This study intends to show that the question whether faith can be justified without proofs can be resolved by importing ideas from Kierkegaard’s and Plantinga’s affirmative take on the matter. There is a deep similarity between the way they understand belief in God and belief in Christianity: for both the first is considered universal human knowledge and the second seen as a gift from God. Against the charge that such an understanding is irrational Plantinga offers an externalist epistemological model which (...) allows those beliefs to be warranted. The authors also share the modern idea that there is an objective truth, combining it with the postmodern stance that no method exists which would guarantee access to it. A specific contribution on Kierkegaard’s part to the understanding of the rationality of transitions toward a Christian stage of existence is to show in detail the way in which such transitions are mediated through inwardnes - a perspective akin to Michael Polanyi’s scientific epistemology. One can see in both authors not only a deep commonality of ideas, but also a remarkable way in which their understandings augment each other. Whereas Plantinga’s inquiry contributes to the rational plausibility of a “Justified Faith without Reasons” project, Kierkegaard’s venture balances such a logical-analytic effort with a deep existential inquiry. (shrink)

In “Kant on Existence, Predication, and the Ontological Argument”, Hintikka argues that the so-called “Kant–Frege view” is wrong, for its supporters erroneously assume that for Kant ‘is’ is ambiguous. In this paper, I will first critically evaluate Hintikka’s arguments against the Kant–Frege view. Then, I will attempt to prove that Kant’s claim that existence is not a real predicate and Frege’s claim that existence is a quantifier are in fact logically interdependent. Finally, I will use the Kant–Frege view in order (...) to reconcile the various claims that Kant makes about existence. (shrink)

Kant claims that existence is not a real predicate that can be added to the concept of a thing, but that it is the mere positing of the thing. Kant considers this thesis to be evident for itself and therefore thinks that its rejection is the result of an " over-subtle argumentation ". In this paper I will show that the claim that existence is the positing of the content of mental concepts, far from being evident, rests on numerous philosophical (...) presuppositions. In this regard, I will defend the claim that the thought experiment of the nothingness of the existing world is what leads Kant to conceive existence as absolute positing. Furthermore, I will try to show that it is possible to accept the claim that existence is not a real predicate, without having to accept at the same time that it is the positing of the concept. With this purpose in view, I will focus specifically on Hegel´s claim that, in the general frame of a radically antiempiricist and coherentist epistemology, being resolves and dissolves into the determinate concept of the objects of knowledge. (shrink)

Die Vernunft ist für Hegel die Einheit des Subjekts und des Objekts ? anders ausgedrückt: Subjekt zu sein impliziert, die Welt zu erkennen. Die Inhalte, die die Erkenntnistätigkeit spontan findet, »setzen« ihre eigene Erkenntnis nicht, weil die der Erkenntnis gegebenen Inhalte keine »unverursachten Ursachen« oder »unbewegten Beweger« des Erkennens sind. Die Erkenntnisobjekte sind für Hegel sowohl ruhend als auch in Bewegung: Unmittelbarkeit und Vermittlung sind bloße Standpunkte über die Erkenntnistätigkeit. Sich ein absolutes Nichtsein des Erkennens vorzustellen (z.B. durch die Zustimmung (...) zum cartesischen Gedankenexperiment, durch eine philosophische Deutung des psychologischen Phänomens des Unbewusstseins oder durch eine naturalistische Interpretation der Theorie der transzendentalen Subjektivität), verändert grundsätzlich unser Verständnis des Erkenntnisphänomens, weil es das Bedürfnis nach speziellen Gründungsakten erzeugt, die als absolute Ursachen der Erkenntnis fungieren sollen. Anhand von Spinozas Substanzbegriff hält Hegel dagegen das Erkennen für streng genommen unverursacht und insofern die Erkenntnisakte für innere Momente des unendlichen absoluten Elements des Erkennens, d.h. der ununterbrochenen und ununterbrechbaren Geist-Welt-Einheit. Vom Standpunkt des künstlich vorgestellten Nichtseins der Geist-Welt-Einheit muss aber der Kreislauf der Erkenntnisakte irgendwann angefangen haben; das menschliche Erkennen bzw. Denken wird dadurch zum bloß formalen Denken - in Hegels Terminologie: zum »Bewusstsein«. Damit die Tatsache begreiflich wird, dass das Erkennen schon immer einen Inhalt hat, müssen die Bestimmungen einiger Denkakte als Dinge interpretiert werden, die von außen her das Erkennen in Gang setzen und erfüllen. Erst diese hypostasierten Denkakte können die Tatsache erklären, dass der menschliche Geist die Wirklichkeit erkennt; im Gegensatz zu diesen Denkakten, denen das epistemische Privileg verliehen wird, den Geist mit der Welt in Kontakt zu bringen, werden die restlichen Denkakte zu bloß subjektiven Vorstellungen reduziert. In diesem Zusammenhang soll die sinnliche Wahrnehmung oder Empfindung den absoluten Anfang des Erkennens bilden, obwohl sie selber ein Akt und Moment des Denkens ist. Die empirische Erkenntnis soll hier ein in sich leer gewordenes Denken in Kontakt mit der Welt setzen, damit dieses erst dann zum Erkennen dessen wird, was es wirklich gibt. Für Hegel bilden dagegen die empirischen Gegenstände keinen absoluten Anfang der Erkenntnis, sondern sind bereits da im Denken als unendlicher Totalität des erkennenden Geistes und der erkannten Welt. In diesem theoretischen Rahmen gibt es - selbstverständlich! - Raum für sinnliches Erkennen, aber keinen für Empirismus. Aristoteles? Aussage, dass »die Seele in gewisser Weise alle Dinge« ist, und das scholastische Diktum, dass »ens et verum convertuntur«, paraphrasierend, behauptet Hegel: »das Absolute ist der Geist«. (shrink)

In his eleventh century dialogue De Casu Diaboli, Anselm seeks to avoid the problem of evil for theodicy and explain the fall of Satan as attributable to Satan’s own self-creating wrongful will. It is something, as such, for which God as Satan’s divine Creator cannot be held causally or morally responsible. The distinctions on which Anselm relies presuppose an interesting metaphysics of nonbeing, and of the nonbeing of evil in particular as a privation of good, worthy of critical philosophical investigation (...) in its own right. Anselm’s concept of nonbeing does not resolve the philosophical problem of evil implied by Satan’s fall from grace, but is shown perhaps more unexpectedly to enable Anselm’s proof for the inconceivable nonexistence of God as the greatest conceivable intended object of thought to avoid Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason objection to the general category of ”ontological’ arguments. (shrink)

The article examines Kant's various criticisms of the broadly Cartesian ontological argument as they are developed in the Critique of Pure Reason. It is argued that each of these criticisms is effective against its intended target, and that these targets include—in addition to Descartes himself—Leibniz, Wolff, and Baumgarten. It is argued that Kant's most famous criticism—the charge that being is not a real predicate—is directed exclusively against Leibniz. Kant's argument for this thesis—the argument proceeding from his example of a hundred (...) thalers—although it may seem to beg the question, in fact succeeds against Leibniz. It does so because the charge of begging the question can be rebutted if one makes certain Leibnizian assumptions. (shrink)

I argue that Kant's and Frege's refutations of the ontological argument are more similar than has generally been acknowledged. As I clarify, for both Kant and Frege, to say that something exists is to assert of a concept that it is instantiated. With such an assertion one expresses that there is a particular relation between the instantiating object and a rational subject - a particular mode of presentation for the object in question. By its very nature such a relation cannot (...) be the property of an object and thus cannot be included in the concept of that object. Thus the ontological argument, which takes existence to be a part of the concept of the supreme being, cannot, according to Kant and Frege, succeed. A secondary goal of the paper is to illuminate what I take to be an important affinity between Kant's and Frege's views more generally: that Frege's fundamental distinction between the sense and the referent of a proposition echoes, in an important way, Kant's distinction between concepts and the formal principles for their application to experience. (shrink)

The core of Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument is the thesis that existence is not a real predicate capable of being added to the concept of an object. The concept of the most perfect or the most real being is a subjective content that is as such completely determined, that is to say, that already has all the determinations that define that concept as such. Therefore, to know if that object also exists in the real world is indispensable that (...) the subject has an intuition of it. The absence of such intuition is, according to Kant, an insuperable obstacle for the different attempts to prove the existence of God. Although Hegel agrees in principle with Kant´s claim that existence must not be conceived as a real predicate, he considers, however, that to understand it as the position of the already exhaustively determined concept of the object does not imply a true overcoming of the particular notion of existence that is at the base of the ontological argument. In this article I defend the claim that Hegel´s counter-criticism of Kant´s criticism of the ontological argument is actually a radicalization of Kant´s general critique of metaphysics. (shrink)

Many scholars claimed that, according to Immanuel Kant, some judgements lack a truth-value: analytic judgements, judgements about items of which humans cannot have experience, judgements of perception, and non-assertoric judgements. However, no one has undertaken an extensive examination of the textual evidence for those claims. Based on an analysis of Kant's texts, I argue that: (1) according to Kant, only judgements of perception are not truth-apt. All other judgements are truth-apt, including analytic judgements and judgements about items of which humans (...) cannot have experience. (2) Kant sometimes states that truth-apt judgements are actual bearers of truth or falsity only when they are taken to state what is actually the case. Kant calls these judgements assertoric. Other texts ascribe truth and falsity to judgements, regardless of whether they are assertoric. Kant's views on truth-aptness raise challenges for correspondentist and coherentist interpretations of Kant's theory of truth; they rule out the identification of Kant's crucial notion of objective validity with truth-aptness; and they imply that Kant was not a verificationist about truth or meaning. (shrink)

Kant gave a two-fold answer to the question, ‘Is existence a predicate?’. His view that existence is not a first-level predicate, i.e., a predicate of objects like horses, stones, and you and me, is widely known. What is not so well-known, however, is his claim that existence is a second-level predicate, a predicate of concepts or of a collection of predicates. In this paper I hope to show why his arguments for both claims are unsuccessful.

It is often said that the ontological argument fails because it wrongly treats existence as a first-level property or predicate. This has proved a controversial claim, and efforts to evaluate it are complicated by the fact that the words ‘existence is not a property/predicate’ have been used by philosophers to make at least three different negative claims: (a) one about a first-level phenomenon possessed by objects like horses, stones, you and me; (b) another about the logical form of assertions of (...) existence; and (c) still another about a second-level phenomenon possessed by concepts when they are instantiated. I argue that only the last of these claims, originally voiced by Kant, is both plausible and relevant to the ontological argument. And I try to show that the relevance of the Kantian version comes from its providing the underlying justification for a different, and far less controversial, criticism of the ontological argument. (shrink)

I explicate and defend leibniz's argument from "eternal truths" to the existence of god. I argue that necessary beings can be caused to exist, Showing how one can apply a counterfactual analysis to such causation, Then argue that if such beings can be caused to exist, They are.

The ontological argument fails because of an operator order switch between (1) “necessarily there is an perfect being” and (2) “there is a being which necessarily is perfect”. Here (1) is trivially true logically but (2) problematic. Since Kant's criticisms were directed at the notion of existence, not at the step from (1) to (2), they are misplaced. They are also wrong, because existence can be a predicate. Moreover, Kant did not anticipate Frege's claim that “is” is ambiguous between existence, (...) predication, identity, and class‐inclusion. To restore the ontological argument, an extra premise is needed to the effect that it is known who the existentially perfect being is. The question is raised whether Kant could have meant the failure of this extra premise by his thesis that existence is not a real predicate. (shrink)

In the Critique of Pure Reason, following his elucidation of the ‘postulates’ of possibility, actuality, and necessity, Kant makes a series of puzzling remarks. He seems to deny the somewhat metaphysically intuitive contention that the extension of possibility is greater than that of actuality, which, in turn, is greater than that of necessity. Further, he states that the actual adds nothing to the possible. This leads to the view, fairly common in the literature, that Kant holds that all modal categories, (...) in their empirical applications, are coextensive. I diverge from the common view. First, Kant is not committed to the coextensiveness thesis, understood as above. Instead, he espouses a weaker, epistemological version of the coextensiveness thesis, namely that what we can assert to be really possible is coextensive with what we cognize to be actual. Second, Kant's remarks are not intended to introduce a positive ontological thesis about the extensions of modal categories. Rather, he means to criticize a certain conception of modalities that was prevalent among his rationalist predecessors, i.e., the conception of modalities as various determinations that enter the intensions of concepts of things. (shrink)

هدف اصلی این پژوهش تحلیل «وجود» نزد کانت با کمک‌گرفتن از دیدگاه ولف، هیوم، و فلاسفۀ اسلامی دربارۀ وجود است. با توجه به این‌که کانت در نقد عقل محض در دو موضع به تحلیل «وجود» می‌پردازد، ابتدا در بخش تحلیل استعلایی در مبحث «مقولات محض فاهمه»، به‌منزلۀ یکی از مقولاتِ وجهه‌نظر «جهت»، و دیگربار در بخش دیالکتیک استعلایی در نقد برهان وجودی، این مقاله با هدف ارائۀ تبیینی جامع و منسجم از این دو موضع نشان می‌دهد که کانت در دیالکتیک (...) استعلایی، برای اجتناب از ایدئالیسم جزمی و ایدئالیسم شکاکانه، داده‌شدگی وجود را متأثر از هیوم برای نقد برهان وجودی به‌کار می‌گیرد، اما در تحلیل استعلایی که بر فهم ما از وجود متمرکز است، متأثر از ولف که برای او وجود امری فرعی و مجهول است، وجود را از مراتب علم ما به گزاره‌ها می‌داند. هم‌چنین با برقراری نوعی هم‌ارزی ابتدایی میان «اصالت وجود در حکمت متعالیه» و «داده‌شدگی وجود نزد هیوم»، و «اصالت ماهیت و اعتباری‌بودن مفهوم وجود نزد سهروردی» و «متمم بودن آن نزد ولف» از ابزارهای مفهومی برای تحلیل وجود در حکمت متعالیه و حکمت اشراق، هم‌چون «معقولات ثانیۀ فلسفی»، «زیادت وجود بر ماهیت»، و «جهات ثلاث» برای تبیین وجود نزد کانت کمک گرفته می‌شود. (shrink)

Anselm's argument for the existence of God in Proslogion Chap.II starts from the contention that `lq when a Fool hears `something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought', he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind. This is a special feature of the Pros.II argument which distinguishes the argument from other ontological arguments set up by, for example, Descartes and Leibniz. This is also the context which makes semantics necessary for evaluation of the argument. It is quite natural to ask `lq What (...) is understood by the Fool, and what is in his mind? It is essential for a proper consideration of the argument to identify the object which is understood by the Fool, and so, is in his mind. A semantics gives answers to the questions of `lq What the Fool understands? and `lq What is in the Fool's mind? If we choose a semantics as a meta-theory to interpret the Pros.II argument, it makes an effective guide to identify the object. It is a necessary condition for a proper evaluation of the Pros.II argument to fix our universe of discourse, especially since, in the argument, we are involved in such talk about existing objects as Anselm's contention that `when a Fool hears `something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought', he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind. The ontology to which a semantic theory commits us will be accepted as our scope of objects when we introduce our semantic theory to interpret the Pros.II argument, and this ontological boundary constrains us to identify the object in a certain way. Consistent application of an ontology, most of all, is needed for the evaluation of the logical validity of an argument. If we take Frege's three-level semantics, we are ontologically committed to intensional entities, like meaning, as well as extensional entities. Sluga contends that Frege's anti-psychologism for meanings should not be interpreted as vindicating reification of intensional entities in relation to Frege's contextualism, that Frege's anti-psychologism with his contextualism is nothing but a linguistic version of Kantian philosophy for the transcendental unity of a judgement. There is, however, another possible interpretation of Frege's contextualism. According to Dummett, the significance of Frege's contextualism must be understood as a way of explanation for a word's having meaning. If Dummett's view is cogent, we could say that Frege's contextualism does not prevent our interpreting his semantics as being committed to intensional entities. We need not worry that Frege's over all semantics, especially with his contextualism, would internally deny the ontological interpretation of his theory. We see Anselm's argument for the existence of God in Pros.II is an invalid argument if we introduce Frege's three-level semantics, i.e. if we acknowledge meanings of words as entities in our universe of discourse. We can also employ extensional semantics for the interpretation of the Pros.II argument. According to extensionalists, like Quine and Kripke, we need not assume intensional entities, like meaning, to be part of our ontological domain. They argue that we can employ our language well enough without assuming intensional entities. If we choose extensional semantics as a meta-theory to interpret the Pros.II argument, it commits us only to extensional entities as objects in the Universe of our interpretation. In Sections 1.4 and 1.5, I show that extensional semantics makes the Pros.II argument a valid argument for the existence of God. `lq Necessary existence is the central concept of Anselm's argument for the existence of God in Proslogion Chap.III. It has been said that, even if the argument is formally valid, it cannot stand as a valid argument for the existence of God, since `lq necessary existence is an absurd concept like `lq round square. And further that even if there is a meaningful combination of concepts for `lq necessary existence, it cannot quality as a subject of an a priori argument. As objections to the interpretations which make the Pros.III argument valid, it has been argued that even if there is a concept of `lq necessary existence which is meaningful and there is another concept of `lq necessary existence which is suitable as a subject of an a priori argument, there is no concept of `lq necessary existence which is meaningful and at the same time suitable as a subject of an a priori argument. In Chap.2 and Chap.3, I try to show that there can be concepts of `lq necessary existence which are proof against these objections. Anselm's arguments for the existence of God in Proslogian Chap.II and Chap.III are logically valid arguments on some logical principles. Some fideists, K. Barth, for example, argue that Anselm's arguments for the existence of God in Proslogion are not proofs for the existence of God even if they are logically valid arguments. I raise the question how this attitude could be possible, in Chap.4 and Chap.5. Barth's fideistic interpretation of Anselm's Proslogion arguments does not find any flaw in the validity of the arguments, and it accepts the meaningfulness and truth of the premises even to the fool in Proslogion. If this is the case, i.e. if Barth's interpretation accepts the validity of the arguments and the truth of the premises, I raise the question, how can the arguments not be interpreted as proofs for the existence of God? How is it possible that the function of the arguments is not that of proving the existence of God? According to Wittgensteinian fideism, premises in the arguments should not be intelligible to those who do not believe in God's existence already, and so the real function of the arguments is the elucidation, the understanding of believer's belief, rather than proving articles of belief to unbelievers. Barth's fideistic interpretation of the arguments, however, fully recognizes the meaningfulness and truth of the premises in the arguments as well as the validity of the arguments. I argue that there could be a justification for the Barthian fideism. As Malcolm notices, there are still atheists who understand Anselm's arguments as valid, but the only possibility for the people who recognize the validity of Anselm's arguments still to remain atheists has been thought to be to challenge the truth of premises employed in the arguments. Now, of the atheistic possibility, we can change the direction of our attention, that is, to the question about the function of a logically valid argument itself. What has not been thought of in relation to Anselm's arguments is the significance of logical truth or the logical validity of an argument. We have not asked such questions as `lq What does a logical truth say? and `lq What does a logically valid argument guarantee with true premises? Let us assume that even the premises are accepted by atheists. Do they all convert to theism? If that were so, the disagreement between atheist and believer over the ontological arguments should turn only on the truth of premises. If that is not so, there is some point in raising this other question. If there are people who, recognizing the premises and validity of an argument, are still reluctant to accept the conclusion, we have reason to question the function of a valid argument. I argue that there is a way of being consistently reasonable while accepting the premises and the validity of the ontological arguments and yet remaining an atheist or an agnostic. (shrink)

Kim has defended a solution to the exclusion problem which deploys the «causal inheritance principle» and the identification of instantiations of mental properties with instantiations of their realizing physical properties. I wish to argue that Kim's putative solution to the exclusion problem rests on an equivocation between instantiations of properties as bearers of properties and instantiations as property instances. On the former understanding, the causal inheritance principle is too weak to confer causal efficacy upon mental properties. And on the latter (...) understanding, the identification of mental and physical instantiations is simply untenable. (shrink)

The distinction between formal and informal logic is clarified as a prelude to considering their ideal relation. Aristotle's syllogistic describes forms of valid inference, and is in that sense a formal logic. Yet the square of opposition and rules of middle term distribution of positive or negative propositions in an argument's premises and conclusion are standardly received as devices of so-called informal logic and critical reasoning. I propose a more exact criterion for distinguishing between formal and informal logic, and then (...) defend a model for fruitful interaction between informal and formal methods of investigating and critically assessing the logic of arguments. (shrink)