Abstract

Kant’s 3rd Critique claims that the concept of purposiveness bridges the chasm between nature and freedom. This concept derives from the reflecting power of judgment’s demand for a system of particular laws. The published Introduction represents this system as grounded on the Idea of a divine understanding. According to Tuschling, this divinity is the intuitive understanding of §§76-77. According to Allison, this divinity is discursive and purposive and, thus, numerically distinct from §§76-77’s intuitive understanding. I argue that this debate between Tuschling and Allison fails to appreciate the varied ways in which Kant predicates divine attributes. The 3rd Critique refers to a single God but does so in various ways. First, Kant literally ascribes an intuitive understanding to God on analytic grounds. Second, Kant analogically ascribes a discursive, purposive mind to this same God. Finally, Kant ascribes moral predicates to this analogical representation of God on practical grounds.