Neither Humean nor (fully) kantian be: Reply to Cuypers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper I reply to Stefaan Cuypers' explication and critique of my views on rationality and critical thinking (Cuypers, 2004). While Cuypers' discussion is praiseworthy in several respects, I argue that it (1) mistakenly attributes to me a Humean view of (practical) reason, and (2) unsuccessfully argues that my position lacks the resources required to defend the basic claim that critical thinking is a fundamental educational ideal. Cuypers' analysis raises deep issues about the motivational character of reasons; I briefly address this matter as well.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)535-547
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Philosophy of Education
Volume39
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2005

Fingerprint

educational ideal
rationality
lack
resources
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
Critical Thinking
Education
Practical Reason
Rationality
Ideal
Resources
Explication
Fundamental

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Philosophy
  • History

Cite this

Neither Humean nor (fully) kantian be : Reply to Cuypers. / Siegel, Harvey.

In: Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, 08.2005, p. 535-547.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aa3b1fa746854e66914a38ce9c4ecb95,
title = "Neither Humean nor (fully) kantian be: Reply to Cuypers",
abstract = "In this paper I reply to Stefaan Cuypers' explication and critique of my views on rationality and critical thinking (Cuypers, 2004). While Cuypers' discussion is praiseworthy in several respects, I argue that it (1) mistakenly attributes to me a Humean view of (practical) reason, and (2) unsuccessfully argues that my position lacks the resources required to defend the basic claim that critical thinking is a fundamental educational ideal. Cuypers' analysis raises deep issues about the motivational character of reasons; I briefly address this matter as well.",
author = "Harvey Siegel",
year = "2005",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9752.2005.00452.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "535--547",
journal = "Journal of Philosophy of Education",
issn = "0309-8249",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neither Humean nor (fully) kantian be

T2 - Reply to Cuypers

AU - Siegel, Harvey

PY - 2005/8

Y1 - 2005/8

N2 - In this paper I reply to Stefaan Cuypers' explication and critique of my views on rationality and critical thinking (Cuypers, 2004). While Cuypers' discussion is praiseworthy in several respects, I argue that it (1) mistakenly attributes to me a Humean view of (practical) reason, and (2) unsuccessfully argues that my position lacks the resources required to defend the basic claim that critical thinking is a fundamental educational ideal. Cuypers' analysis raises deep issues about the motivational character of reasons; I briefly address this matter as well.

AB - In this paper I reply to Stefaan Cuypers' explication and critique of my views on rationality and critical thinking (Cuypers, 2004). While Cuypers' discussion is praiseworthy in several respects, I argue that it (1) mistakenly attributes to me a Humean view of (practical) reason, and (2) unsuccessfully argues that my position lacks the resources required to defend the basic claim that critical thinking is a fundamental educational ideal. Cuypers' analysis raises deep issues about the motivational character of reasons; I briefly address this matter as well.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26444446964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26444446964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2005.00452.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2005.00452.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:26444446964

VL - 39

SP - 535

EP - 547

JO - Journal of Philosophy of Education

JF - Journal of Philosophy of Education

SN - 0309-8249

IS - 3

ER -