A FRIDAY AFTERNOON PROVOCATIVE PHILOSOPHICAL SPOILER ALERT
I will argue that it really doesn’t take a Kant to recognise that reason collapses without a "God" as its ultimate principle. Every modern attempt to dodge this—from Heidegger’s ontological detours to Wittgenstein’s linguistic quietism—ultimately misses the point and inevitably fails. Without a transcendent anchor, “practical reason” degenerates into little more than sophisticated hand-waving.
Or, to let the sage of Königsberg speak for himself:
“The summum bonum is possible in the world only on the supposition of a supreme being… Hence the supreme being as a moral, all-sufficient cause, is a postulate of pure practical reason.”
And just a few quick rebuttals to some popular philosophical arguments:
◆ Heidegger — Claim: Ontology replaces metaphysics | Rebuttal: Evades Kant's question by shifting registers; dissolves moral demand into "Dasein" - finitude toward death; late mysticism confirms collapse.
◆ Wittgenstein — Claim: Justification bottoms in linguistic practice | Rebuttal: Practical solipsism; no rational critique across forms of life; dissolves rather than answers Kant's "ought."
◆ Hegel — Claim: Absolute Spirit overcomes Kant | Rebuttal: Geist is God immanentized as dialectics; sharpens rather than refutes the transcendent postulate.
◆ Rawls — Claim: Justice via neutral procedure | Rebuttal: Counterfactual original position smuggles in liberal values; "reasonable" defined circularly; no account of obligation outside social contract.
◆ Habermas — Claim: Norms valid in ideal speech | Rebuttal: Ideal speech requires Kantian regulative postulate; circular justification; no ground for moral motivation.
◆ Korsgaard — Claim: Normativity from reflective identity | Rebuttal: Why value "humanity"? Circular. Constructivism collapses into voluntarism without Kant's postulates.
◆ Levinas — Claim: Face commands infinite responsibility | Rebuttal: "Trace of Infinite" is Jewish God; without theological ground, the command is arbitrary assertion.
#Leadership #BasicReason #CommonSenseThatIsPrettyUncommon #PleaseReadThe3Critiques
PS: Just to be very clear -
Kant argues that “God” is a postulate of practical reason:
In the Second Critique, Kant argues that moral law commands us to pursue the highest good (summum bonum): the unity of virtue and happiness
This unity cannot be guaranteed by natural causality alone
Therefore, practical reason postulates (not proves) God as the condition under which summum bonum is possible
This is a practical, not theoretical, necessity
In other words: The point here is not that an “external” God exists, but that all reasoned human action is inherently purposeful. We must assume a highest good—or "God"—as a regulative ideal so that we can order incommensurable values and act intentionally. Hence, "God" here is not religious belief but equivalent to the major premise in a practical syllogism. Without the postulate of a foundation, practical reason cannot coherently pursue its own telos (the highest good).