{"title":"康德《权利论》中的精确性与不可证性","authors":"Katrin Flikschuh","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The chapter states that while the Doctrine of Right is often seen as Kant’s contribution to legal theory, it is primarily a work in political philosophy. Flikschuh argues for a reading of the Doctrine of Right as a work that includes a concern with law but is not confined to that concern alone. She claims, however, that the state is a less comprehensive idea for Kant than it is for some of his immediate predecessors and successors on the one hand, and for most contemporary political philosophers on the other hand.","PeriodicalId":129472,"journal":{"name":"The Public Uses of Coercion and Force","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exactitude and Indemonstrability in Kant’s Doctrine of Right\",\"authors\":\"Katrin Flikschuh\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The chapter states that while the Doctrine of Right is often seen as Kant’s contribution to legal theory, it is primarily a work in political philosophy. Flikschuh argues for a reading of the Doctrine of Right as a work that includes a concern with law but is not confined to that concern alone. She claims, however, that the state is a less comprehensive idea for Kant than it is for some of his immediate predecessors and successors on the one hand, and for most contemporary political philosophers on the other hand.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Public Uses of Coercion and Force\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Public Uses of Coercion and Force\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Public Uses of Coercion and Force","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exactitude and Indemonstrability in Kant’s Doctrine of Right
The chapter states that while the Doctrine of Right is often seen as Kant’s contribution to legal theory, it is primarily a work in political philosophy. Flikschuh argues for a reading of the Doctrine of Right as a work that includes a concern with law but is not confined to that concern alone. She claims, however, that the state is a less comprehensive idea for Kant than it is for some of his immediate predecessors and successors on the one hand, and for most contemporary political philosophers on the other hand.