Reply to the comments of Longuenesse and Ginsborg
Inquiry 46 (2):182 – 194 (2003)
| Abstract | In this discussion I respond to some of the criticisms raised by Béatrice Longuenesse and Hannah Ginsborg to my account of Kant's aesthetic theory presents in Kant's Theory of Taste | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesHannah Ginsborg (2006). A Companion to Kant. Blackwell Publishing.
Hannah Ginsborg (2003). Aesthetic Judging and the Intentionality of Pleasure. Inquiry 46 (2):164 – 181.
Katherine Dunlop (2009). "The Unity of Time's Measure": Kant's Reply to Locke. Philosophers' Imprint 9 (4):1-31.
Beatrice Longuenesse (2000). Kant?S Categories and the Capacity to Judge: Responses to Henry Allison and Sally Sedgwick. Inquiry 43 (1):91 – 110.
Béatrice Longuenesse (2005). Kant on the Human Standpoint. Cambridge University Press.
Béatrice Longuenesse (2003). Kant's Theory of Taste. Journal of Philosophy 100 (9):487-492.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads35 ( #34,066 of 548,977 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,977 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
