Hegel and Kant on the Ontological Argument
ABSTRACT: I intend to present Kant's refutation of the ontological argument as confronted by Hegel's critique of Kant's refutation. The ontological argument can be exposed in a syllogistic way: everything I conceive as belonging clearly and distinctly to the nature or essence of something can be asserted as true of something. I perceive clearly and distinctly that existence belongs to the nature or essence of a perfect being; therefore, existence can be stated as true of a supremely perfect being, that is, perfect being exists. I intend to argue that Kant criticizes both the major and minor premises. To the major premise, he objects that there is an unqualified passage from the logical to the ontological level. To the minor premise, he objects that existence is not a concept predicate. Finally, I will show how Hegel criticizes Kant's refutation. To the former, Kant's critique is naïve as he could prove that existence is not inherent to a finite being's concept, which is not the concept of God.
I. The Ontological Argument
Kant's refutation of the ontological argument-which states that from the concept of a being containing every perfection it is possible to infer its existence-is well known: "In whatever manner the understanding may have arrived at a concept, the existence of its object is never, by any process of analysis, discoverable within it; for the knowledge of the existence of the object consists precisely in the fact that the object is posited in itself, beyond the (mere) thought of it" (KrV,B667, trans. Kemp Smith)
Existence being neither a predicate nor a perfection, it cannot be inferred from the concept of the most perfect being beyond its concept. Kant's critic...
... middle of paper ...
...e.
Notes
(1) The ontological argument was first stated by Anselm in the Proslogium, Anselm defines God as a being related to whom nothing superior can be conceived. He inquires on the possible existence of such a being in ours mind only, that is , as an object of thought. The answer is negative, for such a being would be one related to whom a superior could be conceived. The ontological argument presented by Descartes in the fifth Meditation is essentially a modern version of Anselm's argument.
(2) G. Dicker, Descartes: an analytical and historical introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
(3) Strawson, The bounds of Sense, London, Routledge, 1966, p. 225.
(4) Cf.Hegel, Enzyklopädie der philosophichen Wissenschaften, SuhrKamp, ed. Moldenhauer Michel, , & 51
(5) Cf.Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, ed. Jaeschke, III, p.324.
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
In chapter three there is a somewhat disparate side of the ontological argument. It centers on the nature of God than the meaning of him. Particularly, this chapter centers on the early quality of God that is the fact that he needs to exist. Inanimate things, supplementary living things, and humans are ...
Rene Descartes meditations on the existence of God are very profound, thought-provoking, and engaging. From the meditations focused specifically on the existence of God, Descartes uses the argument that based on his clear and distinct perception that cannot be treated with doubt, God does exist. In the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes proclaims that he is certain he is a thinking thing based on his clear and distinct perception, and he couldn’t be certain unless all clear and distinct perceptions are true. Before diving into the existence of God, Descartes introduces smaller arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Descartes introduces in his argument that there are ideas in which he possess that exists outside of him. Utilizing the objective versus formal reality, Descartes states “If the objective reality of any of my ideas turns out to be so great that I am sure the same reality does not reside in me, either formally or eminently, and hence that I myself cannot be its cause, it will necessarily follow that I am not alone in the world, but that some other thing which is the cause of this idea exists” (29). In other words, the ideas of objective reality that resides in Descartes can potentially only come from a supreme being, which is God; God possess more objective reality than he does formal reality. We as humans, as Descartes states, are finite substance, and God is the only infinite substance. The only way for us as a finite substance to think of an infinite substance is possible if, and only if, there is an infinite substance that grants us the idea of substance in first place. After these smaller arguments, Descartes states that while we can doubt the existence of many things, due to the fact that ...
Once Descartes has realized that he can know with certainty that “I exist” is true, he continues to build on his foundation of truths. The truth about the nature of God, proof of God’s existence, and the nature of corporeal objects are considered, among others, after Descartes proves his existence. Descartes’ principal task in the Meditations was to devise a system that would bring him to the truth. He wanted to build a foundation from which all further philosophical inquiry could be built. It was essential that his beliefs were sound. If any one of them were at all in doubt, then it put the credibility of the whole structure of knowledge in jeopardy. I will discuss a few of the topics Descartes analyzes after his epiphany of existence. Throughout the essay, I will raise some doubts that I have pertaining to Descartes’ conclusions as well.
Acton, Edward, and William Rosenberg. Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1997
Torelli, Carlos J., and Shavitt, Sharon. "Culture And Concepts Of Power." Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology 99.4 (2010): 703-723. PsycARTICLES. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
McLachlan, N. M., Phillips, D. S., Rossell, S. L., & Wilson, S. J. (2013). Auditory processing
Joseph Stalin started a sequence of five-year plans in the 1920’s planned to change the Soviet Union from a society filled with peasants into an industrialized soc...
But Kant also made a less familiar distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, according to the information conveyed as their content. Analytic judgments are those whose predicates are entirely contained in their subjects; since they add nothing to our concept of the subject, such judgments are purely explicative and can be deduced from the principle of non-contradiction. Synthetic judgments, on the other hand, are those whose predicates are altogether distinct from their subjects, to which they must be shown to relate because of some real connection external to the concepts themselves. Hence, synthetic judgments are genuinely informative but require justification by reference to some outside principle.
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
After Vladimir Lenin, a Russian communist revolutionary, politician and political theorist, died, Stalin outmaneuvered his rivals and won the control of the Communist Party. In the tardy 1920’s he became dictator of the Soviet Cumulation. Then he wanted to industrialize the country because at the time the economic was farming. Millions of farmers reluctant to be apart of Stalin’s orders and were killed as penalization. The civilization led a widespread famine across the Soviet Coalescence and killed millions of people. Stalin wanted to kill anyone who opposed him of his orders. He engendered an army of secret police, and inspirited citizens to spy on others which had many people killed or sent to a labor camp. Virtually everyone around Stalin was considered a threat to him, even the Communist Party, the military, and components of the Soviet Coalescence society, s...
Personally, I think that the objection presented by Kant nullifies the ontological argument on the existence of God. Ideally, there has never been any plausible objection to Kant’s opinion that existence is not a property of objects. For this reason, it is impossible to make a comparison of a God that is existent to another that does not exist in any form as Descartes wants us to believe. As Kant points out correctly, a God that does not exist and another that is existent are identical at least in the qualitative sense.
The ear is an extraordinary human organ that many people take for granted until it doesn’t function. It is the only device that allows the human to hear sounds in their environment. The ear is made up of many parts that distinguish various sounds through different means. The ear anatomy and physiology along with how sound waves are transmitted into meaningful sounds will help one understand how hearing loss occurs.