Critique of Pure Reas14

Critique of Pure - the source of the order not being attributable to the things themselves(3 the existence of an intelligent cause(4 the unity of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Critique of Pure Reason Lecture notes, March 10, 1997: Practical Reason The Design Argument Experience cannot be adequate to the transcendental idea of a necessary and self- sufficient being, "so overwhelmingly great, so high above everything empirical" (A621/B649). The supreme being cannot be an object of experience, but if apart from experience, it is unreachable, given that the laws of experience apply only to its objects. To be sure, the world presents us with incredible marvels, but these only leave us speechless. Nonetheless, the proof is "the oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the study of nature" (A623/B651). It also guides us in seeking purpose in the world, and is reinforced when we find it. But we cannot grant the argument certainty, only "a belief adequate to quieten our doubts, though not to command unconditional submission" (A625/B653). Ultimately, certainty could only be found through the ontological argument, if it were cogent. The argument iself has these features: (1) clear signs of order in a huge and varied universe, (2)
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the source of the order not being attributable to the things themselves, (3) the existence of an intelligent cause, (4) the unity of that cause as necessary for the deep interconnection in the world. The analogy to human artifice must not be taken too literally, but it is the only way we can proceed. "Reason could never be justified in abandoning the causality which it knows for gounds of explanation which are obscure, of which it does not have any knowledge, and which are incapable of proof" (A626/B654). Kant noted that this argument could at most show the existence of an architect of the world, not that of a creator.Further, the argument could not show the existence of a perfect being, but only one that is great to an indeterminate degree. Only an a priori argument such as the cosmological could do this. So the design argument depends on the cosmological, which itself is only the ontological argument in disguised....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/09/2011 for the course PSY PSY2012 taught by Professor Scheff during the Fall '09 term at Broward College.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online