A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2019; you can also visit the original URL.
The file type is
AbstractInterpreters of Kant's Refutation of Idealism face a dilemma: it seems to either beg the question against the Cartesian sceptic or else offer a disappointingly Berkeleyan conclusion. In this article I offer an interpretation of the Refutation on which it does not beg the question against the Cartesian sceptic. After defending a principle about question-begging, I identify four premises concerning our representations that there are textual reasons to think Kant might be implicitlydoi:10.1017/s1369415418000535 fatcat:sbd2zv4x5bfsbmbkpa2mdzqc4a