Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T00:30:45.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How is Religious Experience Possible? On the (Quasi-Transcendental) Mode of Argument in Kant’s Religion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2022

Stephen R. Palmquist
Stephen R. Palmquist*
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, Los Angeles, CA, USA
*
Email: stevepq@associate.hkbu.edu.hk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant’s general mode of argument in Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason, especially his defence of human nature’s propensity to evil, is a matter of considerable controversy: while some interpret his argument as strictly a priori, others interpret it as anthropological. In dialogue with Allen Wood’s recent work, I defend my earlier claim that Religion employs a quasi-transcendental mode of argument, focused on the possibility of a specific type of experience, not experience in general. In Religion, Kant portrays religious experience as possible only for beings with a good predisposition and a propensity to evil. Kant’s theory of the archetype and his theory of symbolism illustrate the same mode of argument. Taking Religion as a sequel to the third Critique more than the second, my perspectival interpretation makes room for a robust view of unsociable sociability without the absurd deception of regarding it as the source of human evil.

Keywords

Kant’s theory of religionreligious experiencequasi-transcendental argumentspropensity to evilsymbolismperspectival interpretation
Type
Article
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 81 - 89
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review

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

Palmquist, Stephen R. (1992) ‘Does Kant Reduce Religion to Morality?’ Kant-Studien, 83(2), 129–48.10.1515/kant.1992.83.2.129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (1993) Kant’s System of Perspectives: An Architectonic Interpretation of the Critical Philosophy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2000/2019) Kant’s Critical Religion: Volume Two of Kant’s System of Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2008) ‘Kant’s Quasi-Transcendental Argument for a Necessary and Universal Evil Propensity in Human Nature’. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 46, 261–97.10.1111/j.2041-6962.2008.tb00079.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2009) ‘Kant’s Religious Argument for the Existence of God: The Ultimate Dependence of Human Destiny on Divine Assistance’. Faith and Philosophy, 26(1), 3–22.10.5840/faithphil20092611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2012) ‘Could Kant’s Jesus Be God?’ International Philosophical Quarterly, 52(4), 421–37.10.5840/ipq201252443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2015) ‘What is Kantian Gesinnung? On the Priority of Volition over Metaphysics and Psychology in Kant’s Religion ’. Kantian Review, 20(2), 235–64.10.1017/S1369415415000035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2016) Comprehensive Commentary on Kant’s Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2019a) Kant and Mysticism: Critique as the Experience of Baring All in Reason’s Light. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R. (2019b) ‘Does Tillich have a Hidden Debt To Kant?’ Journal of Philosophical–Theological Research, 21(3), 73–88.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (2020) Kant and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/9781108381512CrossRefGoogle Scholar