BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260619T030708Z
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20231021T143000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20231021T153000
SUMMARY:Kantian Fallibilism vs Kantian Infallibilism: An Analysis
UID:20260619T185022Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm
TZID:America/Chicago
LOCATION:Nashville\, United States
DESCRIPTION:<p>Immanuel Kant is canonically interpreted as an infallibilist about knowledge: he is</p>\n<p>said to believe that knowledge can be attained only when it is impossible for the epistemic</p>\n<p>agent to be mistaken. Andrew Chignell has challenged this orthodoxy\, advancing a fallibilist</p>\n<p>reading of Kant&rsquo\;s theory of knowledge. In this paper\, I aim to assess the plausibility of</p>\n<p>Chignell&rsquo\;s interpretation. First\, I present the strongest arguments in Chignell&rsquo\;s hermeneutical</p>\n<p>toolkit. Then\, I compare Chignell&rsquo\;s reasons with those of his harshest critic\, Lawrence</p>\n<p>Pasternack. I conclude by providing novel reasons that\, together with Pasternack&rsquo\;s\, should lead us to reject Chignell&rsquo\;s reading.</p>
ORGANIZER:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR