Freedom and Force: Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy edited by Sari Kisilevsky and Martin J Stone*

N. Sage
{"title":"Freedom and Force: Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy edited by Sari Kisilevsky and Martin J Stone*","authors":"N. Sage","doi":"10.1017/cjlj.2018.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This review considers some criticisms made of Arthur Ripstein’s Kantian theory of private law. Authors in this collection are Japa Pallikkathayil, Katrin Flikschuh, Andrea Sangiovanni, AJ Julius, George Pavlakos, Daniel Weinstock, Allen Wood, and Martin J Stone, with reply by Arthur Ripstein. The review itself focuses on the problematic role in Ripstein’s theory of individual choice or purposiveness in the light of the work of the eight critics.","PeriodicalId":244583,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2018.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This review considers some criticisms made of Arthur Ripstein’s Kantian theory of private law. Authors in this collection are Japa Pallikkathayil, Katrin Flikschuh, Andrea Sangiovanni, AJ Julius, George Pavlakos, Daniel Weinstock, Allen Wood, and Martin J Stone, with reply by Arthur Ripstein. The review itself focuses on the problematic role in Ripstein’s theory of individual choice or purposiveness in the light of the work of the eight critics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《自由与力量:康德法律哲学论文集》,萨里·基西列夫斯基、马丁·J·斯通主编*
本文回顾了对里普斯坦的康德私法理论的一些批评。本书作者包括Japa Pallikkathayil、Katrin Flikschuh、Andrea Sangiovanni、AJ Julius、George Pavlakos、Daniel Weinstock、Allen Wood和Martin J Stone,并有Arthur Ripstein的回复。回顾本身侧重于在八个批评家的工作的光里普斯坦的个人选择或合向性理论的问题作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Why Judicial Formalism is Incompatible with the Rule of Law Public Wrongs and Private Wrongs Transfer by Contract in Kant, Hegel, and Comparative Law Notes Toward a Postmodern Principle Private Law Exceptionalism? Part II: A Basic Difficulty with the Argument from Formal Equality*
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1