纯粹理性批判》的性质与形而上学的结构统一性:对批评家的回应

IF 1.1 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Kantian Review Pub Date : 2024-01-22 DOI:10.1017/s1369415423000493
Gabriele Gava
{"title":"纯粹理性批判》的性质与形而上学的结构统一性:对批评家的回应","authors":"Gabriele Gava","doi":"10.1017/s1369415423000493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n I respond to Karin de Boer, Thomas Land, and Claudio La Rocca’s comments on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics (CUP 2023). I first provide a quick outline of some of the main claims I make in the book.  I then directly address their criticisms, which I group into three categories. The first group of comments raises doubts concerning my characterization of the central tasks of the critique of pure reason. The second targets the fact that I downplay faculty analysis as an essential characteristic of the critique. The third has to do with my claim that the Critique of Pure Reason aims to show that metaphysics is capable of architectonic unity, where this unity is only achievable when we construe metaphysics according to the worldly concept of philosophy.","PeriodicalId":54140,"journal":{"name":"Kantian Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Nature of the Critique of Pure Reason and the Architectonic Unity of Metaphysics: A Response to my Critics\",\"authors\":\"Gabriele Gava\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1369415423000493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n I respond to Karin de Boer, Thomas Land, and Claudio La Rocca’s comments on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics (CUP 2023). I first provide a quick outline of some of the main claims I make in the book.  I then directly address their criticisms, which I group into three categories. The first group of comments raises doubts concerning my characterization of the central tasks of the critique of pure reason. The second targets the fact that I downplay faculty analysis as an essential characteristic of the critique. The third has to do with my claim that the Critique of Pure Reason aims to show that metaphysics is capable of architectonic unity, where this unity is only achievable when we construe metaphysics according to the worldly concept of philosophy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kantian Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kantian Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415423000493\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kantian Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415423000493","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我对卡琳-德布尔(Karin de Boer)、托马斯-兰德(Thomas Land)和克劳迪奥-拉罗卡(Claudio La Rocca)关于康德的《纯粹理性批判与形而上学方法》(CUP 2023)的评论做出了回应。我首先简要概述了我在书中提出的一些主要主张。 然后,我直接回应他们的批评,这些批评分为三类。第一类评论对我对纯粹理性批判的中心任务的描述提出了质疑。第二类意见针对我淡化教师分析这一批判的基本特征。第三类评论与我的主张有关,即《纯粹理性批判》旨在表明形而上学能够实现建筑学上的统一,而这种统一只有当我们按照哲学的世俗概念来解释形而上学时才能实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Nature of the Critique of Pure Reason and the Architectonic Unity of Metaphysics: A Response to my Critics
I respond to Karin de Boer, Thomas Land, and Claudio La Rocca’s comments on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics (CUP 2023). I first provide a quick outline of some of the main claims I make in the book.  I then directly address their criticisms, which I group into three categories. The first group of comments raises doubts concerning my characterization of the central tasks of the critique of pure reason. The second targets the fact that I downplay faculty analysis as an essential characteristic of the critique. The third has to do with my claim that the Critique of Pure Reason aims to show that metaphysics is capable of architectonic unity, where this unity is only achievable when we construe metaphysics according to the worldly concept of philosophy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Kantian Review
Kantian Review PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The journal aims to publish the best contemporary work on Kant and Kantian issues and places an emphasis on those current philosophical debates which reflect a Kantian influence. Almost all recent Western philosophy makes some reference to the work of Kant, either consciously rejecting or consciously endorsing some aspect of that work. In epistemology, in philosophy of mind and language, in moral and political philosophy, and in aesthetics, such Kantian influences are widely acknowledged and extensively discussed. Kant"s work has also increasingly become a concern for the social and political sciences. The journal strengthens this interest both by establishing interpretations of Kant"s own writing and by discussing the substance of the related current philosophical debates.
期刊最新文献
Analytic Cognition in Kant American Reconstruction and the Abolition of Second Slavery: On Pascoe’s Intersectional Critique of Kant’s Theory of Labour Individual Maxim Tokens, not Abstract Maxim Types Kant’s Critique of the Ontological Argument: Comments on Ian Proops’s The Fiery Test of Critique Kant on the Conceptual Possibility of Actually Infinite Tota Synthetica
×
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