Ontological Argument criticism by Kant Critique of Pure Reason - Essay Example

Philosophy 4 October Criticism of Ontological Argument by Kant in “The Critique of Pure Reason” Immanuel Kant’sobjections to the ontological argument in the “Critique of Pure Reason”, published in 1781, played an integral role in changing of thinking and philosophy. He was fascinated with the skeptical drawings that ensued from Hume’s premises. Kant vehemently reaffirmed the intelligibility of the world as demonstrated by common sense and science. He has had immense influence in the world of philosophy and continues to be a great source of inspiration for all. Despite rejecting some of his core ideas, the subsequent generation that lived under German idealism has widely adopted his work. His prime objection was that existence is not a predicate (Kant 281). The foundation of the ontological argument was the existence of a God that is greater than a God who does not exist. Thus, the very foundation was baffling and questionable. Kant advocated that existence could not possess or lack properties and, therefore, it is not a predicate. His criticism fundamentally targeted Descartes and Leibniz. Kant drew a clear line of distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. Analytic judgment denotes a predicate that conveys a point that is already a part of the concept, and, therefore, it constitutes a tautology. On the other hand, in a synthetic judgment, the predicate implies a point not already contained in the concept, and, therefore, it expresses new knowledge. He begins by questioning the intelligibility of the notion of a categorically certain being. He studies this concept by examining illustrations of necessary propositions such as “a triangle has three angles”. However, he declines this explanation on two grounds. Firstly, categorical necessity for things and their being cannot be yielded from categorically necessary judgments. For instance, a phrase “a triangle has three angles” leads to the conditional necessity that the existence of a triangle denotes that three angles necessarily exist (Kant 328). Therefore, when we characterize a concept, say X, we actually make the necessary judgment that X exists. The rest of the characteristics will be the conditioned necessity. Secondly, he stated that contradictions ensue from cancelling the predicate about the subject. The judgments regarding nonexistence nullify both the subject and the predicate; therefore, this does not give rise to a contradiction. Based on these arguments, Kant refuted the notion of a necessary being. In addition, he contends that if existence is considered as a fundamental component of the definition of something, then affirming that it exists constitutes as tautology. Therefore, while making the analytic judgment that existence is a characteristic of God, we are reiterating that God exists. Thus, no synthetic judgment is made to annex novel information with regard to existence to the theoretical definition of God. Moving on, he criticizes the concept of being by pointing out that it is not a real predicate; thereby, it cannot be used to define a concept related to something. In plain terms, saying that something exists does not indicate anything in relation to the concept; instead, it denotes the existence of an object that matches with the concept. To say that objects of sense exist does not imply an extra property related to the concept; instead, it is to be discovered outside the thought and we have an experiential awareness of it in space and time (Kant 89). A thing that actually exists does not possess properties which could be predicated; therefore, it cannot be distinguished from the concept of it. The distinguishing factor is then experience concerning that something, for instance its shape, site, time. To say that something exists requires spatial-temporal experience of that thing in order to know that there exist objects that correspond to that concept. Hence, a demonstration concerning the existence of something like God, which involves predicating a characteristic (existence), is then fallacious. In the light of the aforementioned arguments, Kant highlighted that the declaration of the omnipotence of God stands as an analytic judgment, as it illustrates what the concept of God contains and implies or the peculiar properties of God. As opposed to this, the statement that God exists represents a synthetic judgment about existence, which does not affirm any property contained in the concept of God but rather requires information about God as an object. However, the ontological argument imports this synthetic assertion about the existence of God in the notion of God, using tautology to define God’s existence. Kant vehemently states that the concept of God is an “object of pure thought” rather than a specific object of sense (Kant 56). This term was used to signify something that exists beyond the realm of experience and nature. He stated that it is impossible to ascertain the possibility of any existence beyond that which is known in and through experience (Kant 139). In other words, we cannot determine the existence of God in the legitimate and logical manner used to determine the existence of other things. Kant concluded that when people ascertain that God exists, they do not mean that there is a God who holds the property of existence. If it were so, then the assertion that God does not exist would suggest that there is a God who does not have the property of existence. Therefore, they would be asserting and rejecting the existence of God at the same time. In consideration of this, Kant advocated that to assert that something exists is to say that the concept related to it is illustrated in this world. Thus, existence corresponds to a concept of something prevalent in the world. More simply, it does not denote a predicate, a characteristic that something possesses or lacks. To comprehend this concept, assume the entire description related to an object including its colors, density, dimensions, and the like. So now, to say that the object exists, nothing new is annexed to the notion of that object. It remains the same regardless of its existence or non-existence, same in color, density, dimensions etc. The fact regarding the object’s existence and its exemplification in the world does not affect the concept in any way. In fact, to affirm the object’s existence is to say that the world includes something that corresponds to that concept; however, it does not denote anything related to the object. Kant’s perspective that existence is not a predicate of objects demonstrates that a God that exists cannot be compared to a God that does not exist (Kant 383). In his opinion, a God that does not exist is actually qualitatively similar to a God that exists. For instance, a God who exists possesses omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. Similarly, a God who does not exist possesses the precise attributes and, therefore, both are identical. In the light of this philosophy, Anselm’s argument that a God who exists is greater than a God who does not exist holds incorrect, as both are the same. Consequently, the ontological argument also does not hold true. Kant’s criticism of the ontological arguments was met with widespread praise; however, some have refuted it. The manner in which we conceive an object can change by the assertion regarding its existence. For instance, if after reading about Socrates in Plato’s works, I find out that he actually existed, then it will most certainly change my opinion of him. Likewise, to state that God is not limited to imagination but really exists contributes to the definition of God (Kant 282). “The Critique of Pure Reason” represents Kant’s epistemological and metaphysical compositions. He presents a critique of metaphysics in hope to restore the train of philosophy back on its rails. In this monumental work, Kant criticizes Hume’s empiricism, thereby triggering what he terms as the Copernican revolution for the reorientation of our complete frame of thought. Through this revolution, he builds two realities, namely the phenomenal and the noumenal (Guyer 52). He portrays that everything a man perceives is an imposition of our own minds building this experienced reality. He objects to the cosmological cause, teleological and ontological arguments of the existence of God to demonstrate that these arguments are based on synthetic priori cognitions of human mind. Rather than viewing space and time as things we conceive, Kant sees them as forms of intuition, in other words, forms that we implement in the outer world (Kant 53). His work penetrated deeply into the epistemic infrastructure. Consequently, the critique remains relevant today for chaos theory, neurobiology, history, theology, and similar subjects. Undoubtedly, Kant ranks as one of the most significant philosophers of all times. This critique expounds on the qualifications and limitations of our perception of reality. It delineates how it appeals to logic to talk about free will even though most likely we do not have it (Guyer 329). Similarly, how we are fascinated and driven to speaking of God, notwithstanding the obstacles in proving his existence. “The Critique of Pure Reason” marks the last phase of Enlightenment Period and paves the way towards modern philosophy. Kant debates meticulously and methodically. Almost all subsequent philosophical works have been in reaction to this work or were based on it. Works Cited Guyer, Paul. The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print. Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason. New York: A & D Publishing, 2008. Print. Read More