/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16449749]

Cosmological and teleological arguments for God are alright. The ontological argument is fine too. But have you heard of Kant's argument for God as the ground of all the possibilia that structure our conceptual content to provide intelligibility? Yeah nothing would be intelligible without God. Call this the intelligibility argument for God.

[Anonymous No.16449755]

It's Kant's pre-critical argument for God, an argument he later completely dismantles himself.

[Anonymous No.16449763]

>>16449755
Not really.

[Anonymous No.16449774]

[Anonymous No.16449894]

I have the intuition that God is a precondition & the basis for our conceptual thought structure but would like to hear Kants argument behind it

[Anonymous No.16449966]

>>16449749
I haven't actually read about it, but at face value it seems like the premises may be inaccurate. In greek thought, intelligibility only requires a soul, and a soul needn't presuppose an unqualified God. There could be a soul-recycling "naturalistic" system, like in Buddhism or the Timaeus. Feel free to correct me though, I haven't read Kant yet

[Anonymous No.16449993]

>>16449749
It's basically a presuppositionalist argument for God. I find these the strongest not only in reason but in faith and emotion as well. It only works in a Cartesian framework though.
>>16449755
He didn't reject all of it but adapted it. Instead of knowing this through reason one just has to faith in it, just like he thought you need to have belief in the soul or free will to be moral. I'm oversimplifying it extremely.

[Anonymous No.16450005]

Spinoza's argument is really good

[Anonymous No.16450007]

>>16449966
Plato in book X of the laws basically says the gods (and later just God) are souls that act as proto-first-movers of rationality. It's really an argument for God by saying that the soul presupposed for intelligibility is actually God. I don't know how Buddhism deals with this though.

[Anonymous No.16450018]

>>16449749
>nothing would be intelligible without God.

exactly!!! that is why in the gospel of john God is defined as the "Logos". "darkeness" is chaos and light/logos is structure... the early theologians talked a lot about it and Kant is also in the same line. the universe has structure because it was made by a logos and we humans have a piece of that logos ("a piece of divinity") that allows us to explore the universe. I would dare say that philosophy at the very core is theology (or "logology"...) kant and heiddeger are both deeply concerned about the logos. theology has helped me a lot in understanding both of this philosophers that are considered the most "advanced", they both are talking about God even if they did not intended to.

[Anonymous No.16450085]

>>16449763
>>16449993
What are you morons talking about, Kant never deals with any form of presuppositional argument for the existence of God, the entire critical project can be characterized as dismantling these types of metaphysical argumentations. Kant's "argument" for God are delivered through his practical philosophy, and even there it's not an "argument" or a "proof" or anything.

>>16450018
This is incoherent, did you even read Kant or Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.16450138]

>>16450085
Did you read my post?
>He didn't reject all of it but adapted it. Instead of knowing this through reason one just has to faith in it, just like he thought you need to have belief in the soul or free will to be moral. I'm oversimplifying it extremely.
If you don't know it through reason or evidence it's not an argument or proof. The OP is talking about Kant's "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God", and that's what the first part of my post was about.

[Anonymous No.16450224]

>>16450085
I think Kant remains committed to the argument of God as the ground of possibilia in his critical and post-critical periods. The only difference is that the argument loses its status. It's not longer an article of knowledge, but we have to believe in it to account for real possibility. Stang's Kant's Modal Metaphysics argues for this point.

[Anonymous No.16450435]

>>16449894
May I suggest reading Kant then

[Anonymous No.16450464]

>>16449749
this is too based where can i read more on this or similar arguments

[Anonymous No.16451876]

>>16450085
>This is incoherent, did you even read Kant or Heidegger?
have you read them?

example:
Heidegger, What Is Metaphysics

>26 Metaphysics speaks of what be-ing is (as a posteriori, "be" is already "be-ing"); it offers a λόγος (logos, statement) about "oν" [be-ing]... metaphysics formulates the "be-ingness" of be-ing in a twofold way: in the first place, as the entirety of be-ing as such, in the sense of the most general ( νκαθόλου, κοινόν ["be-ing on the whole", "what is in common"]; and at the same time in the sense of the highest and thereby "divine be-ing" (oν καθόλου, κρότατον, θεiον ["the universal", "what is the furthermost", "divinity"]). the truth of be-ing in the most general sense and in the highest sense.

>The theological character of "ontology" is not due so much to the fact that Greek metaphysics was later absorbed by Christian sacred theology and transformed by it. It is due more to the means by which "be" as "be-ing" had disclosed itself from early on.

>the apostle Paul's first letter to Corinthians(1 Cor. 1:20): "Has not God let the wisdom of this world become foolishness?" But the wisdom of this world is that which, according to 1:22, "what the the Greeks are searching for".... Aristotle even expressly calls "authentic philosophy" to what is sought . What if Christian theology were to decide to take seriously the words of the apostle just for once and so also the foolishness of philosophy?
https://wagner.edu/psychology/files/2013/01/Heidegger-What-Is-Metaphysics-Translation-GROTH.pdf

[Anonymous No.16452877]

bump

[Anonymous No.16453108]

Kant? more like CUTE!

[Anonymous No.16453188]

>>16453108
waht

[Anonymous No.16453307]

The precritical Kant defends an argument from the 'possible' of God in Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes (1763). In fact, that marking of 'intelligibility' of God as necessary is not inaccurate, Kant maintains it in his Dissertation of 1770, but in 1781 and later the ontotheological argument and so on are considered insufficient. The argument to sustain God will be in the moral realm.

>>16450224

I had precisely that book in mind, especially it says:

''I think the answer is clear: noumenal real possibility. From the perspective of Kant’s Critical theory, the God of Beweisgrund was a noumenon, a supersensible being, and he grounded real possibility for all beings, including other noumena. Consequently, the absolutely necessary being we are rationally necessitated to postulate is an absolutely noumenally necessary being that grounds all noumenal real possibility.'' (p. 272).