We can treat human responses to cognitions as involving law-like connections grounded on free choices which show themselves in our character.

Teaching and writing about philosophy is about the only thing I've ever been really good at.

We totally misunderstand both his aims and his contribution if we try to read into Marx some anticipation of either the modest successes or the disastrous failures of those who later thought they were acting in his name.

From the beginning, there has been a tension in the reception of the Kantian idea of autonomy. If you emphasize the 'nomos' (the law), then you get one picture: the objectivity of ethics. If you emphasize the 'autos' - the self - you get the idea that we make the law. Kant never hesitated in his choice between the two emphases. He emphasizes the nomos (the universal and objective validity of the law).

Fichte would identify all states of our minds with states of our body - perhaps not merely of our brain, but the whole body as an acting organism.

Empiricist philosophy always tends to be anti-philosophy (and is often proud of it).

Kant does not regard freedom as an item of faith because it is too basic to our agency to be related to any end.