David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (2):157-192 (2009)
Kant's speculative theistic proof rests on a distinction between “logical” and “real” modality that he developed very early in the pre-critical period. The only way to explain facts about real possibility, according to Kant, is to appeal to the properties of a unique, necessary, and “most real” being. Here I reconstruct the proof in its historical context, focusing on the role played by the theory of modality both in motivating the argument (in the pre-critical period) and, ultimately, in undoing it as a source of knowledge of God's existence (in the critical period). Along the way I examine Kant's version of the now-popular “actualist” thesis that facts about what is possible must be explained by facts about what is actual. I conclude by discussing why the critical Kant claims both that there are rational grounds for accepting the conclusion of his theistic proof, and that such acceptance can not count as knowledge. This is important, I argue, because the same considerations ultimately motivate his prohibition on knowledge of things-in-themselves generally.
|Keywords||Kant Modality Ens Realissimum|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Uygar Abaci (2013). The Coextensiveness Thesis and Kant's Modal Agnosticism in the ‘Postulates’. European Journal of Philosophy 23 (4).
Ohad Nachtomy (2012). Leibniz and Kant on Possibility and Existence. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (5):953-972.
Christopher Insole (2011). Intellectualism, Relational Properties and the Divine Mind in Kant's Pre-Critical Philosophy. Kantian Review 16 (3):399-427.
Similar books and articles
Tapio Korte, Ari Maunu & Tuomo Aho (2009). Modal Logic From Kant to Possible Worlds Semantics. In Leila Haaparanta (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic. Oxford University Press
Andrew Chignell (2010). Real Repugnance and Belief About Things-in-Themselves: A Problem and Kant's Three Solutions. In James Krueger & Benjamin Bruxvoort Lipscomb (eds.), Kant's Moral Metaphysics. Walter DeGruyter
Lawrence Pasternack (2001). The Ens Realissimum and Necessary Being in the Critique of Pure Reason. Religious Studies 37 (4):467-474.
Andrew Chignell & Derk Pereboom (2010). Kant's Theory of Causation and its Eighteenth-Century German Background. Philosophical Review 119 (4):565-591.
Robert Merrihew Adams (1997). Things in Themselves. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (4):801-825.
Nicholas Stang (2011). Did Kant Conflate the Necessary and the A Priori? Noûs 45 (3):443-471.
Andrew Chignell (2012). Kant, Real Possibility, and the Threat of Spinoza. Mind 121 (483):635-675.
Coleen P. Zoller (2007). The Pre-Critical Roots of Kant's Compatibilism. Philosophy and Theology 19 (1/2):197-213.
Jessica Leech (2012). Kant's Modalities of Judgment. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2):260-284.
Andrew Chignell (2011). Real Repugnance and Our Ignorance of Things-in-Themselves: A Lockean Problem in Kant and Hegel. Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus 7:135-159.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads364 ( #5,086 of 1,907,073 )
Recent downloads (6 months)60 ( #8,429 of 1,907,073 )
How can I increase my downloads?