康德摧毁了上帝本体论证明吗?  

Does Kant Destroy the Ontological Proof of God?

作　　者：马彪 MA Biao

机构地区：[1]南京农业大学马克思主义学院,210095

出　　处：《国外社会科学前沿》2021年第8期22-34,共13页JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCES

基　　金：国家社科基金后期资助项目“康德批判哲学的宗教之维研究”(20FZXB028);南京农业大学中央业务经费资助项目“什么是恶:康德到马克思”(20FZX028);江苏省教育厅资助项目“论康德的道德宗教”(2020SJA069)的阶段性成果;。

摘　　要：与过去那种简单认定康德已经摧毁了上帝本体论证明的观点不同,现在多数学者主张,康德的反驳亦有其自身的疑难与症结。就康德对本体论证明的界定而言,以安瑟伦为代表的神学家,虽说是由上帝的概念推导出上帝的存在,但他们对上帝是否存在的论证工具,与康德有着质的差异。此外,从康德哲学体系的内部来看,作为理性理念的上帝与知性范畴、经验概念是处于截然不同的领域,康德以"一百个塔勒"为论据所作的反驳,未必适用对上帝的批判。进一步看,康德对"逻辑的谓词"与"实在的谓词"所作的界分,也愈来愈多地受到后世学者的质疑。所有这些,无疑对康德上帝本体论证明之批判日益构成了挑战。It's well-known that Kant*s philosophy destroyed the ontological proof of God at home and abroad.Not all philosophers were convinced by it,most of scholars assert that there are a number of troubles in Kant's critical philosophy in itself.According to Kant’s definition on ontological proof,Anselm’s proof for God’s existence obviously is not subjected to Kant's critique.In part,this is because that Anselm argues the existence of God by the reason of faith(ratio fidei),not reason in Kant's sense.Furthermore,it is easy to see that God as Ideal is wholly different from the categories in understanding or the objects in experience,therefore an attack on the latter two would not necessarily suitable to the first.Last but not least,Kant^core point of view about the difference between the logical predicate and real predicate is increasingly criticized by some scholars in intellectual circle.

关 键 词：康德 上帝 本体论证明 安瑟伦 

分 类 号：B51[哲学宗教—外国哲学]