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

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


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
Issue number3
StatePublished - Aug 1 2005

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • History
  • Philosophy


Dive into the research topics of 'Neither Humean nor (fully) kantian be: Reply to Cuypers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this