Abstract
Tom Rockmore thinks my reading of Kant depends on my reaction to Henry Allison’s interpretation. That is an overstatement of how centrally Allison figures in what I have written about Kant. But it is true that I found an element in Allison’s account of transcendental idealism useful. I cited it to encapsulate something I anyway wanted to say about a conception I took Kant to be working towards, in a tendency I interpreted Hegel as bringing to completion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. and Trans. P. Guyer and A.W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pippin, Robert. 2008. Hegel’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McDowell, J. (2018). Responses. In: Sanguinetti, F., Abath, A. (eds) McDowell and Hegel. Studies in German Idealism, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98896-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98896-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98895-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98896-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)