Kant and the ‘Monstrous’ Ground of Possibility: A Reply to Abaci and Yong

Kantian Review 19 (1):53-69 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I reply to recent criticisms by Uygar Abaci and Peter Yong, among others, of my reading of Kant's pre-Critical of God's existence, and of its fate in the Critical period. Along the way I discuss some implications of this debate for our understanding of Kant's modal metaphysics and modal epistemology generally.

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-02

Downloads
1,141 (#18,074)

6 months
163 (#26,784)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrew Chignell
Princeton University

Citations of this work

The Kantian (Non)‐conceptualism Debate.Colin McLear - 2014 - Philosophy Compass 9 (11):769-790.
Doğal Teoloji ve Doğal Din (Stanford Felsefe Ansiklopedisi).Musa Yanık, Andrew Chignell & Derk Pereboom - 2024 - Öncül Analitik Felsefe Dergisi. Translated by Musa Yanık.
Kant on the Necessity of Necessity.Jessica Leech - 2021 - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis (1):1-29.
Kant and Spinoza.Colin Marshall - 2021 - In Yitzhak Y. Melamed, A Companion to Spinoza. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. pp. 517–526.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Critique of Pure Reason.Wolfgang Schwarz - 1966 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 26 (3):449-451.
Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being.Andrew Chignell - 2009 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (2):157-192.
Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility.Samuel Newlands - 2013 - Philosophical Review 122 (2):155-187.

View all 10 references / Add more references