Kant And Kant s Metaphysical Theorizing - amazonia.fiocruz.br

Kant And Kant s Metaphysical Theorizing Video

SearchWorks catalog

Please have a look at our rules and guidelines. Check our FAQs for a list of frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.

Specific enough to reasonably be answered i. Questions about philosophy, e. Come only from those with relevant knowledge of the question i. You can find a full list of the subreddit rules here.

As philosophical issues are often complicated and have potentially thousands of years of research to sift through, knowing when someone is an expert in a given area can be important in helping understand and weigh the given evidence. You can find the details of our flair system here. You can also find information about applying for flair at that page. Is there a decent theory of meaning that can save Kant? It would have to accommodates talk of entities the self, objects that can never be empirically observed, in principle.

Please read our rules before commenting and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers but do encourage themanswers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state Kant And Kant s Metaphysical Theorizing the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.

1. Introduction

Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. So the first thought that popped into my mind https://amazonia.fiocruz.br/scdp/essay/pathetic-fallacy-examples/henry-vii-of-england.php that one ought just reject the view of meaning that says a term is meaningful only if it has an empirical referent, as I take most philosophers to have done at this point.

I guess I'd need to hear more about why you find this view so compelling that it makes you worried about Kant. But more helpfully perhaps, I think you'd gain a lot from reading P. Strawson's The Bounds of Sense. It is no doubt dated and you shouldn't take its interpretive claims as gospel, but it was written at a time that these sorts of concerns with meaning were arguably at their peak and does a great job Kant And Kant s Metaphysical Theorizing interpreting and rehabilitating Kant in that light. It's also very readable for a CPR commentary! It's still a widely read text within contemporary Kant scholarship, even if most scholars now disagree with Strawson's approach of assimilating Kant too much to the concerns of analytic philosophy in his day and his unwillingness click take transcendental idealism seriously.

The most recent edition by Routledge comes with a great foreword by Lucy Kant And Kant s Metaphysical Theorizing, who is herself someone I'd recommend reading and who will help you contextualise Strawson's claims in the light of today's understanding of Kant. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. All rights reserved. Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.

Submit a new text post. Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit.

Navigation menu

All other comments are off-topic and will be removed. Rules You can find a full list of the subreddit rules here. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities. Want to add to the discussion? Kang a comment! Create an account.]