990120 2053 - Things as they appear and as they are in themselves

Go to: Next / Index

Von: Sidney Axinn <axinn@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
An: Multiple recipients of list <kant-l@bucknell.edu>
Betreff: RE: Things: as they appear and as they are in themselves
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 1999 21:03

TO: Evan Cameron
Dear Evan,
Yes, I should have sent the first reply to youand not the whole
list. But, God does have some loyal followers in Philosophy, so here we
are.
1) You seem not to consider Kant's views in the 3rd Critique and his book
on religion, RELIGION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF REASON ALONE. As you know, I
have a vested interest in his book.

2) you say"he never says in the CPR that 'God is good.' "
Ah, you agree with me. But you add, "He infers it unequivocally..." I
don't follow the inference.

3) It is not God, but as you say at one point, "the 'idea' of God" that
is the subject of your references in your ( 2) and (3).. For a sensible
interpretation, look at Pluhar's comments in his note #54, page 348, of
his translation of the 3rd. Pluhar emphasizes Kant's distinction between
dogmatic and symbolic anthropormiphism. Modesty makes me refer you to
Pluhar rather than my book, THE LOGIC OF HOPE...

4)Kant's view on the basis for lthe existence o"of a sukpreme being"
hardly goes asa far as including GOODNESS. Where?

5) you mention something about the "attributes...by which God is the
object of religion." Hold on, Evan. God is not the object of religion for
Kant. He sharply separates that kind of religion from his; that is called
idol worship,...his is the moral religion. His RELIGION WITHIN THE LIMITS
OF REASON ALONE makes a major point of this.

6) On your reference to B 71-72: Look at the next sentence after the one
that griped you. "This latter remark , however, must be taken only as an
illustration of our aesthetic theory, not as forming part of lthe proof."
(Smith trans.)

7)your reference to B 138-139, "such a being would not require..."etc.
Even, this is put in the sukbjunctive in Smith's translation. I don't have
the GErman at hand (but I shall on Friday at USF). Kant seems to say here
that IF THERE WERE a being that could "supply to itself the manifold
of intuition..." such ;and such woudl be the case. But this subjunctive
illustration is hardly a basis for a substantive assertion.

It is always interesting to talk with you and read your material. More
to come, I hope. I do think that Kant would find your remarks to be
close to what he called idolotry.
Best wishes, as always,
Sid