Philosophical Books 51 (4):228-244 (2010)

Andrew Chignell
Princeton University
Colin McLear
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
A long critical notice of Michael Forster's recent book, "Kant and Skepticism." We argue that Forster's characterization of Kant's response to skepticism is both textually dubious and philosophically flawed. -/- .
Keywords Kant  epistemology  skepticism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0149.2010.00513.x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
441 ( #21,120 of 2,498,178 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
34 ( #25,619 of 2,498,178 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes