• PhilPapers
  • PhilPeople
  • PhilArchive
  • PhilEvents
  • PhilJobs
  • Sign in
PhilPeople
 
  • Sign in
  • News Feed
  • Find Philosophers
  • Departments
  • Radar
  • Help
 
profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

Andrew Chignell

Princeton University
  •  Home
  •  Publications
    92
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  Recommended
    1
  •  Events
    26
  •  News and Updates
    77

 More details
  • Princeton University
    University Center for Human Values
    Department of Philosophy
    Professor
Yale University
Department of Philosophy
PhD, 2004
APA Eastern Division
Homepage
Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America
0000-0002-3303-6195
Areas of Specialization
Immanuel Kant
17th/18th Century Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion
Food Ethics
Hope
Areas of Interest
Epistemology
Aesthetics
19th Century Philosophy
European Philosophy
Immanuel Kant
PhilPapers Editorships
Hope
Immanuel Kant
Kant: Metaphysics and Epistemology
Kant: Skepticism
Kant: Aesthetic Judgment
Neo-Kantianism
1 more
  • All publications (92)
  •  941
    Review: Moore, Noble in Reason, Infinite in Faculty: Themes and Variation in Kant's Moral and Religious Philosophy (review)
    Philosophical Review 115 (1): 118-121. 2006.
    A review of A.W. Moore's book on Kantian themes in religion and ethics.
    G. E. MoorePhilosophy of ReligionKant: Religion within the Boundaries of Mere ReasonKant: Ethics, Mi…Read more
    G. E. MoorePhilosophy of ReligionKant: Religion within the Boundaries of Mere ReasonKant: Ethics, MiscKant: Formula of HumanityKant: Categorical ImperativeKant: Formula of Universal LawKant: Philosophy of Religion, Misc
  •  3028
    Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being
    Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (2): 157-192. 2009.
    Kant's speculative theistic proof rests on a distinction between “logical” and “real” modality that he developed very early in the pre-critical period. The only way to explain facts about real possibility, according to Kant, is to appeal to the properties of a unique, necessary, and “most real” being. Here I reconstruct the proof in its historical context, focusing on the role played by the theory of modality both in motivating the argument (in the pre-critical period) and, ultimately, in undoin…Read more
    Kant's speculative theistic proof rests on a distinction between “logical” and “real” modality that he developed very early in the pre-critical period. The only way to explain facts about real possibility, according to Kant, is to appeal to the properties of a unique, necessary, and “most real” being. Here I reconstruct the proof in its historical context, focusing on the role played by the theory of modality both in motivating the argument (in the pre-critical period) and, ultimately, in undoing it as a source of knowledge of God's existence (in the critical period). Along the way I examine Kant's version of the now-popular “actualist” thesis that facts about what is possible must be explained by facts about what is actual. I conclude by discussing why the critical Kant claims both that there are rational grounds for accepting the conclusion of his theistic proof, and that such acceptance can not count as knowledge. This is important, I argue, because the same considerations ultimately motivate his prohibition on knowledge of things-in-themselves generally.
    Kant's Works in Pre-Critical PhilosophyKant: ModalityTheories of Modality, MiscKant: GodDivine Attri…Read more
    Kant's Works in Pre-Critical PhilosophyKant: ModalityTheories of Modality, MiscKant: GodDivine Attributes
  • Prev.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University
PhilPeople is currently in Beta Sponsored by the PhilPapers Foundation and the American Philosophical Association
Feedback