Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-vq995 Total loading time: 0.221 Render date: 2021-10-25T02:38:22.443Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The Possibility Proof is Not What Remains from Kant's Beweisgrund

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

Michael Oberst*
Affiliation:
Humboldt University of Berlin
*

Abstract

The so-called ‘possibility proof’ in Kant's pre-Critical Beweisgrund has been widely discussed in the literature, and it is a common view that he never really abandoned it. As I shall argue, this reading is mistaken. I aim to show that the natural illusion in the Critique of Pure Reason, which is usually taken to be the possibility proof turned into a transcendental illusion, has both a different conclusion and a different argument than the possibility proof. Rather, what remains from Beweisgrund is what I will call the ‘proof a posteriori’, which the Critique turns into a transcendental illusion that is of regulative use for reason.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2020

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

Abaci, Uygar (2017) ‘Kant, the Actualist Principle, and the Fate of the Only Possible Proof’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 55, 261–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abaci, Uygar (2019) Kant's Revolutionary Theory of Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. (2004) Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. Revised and enlarged edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Boehm, Omri (2014) Kant's Critique of Spinoza. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2007) ‘Belief in Kant’. Philosophical Review, 116, 323–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2009) ‘Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 91, 157–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2012) ‘Kant, Real Possibility, and the Threat of Spinoza’. Mind, 121, 635–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Mark, and Watkins, Eric (1998) ‘Kant on the Material Ground of Possibility: From “The Only Possible Argument” to the “Critique of Pure Reason”’. Review of Metaphysics, 52, 369–95.Google Scholar
Grier, Michelle (2001) Kant's Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Dieter (1960) Der ontologische Gottesbeweis: Sein Problem und seine Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Hoffer, Noam (2016) ‘The Relation between God and the World in the Pre-Critical Kant: Was Kant a Spinozist?Kantian Review, 21, 185210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffer, Noam (2019) ‘Kant's Regulative Metaphysics of God and the Systematic Lawfulness of Nature’. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 57, 217–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanterian, Edward (2018) Kant, God and Metaphysics: The Secret Thorn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice (2005) ‘The Transcendental Ideal and the Unity of the Critical System’. In Kant on the Human Standpoint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 211–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberst, Michael (2018) ‘Kant on Contradiction, Conceptual Content, and the Ens Realissimum’. Kant Yearbook, 10, 85103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternack, Lawrence (2011a) ‘Regulative Principles and “the Wise Author of Nature”’. Religious Studies, 47, 411–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternack, Lawrence (2011b) ‘Kant's Doctrinal Belief in God’. In Thorndike, Oliver (ed.), Rethinking Kant, vol. 3 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 200–18.Google Scholar
Schmucker, Josef (1980) Die Ontotheologie des vorkritischen Kant. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönfeld, Martin (2000) The Philosophy of the Young Kant: The Precritical Project. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang, Nicholas (2010) ‘Kant's Possibility Proof’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 27, 275–99.Google Scholar
Stang, Nicholas (2016) Kant's Modal Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theis, Robert (1994) Gott: Untersuchung der Entwicklung des theologischen Diskurses in Kants Schriften zur theoretischen Philosophie bis hin zum Erscheinen der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Stuttgart: fromann-holzboog.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus (2018) Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics: The Dialectic of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen (1978) Kant's Rational Theology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Yong, Peter (2014) ‘God, Totality and Possibility in Kant's Only Possible Argument’. Kantian Review, 19, 2751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Possibility Proof is Not What Remains from Kant's Beweisgrund
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Possibility Proof is Not What Remains from Kant's Beweisgrund
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Possibility Proof is Not What Remains from Kant's Beweisgrund
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *