Kantian Grace as Ethical Gymnastics

  • Dennis Vanden Auweele RU Groningen (Netherlands) and KU Leuven (Belgium)
Palabras clave: Grace, Irrationalism, Pedagogy, Pessimism

Resumen

Kant’s concept of grace in Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason is a difficult topic, exegetically speaking. Obviously enough, Kant subscribes positively to a notion of divine assistance. This appears awkward given his rationalist ethics rooted in personal autonomy. This has given cause to interpreters of Kant’s philosophy of religion – both early commentators and today – to read Kant’s account of grace is uniquely rationalist. This would make grace a rational expectation given personal commitment to good works. The argument of this paper is that grace is a hyperrationalist element in Kant’s practical philosophy because of the potentially problematic consequences of Kant’s views of human nature. Human nature is namely not particularly prone to be responsive to the rational moral law and therefore requires a number of pedagogical tools that facilitate moral agency.

Biografía del autor/a

Dennis Vanden Auweele, RU Groningen (Netherlands) and KU Leuven (Belgium)

Dennis Vanden Auweele is assistant professor in philosophy of religion at RU Groningen (University of Groningen) and postdoctoral researcher, sponsored by the Research Foundation Flandres (FWO), at KU Leuven (University of Leuven). He received his doctoral degree from KU Leuven in 2014 with a dissertation entitled: ‘Pessimism in Kant and Schopenhauer: On the Horror of Existence’. He has recently published The Kantian Foundation of Schopenhauer’s Pessimism (New York: Routledge, 2017) and edited (with Jonathan Head) Schopenhauer’s Fourfold Root (New York: Routledge, 2016). He is currently writing a monograph on philosophy of religion in the later Schelling and Nietzsche.

Ver citas

Descarga artículo

Crossmark

Métricas

Publicado
2017-12-08
Cómo citar
Vanden Auweele D. (2017). Kantian Grace as Ethical Gymnastics. Con-Textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 6, 285-301. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1095827
Sección
Discusiones