康德还是不是康德?论康德对全球治理和世界主义的终极政治设计。克劳迪奥·科拉代蒂和艾伦·伍德的交换

C. Corradetti, A. Wood
{"title":"康德还是不是康德?论康德对全球治理和世界主义的终极政治设计。克劳迪奥·科拉代蒂和艾伦·伍德的交换","authors":"C. Corradetti, A. Wood","doi":"10.5281/ZENODO.4899239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the following reflection Claudio Corradetti and Allen Wood engage in a controversy concerning the possibilities and the limits of textual interpretation. Should an interpreter still be authorized to  call an author’s interpretation the logical stretch of  text beyond its black printed letters? The authors offer two different standpoints on what can still be defined as textual interpretation. Whereas for Allen Wood a clear-cut separation must be kept between what a text shows and what an interpreter argues starting from the text, for Claudio Corradetti such distinction remains internal to textual exegesis in so far as the  interpreter’s conclusions follow a logical pattern of jus tification starting from evidential hints.","PeriodicalId":41959,"journal":{"name":"Con-textos Kantianos-International Journal of Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":"7-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kant or not Kant? Arguing on Kant’s Ultimate Political Design for Global Governance and Cosmopolitanism. An Exchange between Claudio Corradetti and Allen Wood\",\"authors\":\"C. Corradetti, A. Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.5281/ZENODO.4899239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the following reflection Claudio Corradetti and Allen Wood engage in a controversy concerning the possibilities and the limits of textual interpretation. Should an interpreter still be authorized to  call an author’s interpretation the logical stretch of  text beyond its black printed letters? The authors offer two different standpoints on what can still be defined as textual interpretation. Whereas for Allen Wood a clear-cut separation must be kept between what a text shows and what an interpreter argues starting from the text, for Claudio Corradetti such distinction remains internal to textual exegesis in so far as the  interpreter’s conclusions follow a logical pattern of jus tification starting from evidential hints.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Con-textos Kantianos-International Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"7-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Con-textos Kantianos-International Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4899239\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Con-textos Kantianos-International Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4899239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在接下来的反思中,克劳迪奥·科拉代蒂和艾伦·伍德对文本解释的可能性和局限性进行了争论。口译员是否仍然有权称作者的解释是文字中黑色印刷字母之外的逻辑延伸?对于什么仍然可以被定义为文本解释,作者提供了两种不同的观点。对于Allen Wood来说,文本所展示的内容与阐释者从文本出发所论证的内容之间必须保持明确的分离,而对于Claudio Corradetti来说,这种区分仍然是文本注释的内部,因为阐释者的结论遵循一种从证据暗示开始的证明逻辑模式。
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
Kant or not Kant? Arguing on Kant’s Ultimate Political Design for Global Governance and Cosmopolitanism. An Exchange between Claudio Corradetti and Allen Wood
In the following reflection Claudio Corradetti and Allen Wood engage in a controversy concerning the possibilities and the limits of textual interpretation. Should an interpreter still be authorized to  call an author’s interpretation the logical stretch of  text beyond its black printed letters? The authors offer two different standpoints on what can still be defined as textual interpretation. Whereas for Allen Wood a clear-cut separation must be kept between what a text shows and what an interpreter argues starting from the text, for Claudio Corradetti such distinction remains internal to textual exegesis in so far as the  interpreter’s conclusions follow a logical pattern of jus tification starting from evidential hints.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Con-Textos Kantianos aims at boosting the philological and critical research on Kant studies, considering also actual discussions on Kant''s thought. That is the reason why its heading hints to contexts with texts. Kant shall be the main focus of the journal, which will tackle subjects such as Moral and Political Philosophy, History of Ideas, Philosophy of Right, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Education, Aesthetics, Anthropology, Metaphysics and Epistemology, Human Rights, Social Policy, Theories of Justice and Cosmopolitanism. CTK aims at being an international and cosmopolitan inspired e-journal, where the Spanish language receives equal acknowledgement as English, French, German, Italian and Portuguese do. The main purposes of the journal are to enhance the development of a Kant scholarship network at the Latin American scale and to tighten the links between research groups already consolidated in different countries and languages. The editorial team, which gathers Kant scholars from Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Spain, will certainly ease the fulfillment of both purposes.
期刊最新文献
Philosophy in cosmic sense and human reason in Kant Genialidad ilustrada Vida mental sin conceptos y cognición animal en Kant Kant und das Projekt der Aufklärung heute Pasear al filo del sentido. Recuerdo de Paulo Tunhas (1960-2023)
×
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