Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Online

49,00 € / $74.00*

* Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.
Publication Date:
August 2009
ISSN:
1613-0650
DOI:
10.1515/AGPH.2009.07

See all formats and pricing

Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 49.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 74.00 *
Print
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 217.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 325.00 *
Print + Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 261.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 390.00 *
*Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.

Ed. by Horn, Christoph / Serck-Hanssen, Camilla

Together with Mercer, Christia

3 Issues per year

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being

Andrew Chignell1

1Ithaca

Citation Information: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie. Volume 91, Issue 2, Pages 157–192, ISSN (Online) 1613-0650, ISSN (Print) 0003-9101, DOI: 10.1515/AGPH.2009.07, August 2009

Publication History:
Published Online:
2009-08-14

Abstract

Kant's speculative theistic proof rests on a distinction between “logical” and “real” modality that he developed very early in the pre-critical period. The only way to explain facts about real possibility, according to Kant, is to appeal to the properties of a unique, necessary, and “most real” being. Here I reconstruct the proof in its historical context, focusing on the role played by the theory of modality both in motivating the argument (in the pre-critical period) and, ultimately, in undoing it as a source of knowledge of God's existence (in the critical period). Along the way I examine Kant's version of the now-popular “actualist” thesis that facts about what is possible must be explained by facts about what is actual. I conclude by discussing why the critical Kant claims both that there are rational grounds for accepting the conclusion of his theistic proof, and that such acceptance can not count as knowledge. This is important, I argue, because the same considerations ultimately motivate his prohibition on knowledge of things-in-themselves generally.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.