TY - JOUR
T1 - The Dialectical Illusion in Kant's only Possible Argument for the Existence of God
AU - Hoffer, Noam
N1 - Funding Information:
‘Leibniz took the appearances for things in themselves, thus for intelligibilia, i.e. objects of the pure understanding’ (A/B). ‘If, however, I suppose there to be things that are merely objects of the understanding ... then such things would be called noumena (intelligibilia)’ (A). See also Allais : . More in Hoffer . Although OPA uses examples of empirical objects, the ground of the possibility of their fundamental predicates are essences, hence abstract objects. Willaschek (: ) argues that ‘the claim that the structure of reality corresponds to that of rational thought’ is the erroneous tacit assumption Kant identifies in speculative metaphysics in general). I would like to thank Allen Wood and two anonymous referees for Kantian Review for invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this article. I am also grateful to Nick Stang and other participants of the North American Kant Society Midwest study group meeting in which an earlier version was presented. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grants of Ohad Nachtomy, Hagit Benbaji and Ido Geiger).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - The nature of Kant's criticism of his pre-Critical 'possibility proof' for the existence of God, implicit in the account of the Transcendental Ideal in the Critique of Pure Reason, is still under dispute. Two issues are at stake: The error in the proof and diagnosis of the reason for committing it. I offer a new way to connect these issues. In contrast with accounts that locate the motivation for the error in reason's interest in an unconditioned causal ground of all contingent existence, I argue that it lies in reason's interest in another kind of unconditioned ground, collective unity. Unlike the conception of the former, that of the latter directly explains the problematic ontological assumption of the possibility proof, the existence of intelligible objects as the ground of possibility. I argue that such Platonic entities are assumed because they are amenable to the kind of unity prescribed by reason. However, since the interest in collective unity has a legitimate regulative use when applied to the systematic unity of nature, the conception of God entailed by the possibility proof is retained as a regulative idea of reason.
AB - The nature of Kant's criticism of his pre-Critical 'possibility proof' for the existence of God, implicit in the account of the Transcendental Ideal in the Critique of Pure Reason, is still under dispute. Two issues are at stake: The error in the proof and diagnosis of the reason for committing it. I offer a new way to connect these issues. In contrast with accounts that locate the motivation for the error in reason's interest in an unconditioned causal ground of all contingent existence, I argue that it lies in reason's interest in another kind of unconditioned ground, collective unity. Unlike the conception of the former, that of the latter directly explains the problematic ontological assumption of the possibility proof, the existence of intelligible objects as the ground of possibility. I argue that such Platonic entities are assumed because they are amenable to the kind of unity prescribed by reason. However, since the interest in collective unity has a legitimate regulative use when applied to the systematic unity of nature, the conception of God entailed by the possibility proof is retained as a regulative idea of reason.
KW - Kant
KW - Only Possible Argument
KW - dialectical illusion
KW - ideal of reason
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85094819260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S1369415420000199
DO - 10.1017/S1369415420000199
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85094819260
SN - 1369-4154
VL - 25
SP - 339
EP - 363
JO - Kantian Review
JF - Kantian Review
IS - 3
ER -