No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Kant’s Reform of Metaphysics: A Response to My Critics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 February 2022
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Author Meets Critics
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review
References
De Boer, Karin (2015) ‘The Vicissitudes of Metaphysics in Kant and Early Post-Kantian Philosophy’. Revista Portuguesa de filosofia, 71(2–3), 267–86.10.17990/RPF/2015_71_2_0267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, Karin (2020a) Kant’s Reform of Metaphysics: The Critique of Pure Reason Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108897983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, Karin (2020b) ‘Pure Sensibility as Source of Corruption: Kant’s Notion of Critique in the Inaugural Dissertation and the Critique of Pure Reason’. In McQuillan, Colin and del Rosario Acosta López, Maria (eds), Critique in German Philosophy: From Kant to Critical Theory (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), 39–59.Google Scholar
De Boer, Karin (2021) ‘Kant’s Inquiries into a New Touchstone for Metaphysical Truths’. In de Boer, Karin and Prunea-Bretonnet, Tinca (eds), The Experiential Turn in Eighteenth-Century German Philosophy (Abingdon: Routledge), 274–96.10.4324/9780429467493-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Paul (2005) All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism in German Idealism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. and trans. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002) Theoretical Philosophy After 1781. Ed. Henry Allison and Peter Heath, trans. Gary Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lu-Adler, Huaping (2021) ‘Kant and the Principle of Sufficient Reason’. Review of Metaphysics, 74, 301–30.Google Scholar