Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:50:02.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

God, Totality and Possibility in Kant's Only Possible Argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2014

Peter Yong
Peter Yong*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego Email: p1yong@ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been a groundswell of interest in the account of modality that Kant sets forth in his pre-Critical Only Possible Argument. Andrew Chignell's reconstruction of Kant's theistic argument in terms of what he calls ‘real harmony’ has a prima facie advantage in that it appears to be able to block the plurality objection (namely, that even if every modal fact presupposes some ground, this does not entail that all modal facts share the same ground). I argue that it is both textually and philosophically problematic to interpret Kant's argument in terms of real harmony. Then, I set forth an alternative response to the plurality objection which does not require the adoption of the problematic notion of real harmony. Instead, I argue that the objection can be overcome by observing that the argument seeks to ground modal facts as a totality and that, according to Kant, such relations can be accounted for only by their schematization in a single intellect.

Keywords

modalitylogical possibilitymetaphysical possibilityabsolute possibilitylogical contentGodrelationsOnly Possible ArgumentNova DilucidatioLeibniz
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 27 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, Robert (1994) Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, Robert (2000) ‘God, Possibility, and Kant’. Faith and Philosophy, 4, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2009) ‘Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 91/2, 157–192.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2012) ‘Kant, Real Possibility, and the Threat of Spinoza’. Mind, 121/483, 635–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell'Oro, Regina (1994) From Existence to Ideal: Continuity and Development in Kant's Theology. New York: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Dicker, Georges (2004) Kant's Theory of Knowledge: An Analytical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, F. E. (1929) Kant's Conception of God: A Critical Exposition of its Metaphysical Development, Together with a Translation of Nova Dilucidatio. London: G. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Fisher, MarkWatkins, Eric (1998) ‘Kant on the Material Ground of Possibility: From the Only Possible Argument to the Critique of Pure Reason’. Review of Metaphysics, 52, 369–395.Google Scholar
Franks, Paul (2005) All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism in German Idealism. New York: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter (1960) Der Ontologische Gottesbeweis. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Insole, Christopher (2011) ‘Intellectualism, Relational Properties, and the Divine Mind in Kant's Pre-Critical Philosophy’. Kantian Review, 16/3, 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1902–) Kants Gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Königliche Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1991) The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laberge, Pierre (1973) La Théologie Kantienne Précritique. Ottawa: Éditions de l'Université d'Ottawa.Google Scholar
Logan, Ian (2007) ‘Whatever Happened to Kant's Ontological Argument?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 24/2, 346–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, Beatrice (2007) Hegel's Critique of Metaphysics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, H. J. (1936) Kant's Metaphysic of Experience, vol. 2. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Redding, Paul (2007) Analytic Philosophy and the Return of Hegelian Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Klaus (1963) Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes: Auf Grund des Textes der Berliner Akademie: Ausgabe mit einer Einleitung und Registern neu herausgegeben von Klaus Reich. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Sala, Giovanni (1990) Kant und Die Frage nach Gott: Gottesbeweise und Gottesbeweiskritik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmucker, Joseph (1980) Der Ontotheologie des vorkritischen Kant. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang, Nicholas (2010) ‘Kant's Possibility Proof’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 27/3, 275–299.Google Scholar
Stang, Nicholas (2011) ‘Did Kant Conflate the Necessary and the A Priori?’ Nous, 45/3, 443–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Eric (2005) Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (forthcoming a) ‘Breaking with Rationalism: Kant, Crusius, and the Priority of Existence’, manuscript.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (forthcoming b) ‘Early Kant's (Anti-Newtonianism)’, manuscript.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen (1978) Kant's Rational Theology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar