| Abstract: | In this paper I reply to Stefaan Cuypers' explication and critique of my views on rationality and critical thinking ( Cuypers, 2004 ). While Cuypers' discussion is praiseworthy in several respects, I argue that it (1) mistakenly attributes to me a Humean view of (practical) reason, and (2) unsuccessfully argues that my position lacks the resources required to defend the basic claim that critical thinking is a fundamental educational ideal. Cuypers' analysis raises deep issues about the motivational character of reasons; I briefly address this matter as well. |
