unknowable true nature of the first cause and of the mechanism of the cosmos. Good and evil are different conducts, but the manner of conduct isn't the most causal metaphysical question.

Modern antitranscendentalism opposes even the indescribability of the first cause and permanent cosmological mechanism.

Your examples are of different definitions
One hitch here is that this deflationary attitude and extreme anti-transcendentalism might appear to paint Quine's naturalism into a corner.
 * 1) (proscientific sense; explicitly supporting science to the full; facts and formulas mentioned) 1990, Debi Prasad Chattopadhyaya, Anthropology and Historiography of Science (page 120)
 * The positivist is driven to either "pure facts" or "pure formulas" by his antitranscendentalism of the dogmatic variety.
 * 1) (philosophical, opposition to simple metaphysics and simple definition of ethics and its cause; here not necessarily to the point of accepting a scientific first and permanent cause; AND sensibilia, not OR sensibilia; Immanuel Kant; opposition to the New England's view, but without rejecting its criteria) 2019, Robert Sinclair, Science and Sensibilia by W. V. Quine: The 1980 Immanuel Kant Lectures


 * If you want antitranscendentalism to be defined through transcendentalism; we need to include a modern scientific definition.

You don't have it.
 * You don't get it. This is a descriptive dictionary- if the people who speak the language use a word to mean worship of pink unicorns, our definition will say "Worship of pink unicorns." Besides, all of your definitions consist of whatever pops into your head, expressed in your own private language that makes no sense to people who speak actual English- sort of like without the sense of humor. Word salad would be an improvement- at least our readers would know not to try to make sense of it. We don't let you do that to our readers, so you nitpick and complain. Unfortunately, we can't effectively block you without also blocking others who have genuinely good contributions to make. Please find something better to do with your time. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)