当前位置: X-MOL 学术Kantian Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Sylvie Loriaux, Kant and Global Distributive Justice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020 Pp. 64 ISBN 9781108729062 (pbk) $20.00
Kantian Review ( IF 1.1 ) Pub Date : 2021-10-11 , DOI: 10.1017/s1369415421000455
Milla Vaha 1
Affiliation  

their formulations could invalidate the derivations of the later Books’, and in particular that of universal gravitation. Accordingly, eighteenth-century philosophers who formulated the laws of motion differently can be assumed to have different ‘fundamental concerns’ (pp. 92–3). But George E. Smith’s research on Newton’s thought reveals that Newton himself entertained different versions of at least the Third Law (Smith 2007: section 5), which calls this inference into question. And it may be worth reconsidering the arguments of MFNS in relation to LeibnizianWolffian thought, now that Watkins has so compellingly demonstrated its relevance to Kant’s natural philosophy, and a wider range of thinkers is studied. In particular, we might revisit Watkins’ claim that for Kant ‘whether bodies are absolutely hard is presumably a contingent matter’ (p. 137). While Wolff declines to pronounce on whether there are absolutely hard bodies in nature (1731: §383), Leibniz’s argument that they are precluded by the continuity of change was endorsed by Euler (as Watkins observes, p. 106) and by Émilie Du Châtelet (1740: §15). Indeed, Kant appears to mount a version of it (4: 552). Raising these questions about Kant on Laws should not detract from its impressive achievement. As an original and surpassingly clear treatment of a notion central to both Kant’s theoretical and his practical philosophy, it deserves the attention of every serious student and scholar of Kant.

中文翻译:

Sylvie Loriaux、康德和全球分配正义剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2020 Pp。64 ISBN 9781108729062 (pbk) $20.00

他们的表述可能会使后来书籍的推导无效,特别是万有引力的推导。因此,可以假定以不同方式阐述运动定律的 18 世纪哲学家具有不同的“基本问题”(第 92-3 页)。但乔治 E. 史密斯对牛顿思想的研究表明,牛顿本人至少接受了第三定律的不同版本(史密斯 2007:第 5 节),这对这一推论提出了质疑。鉴于沃特金斯已经如此有力地证明了其与康德自然哲学的相关性,并且研究了更广泛的思想家,因此可能值得重新考虑 MFNS 与莱布尼兹沃尔夫思想有关的论点。特别是,我们可能会重新审视沃特金斯的主张,即对于康德来说,“物体是否绝对坚硬可能是一个偶然的问题”(第 137 页)。虽然沃尔夫拒绝就自然界中是否存在绝对坚硬的物体发表意见(1731: §383),但莱布尼茨关于它们被变化的连续性排除的论点得到了欧拉(沃特金斯观察到,第 106 页)和 Émilie Du Châtelet 的认可(1740:§15)。的确,康德似乎是它的一个版本(4:552)。就康德的法律提出这些问题不应减损其令人印象深刻的成就。作为对康德理论和实践哲学的核心概念的独创和极其清晰的处理,它值得每一位认真的康德学生和学者关注。106) 和 Émilie Du Châtelet (1740: §15)。的确,康德似乎是它的一个版本(4:552)。就康德的法律提出这些问题不应减损其令人印象深刻的成就。作为对康德理论和实践哲学的核心概念的独创和极其清晰的处理,它值得每一位认真的康德学生和学者关注。106) 和 Émilie Du Châtelet (1740: §15)。的确,康德似乎是它的一个版本(4:552)。就康德的法律提出这些问题不应减损其令人印象深刻的成就。作为对康德理论和实践哲学的核心概念的独创和极其清晰的处理,它值得每一位认真的康德学生和学者关注。
更新日期:2021-10-11
down
wechat
bug