Kant and the ambiguities of religion within the limits of reason alone
For many interpreters, especially the more traditional ones, Kant belongs to the Enlightenment tradition of an “appreciation of natural religion”, which denies making any appreciation, and even less any “depreciation”, of Christianity (SF, 7: 08). He intends only to submit religion to the supreme co...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
| Repositorio: | Kant e-prints (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8673525 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/kant/article/view/8673525 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Kant Religião Cristianismo Dogmática Mal radical Religion Christianity Dogmatic Radical evil |
| Sumario: | For many interpreters, especially the more traditional ones, Kant belongs to the Enlightenment tradition of an “appreciation of natural religion”, which denies making any appreciation, and even less any “depreciation”, of Christianity (SF, 7: 08). He intends only to submit religion to the supreme court of reason. But, according to other interpreters, mainly the more recent ones, although Kant believes that the rational moral core of religion is independent of historical religions and could eventually be present in many of them, Christianity plays a more than illustrative role in his reflections. Our hypothesis in the present article is that this characterizes an ambiguity of Kant’s try to reduce religion to morality, and it can be more explicitly found in his difficulties in providing formal proof of radical evil and of the objective reality of its overcoming in the figure of Christ, so in the first and second part of the book Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. In the third and fourth parts, this ambiguity diminishes, and Kant turns more emphatically critical of historical religions. |
|---|