'God' without god: Kant's postulate
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2007 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Kant e-prints (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/article/view/340 |
Resumo: | Kant’s practical postulate for the existence of God is puzzling for several reasons: first, he denies that it provides any cognition of the existence or nature of God as a being in itself, second, Kant stresses the practical nature of the postulate as contributing to performance of our duties, and third, Kant even seems on occasion to indicate that our postulate of God does not correspond to any reality but is a merely a thought. In my paper I advance the argument that Kant’s postulate of God is best understood as an extensionless concept that serves to unify various other moral concepts and moral obligations but that has no referent itself. I make this argument by noting the relation of the postulate to the purpose of practical, as opposed to theoretical, philosophy, and by examination of the regulative role of reason in general, and by invoking contemporary constructivist theology. In order to show this point I first examine the nature of a postulate by comparing postulates to transcendental hypotheses (A772 / B800) and to beliefs (A827 / B855) from the Critique of Pure Reason. I second examine the use to which Kant puts the postulate of the existence of God as “immanent . . . for practical purposes” and “only in reference to the moral law and for the sake of it” (5:133) in the Critique of Practical Reason. Third, I look at the role that the postulate of God plays in Kant’s Opus Postumum and other texts from the 1790s to show that Kant came more and more to argue that the postulates have this functional rather than referential role. Throughout the paper I discuss the nature of practical philosophy – directed toward the free use of our wills – as distingushed from theoretical philosophy – directed toward knowledge of objects. I note how this solution could make Kant a metaphysical naturalist. I also touch on contemporary issues in theology related to the role of human construction of systems of concepts to help them make sense of the world they experience in the context of a greater mystery that defies conceptualization. |
id |
UNICAMP-27_4623700f97d1f5ae088177a4b7013efb |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/:article/340 |
network_acronym_str |
UNICAMP-27 |
network_name_str |
Kant e-prints (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
'God' without god: Kant's postulateKantGodKant’s practical postulate for the existence of God is puzzling for several reasons: first, he denies that it provides any cognition of the existence or nature of God as a being in itself, second, Kant stresses the practical nature of the postulate as contributing to performance of our duties, and third, Kant even seems on occasion to indicate that our postulate of God does not correspond to any reality but is a merely a thought. In my paper I advance the argument that Kant’s postulate of God is best understood as an extensionless concept that serves to unify various other moral concepts and moral obligations but that has no referent itself. I make this argument by noting the relation of the postulate to the purpose of practical, as opposed to theoretical, philosophy, and by examination of the regulative role of reason in general, and by invoking contemporary constructivist theology. In order to show this point I first examine the nature of a postulate by comparing postulates to transcendental hypotheses (A772 / B800) and to beliefs (A827 / B855) from the Critique of Pure Reason. I second examine the use to which Kant puts the postulate of the existence of God as “immanent . . . for practical purposes” and “only in reference to the moral law and for the sake of it” (5:133) in the Critique of Practical Reason. Third, I look at the role that the postulate of God plays in Kant’s Opus Postumum and other texts from the 1790s to show that Kant came more and more to argue that the postulates have this functional rather than referential role. Throughout the paper I discuss the nature of practical philosophy – directed toward the free use of our wills – as distingushed from theoretical philosophy – directed toward knowledge of objects. I note how this solution could make Kant a metaphysical naturalist. I also touch on contemporary issues in theology related to the role of human construction of systems of concepts to help them make sense of the world they experience in the context of a greater mystery that defies conceptualization.Centre for Logic, Epistemology, and the History of Science (CLE)2007-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/article/view/340Kant e-prints; v. 2 n. 1 (2007); 27-62Kant e-Prints; Vol. 2 No. 1 (2007); 27-621677-163Xreponame:Kant e-prints (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:Unicampporhttps://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/article/view/340/243Copyright (c) 2015 Kant e-Printsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRauscher, Frederick2021-10-19T15:08:34Zoai:www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/:article/340Revistahttps://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/PUBhttps://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/oaiclekant@unicamp.br||danielomarperez@hotmail.com||daniel.omar.perez@pq.cnpq.br1677-163X1677-163Xopendoar:2021-10-19T15:08:34Kant e-prints (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate |
title |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate |
spellingShingle |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate Rauscher, Frederick Kant God |
title_short |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate |
title_full |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate |
title_fullStr |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate |
title_full_unstemmed |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate |
title_sort |
'God' without god: Kant's postulate |
author |
Rauscher, Frederick |
author_facet |
Rauscher, Frederick |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Rauscher, Frederick |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Kant God |
topic |
Kant God |
description |
Kant’s practical postulate for the existence of God is puzzling for several reasons: first, he denies that it provides any cognition of the existence or nature of God as a being in itself, second, Kant stresses the practical nature of the postulate as contributing to performance of our duties, and third, Kant even seems on occasion to indicate that our postulate of God does not correspond to any reality but is a merely a thought. In my paper I advance the argument that Kant’s postulate of God is best understood as an extensionless concept that serves to unify various other moral concepts and moral obligations but that has no referent itself. I make this argument by noting the relation of the postulate to the purpose of practical, as opposed to theoretical, philosophy, and by examination of the regulative role of reason in general, and by invoking contemporary constructivist theology. In order to show this point I first examine the nature of a postulate by comparing postulates to transcendental hypotheses (A772 / B800) and to beliefs (A827 / B855) from the Critique of Pure Reason. I second examine the use to which Kant puts the postulate of the existence of God as “immanent . . . for practical purposes” and “only in reference to the moral law and for the sake of it” (5:133) in the Critique of Practical Reason. Third, I look at the role that the postulate of God plays in Kant’s Opus Postumum and other texts from the 1790s to show that Kant came more and more to argue that the postulates have this functional rather than referential role. Throughout the paper I discuss the nature of practical philosophy – directed toward the free use of our wills – as distingushed from theoretical philosophy – directed toward knowledge of objects. I note how this solution could make Kant a metaphysical naturalist. I also touch on contemporary issues in theology related to the role of human construction of systems of concepts to help them make sense of the world they experience in the context of a greater mystery that defies conceptualization. |
publishDate |
2007 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2007-07-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/article/view/340 |
url |
https://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/article/view/340 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/kant-e-prints/article/view/340/243 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Kant e-Prints info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Kant e-Prints |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centre for Logic, Epistemology, and the History of Science (CLE) |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centre for Logic, Epistemology, and the History of Science (CLE) |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Kant e-prints; v. 2 n. 1 (2007); 27-62 Kant e-Prints; Vol. 2 No. 1 (2007); 27-62 1677-163X reponame:Kant e-prints (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) instacron:Unicamp |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
instacron_str |
Unicamp |
institution |
Unicamp |
reponame_str |
Kant e-prints (Online) |
collection |
Kant e-prints (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Kant e-prints (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
clekant@unicamp.br||danielomarperez@hotmail.com||daniel.omar.perez@pq.cnpq.br |
_version_ |
1754842242907897856 |