Nochmals zu Mendelssohn, Kant und dem ontologischen Gottesbeweis

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
R. Rovira
{"title":"Nochmals zu Mendelssohn, Kant und dem ontologischen Gottesbeweis","authors":"R. Rovira","doi":"10.1515/dzph-2023-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Stefan Lang recently published a valuable contribution in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie on the discussion between Mendelssohn and Kant on the validity of the ontological proof for the existence of God. The conclusion of his article contrasts with that defended by the author of these pages in an essay published in Kant-Studien a few years ago. Our discrepancy is based on two closely related key issues: firstly, on how to interpret Mendelssohn’s thesis that the absolutely necessary being is both thought and thing; secondly, on the significance and scope to be attributed to Kant’s thesis of the impossibility of an ontological proof of God’s existence.","PeriodicalId":54099,"journal":{"name":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2023-0018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Stefan Lang recently published a valuable contribution in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie on the discussion between Mendelssohn and Kant on the validity of the ontological proof for the existence of God. The conclusion of his article contrasts with that defended by the author of these pages in an essay published in Kant-Studien a few years ago. Our discrepancy is based on two closely related key issues: firstly, on how to interpret Mendelssohn’s thesis that the absolutely necessary being is both thought and thing; secondly, on the significance and scope to be attributed to Kant’s thesis of the impossibility of an ontological proof of God’s existence.
我要把门德尔松的案子和康德上上帝的证据拿回来
摘要Stefan Lang最近在德国《哲学杂志》上发表了一篇关于门德尔松和康德关于上帝存在的本体论证明有效性的讨论的宝贵贡献。他的文章的结论与几年前发表在《康德研究》上的一篇文章中的作者所做的辩护形成了对比。我们的分歧是基于两个密切相关的关键问题:第一,如何解释门德尔松的论点,即绝对必要的存在既是思想又是事物;其次,论述了康德关于上帝存在的本体论证明不可能的命题的意义和范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Als offenes Diskussionsforum fördert die Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie den schulübergreifenden Dialog und die Kommunikation zwischen den philosophischen Kulturen. Vorrangig erscheinen Arbeiten, die aktiv in die moderne internationale philosophische Diskussion eingreifen und neue Denkansätze für sie liefern. Neben Fachaufsätzen und Essays, Interviews und Symposien publiziert die Zeitschrift Funde aus philosophischen Archiven, Diskussionen sowie Buchkritiken.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信