On being neither post- nor anti-Kantian: A reply to Breazeale and Larmore concerning the fate of autonomy
Inquiry 46 (2):272 – 292 (2003)
| Abstract | This Article does not have an abstract | |||||||||
| 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: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGordon E. Michalson (2004). Re-Reading the Post-Kantian Tradition with Milbank. Journal of Religious Ethics 32 (2):357 - 383.
Gary Dorrien (2012). Kantian Concepts, Liberal Theology, and Post-Kantian Idealism. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 33 (1).
Bryce Weber (2006). Negative Autonomy and the Intuitions of Democracy. Philosophy and Social Criticism 32 (3):325-346.
Barbara Secker (1999). The Appearance of Kant's Deontology in Contemporary Kantianism: Concepts of Patient Autonomy in Bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (1):43 – 66.
Daniel Breazeale (1990). The Fate of Reason. The Owl of Minerva 21 (2):190-197.
Kenneth Baynes (1995). Modernity as Autonomy. Inquiry 38 (3):289 – 303.
Terry Pinkard (2002). Karl Ameriks, Kant and the Fate of Autonomy. [REVIEW] Ethics 112 (3):592-596.
Charles E. Larmore (2008). The Autonomy of Morality. Cambridge University Press.
Daniel Breazeale (2003). Two Cheers for Post-Kantianism: A Response to Karl Ameriks. Inquiry 46 (2):239 – 259.
Karl Ameriks (2000). Kant and the Fate of Autonomy: Problems in the Appropriation of the Critical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads18 ( #67,558 of 549,087 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,087 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
