I’m currently reading Roger Crisp’s new book Reasons and the Good. For the most part it is admirably clear and bound to create critical reactions against many of the controversial views and arguments it introduces. Occasionally I wonder though whether I’m just disagreeing too much or missing something obvious. Just now I’m having big difficulties with how he introduced debates about realism about normative reasons. Here’s the three sentences where this is done:
Continue reading "Missing Something? Crisp and Reasons-Realism" »
Recent Comments