Hi All,
In the previous thread there was a tie into F's dissertation (1 of 2)
on Kant's pragmatic anthropology. If this in fact demonstrates F's
connection to Kant...in what way? By pointing out the arrival of man
as doublet, and identifying the role of an "originary" in terms of
something like an empirical a priori, strong connections can be made
with F's early work of his own. But I wonder, what use does F make of
these notions - is it critical or constructive (that is, is he a
neo-Kantian)?
james
In the previous thread there was a tie into F's dissertation (1 of 2)
on Kant's pragmatic anthropology. If this in fact demonstrates F's
connection to Kant...in what way? By pointing out the arrival of man
as doublet, and identifying the role of an "originary" in terms of
something like an empirical a priori, strong connections can be made
with F's early work of his own. But I wonder, what use does F make of
these notions - is it critical or constructive (that is, is he a
neo-Kantian)?
james