Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:53:51.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relation between God and the World in the Pre-Critical Kant: Was Kant a Spinozist?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2016

Noam Hoffer
Noam Hoffer*
Affiliation:
Indiana University Bloomington
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Andrew Chignell and Omri Boehm have recently argued that Kant’s pre-Critical proof for the existence of God entails a Spinozistic conception of God and hence substance monism. The basis for this reading is the assumption common in the literature that God grounds possibilities by exemplifying them. In this article I take issue with this assumption and argue for an alternative Leibnizian reading, according to which possibilities are grounded in essences united in God’s mind (later also described as Platonic ideas intuited by God). I show that this view about the distinction between God’s cognition of essences as the ground of possibility and the actual world is not only explicitly stated by Kant, but is also consistent with his metaphysical picture of teleology in nature and causality during the pre-Critical period. Finally, I suggest that the distinction between the conceptual order of essences embodied in the idea of God and the order of the objects of experience plays a role in the transition into the Critical system, where it is transformed into the distinction between the intelligible and the sensible worlds.

Keywords

GodThe Only Possible ArgumentpossibilityLeibnizessencesPlatonic ideas
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 185 - 210
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2016 

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 (2014) ‘Kant’s Only Possible Argument and Chignell’s Real Harmony’. Kantian Review, 19(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Robert Merrihew (1994) Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, Robert Merrihew (2000) ‘God, Possibility, and Kant’. Faith and Philosophy, 17(4), 425–440.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander (2013) Metaphysics: A Critical Translation with Kant’s Elucidations, Selected Notes, and Related Materials. Trans. Courtney D. Fugate and John Hymers. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Berman, Scott (2013) ‘A Platonic Theory of Truthmaking’. Metaphysica, 14(1), 109–125.Google Scholar
Boehm, Omri (2012) ‘Kant’s Regulative Spinozism’. Kant-Studien, 103(3), 292–317.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2009) ‘Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 91(2), 157–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2012) ‘Kant, Real Possibility, and the Threat of Spinoza’. Mind, 121(483), 635–675.Google Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2014) ‘Kant and the “Monstrous” Ground of Possibility’. Kantian Review, 19(1), 53–69.Google 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(2), 369–395.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2000) Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2001) Religion and Rational Theology. Trans. A. W. Wood and G. di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002) Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Trans. H. Allison, P. Heath, G. Hatfield and M. Friedman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2003) Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770. Trans. David Walford and Ralf Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2005) Notes and Fragments. Trans. P. Guyer, C. Bowman and F. Rauscher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. F. (1976) Philosophical Papers and Letters: A Selection. Trans. L. E. Loemker. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. F. (1985) Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil. Trans. E. M. Huggard. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. F. (1989) Philosophical Essays. Trans. R. Ariew and D. Garber. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. F. (2006) The Shorter Leibniz Texts: A Collection of New Translations. Trans. L. Strickland. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Logan, Ian (2007) ‘Whatever Happened to Kant’s Ontological Argument?’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(2), 346–363.Google Scholar
Newlands, Samuel (2013) ‘Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility’. Philosophical Review, 122(2), 155–187.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, Martin (2000) The Philosophy of the Young Kant: The Precritical Project. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serck-Hanssen, Camilla, and Eyjólfur K, Emilsson. (2004) ‘Kant and Plato’. SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy, 5(1), 71–82.Google Scholar
Stang, Nicholas F. (2010) ‘Kant’s Possibility Proof’. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 27(3), 275–299.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (1995) ‘Kant’s Theory of Physical Influx’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 77(3), 285–324.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (2005) Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric (2009) Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: Background Source Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Christian (1983) Gesammelte Werke: Deutsche Schriften. Vernünfftige Gedancken. - 2. Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt (Deutsche Metaphysik). Hidesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (1978) Kant’s Rational Theology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wyrwich, Thomas (2014) ‘Kants Anti-Spinozismus – Eine Antwort auf Omri Boehm’. Kant-Studien, 105(1), 113–124.Google Scholar
Yong, Peter (2014) ‘God, Totality and Possibility in Kant’s Only Possible Argument’. Kantian Review, 19(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar