Table of contents for The problem of God in modern philosophy / Leonardo Messinese ; Philip Larrey, translator.

Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.

Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.


Counter
Contents
Preface, by Armando Rigobello
Introduction
What is Modern Philosophy?	1
Chapter 1
Modern Philosophy and the Problem of God 5
Chapter 2
The Problem of God. The 'rationalist' 
and 'empiricist' perspectives		11
Chapter 3
The Kantian Critique and the Hegelian 
Solution to the 'Problem' of God		 17
Chapter 4
Philosophical Theology and the 
'Demonstration' of God's Existence		27
Conclusion
Questioning the 'Immanentist' 
Interpretation of Modern Philosophy	 31
Appendix
Modern Thought and The Search for God	 39
Notes		57
Preface
 The conversation about God is always an appropriate one to our times, even though there 
are moments in which, in a man's life or in an historical period, such a conversation seems 
particularly apropos. Those moments usually represent a profound crisis, when we are faced 
with events that force us to reflect on that which is essential. Leonardo Messinese's essay, 
which was the Author's Inaugural Address for the Chair of the History of Modern Philosophy 
at the Lateran University, highlights how one cannot begin a conversation today (concerning 
the proposed subject matter, and probably any philosophical theme) without joining the 
theoretical aspects to one's historical situation. More specifically, we should notice that after 
Descartes the conversation about God is not merely a theme, but rather a problem that is 
developed from a critical point of view, i.e., from the problem of knowledge as being 
problematic. 
 Kant, even though he arrives at conclusions that differ from Descartes, follows a path that 
begins by asking about the conditions of possibility of the knowledge of the theological 
subject concerning, specifically, the existence of God. He thus arrives at a solution of the 
problem that is no longer theoretical but practical, even of practical reason. 
 An analogous observation can be made concerning the same question within empiricism: 
the subject matter is the idea of God, not God in Himself. The object of the empiricist 
investigation is more the content of the idea of God than the affirmation of his existence. 
However, the innovation truly arrives with Hegel, who certainly is influenced by the critical 
path of Kantian philosophy, but who radically separates himself from that philosophy when, 
in his own system, human knowledge opens itself to the life of the Absolute, and the real 
becomes the Totality. From the anthropological problem of knowledge and certainty, one 
arrives at the ontological and metaphysical theme of Truth.
 Therefore, Hegel, more than the fulfillment of the Cartesian itinerary of modern 
philosophy, would represent its interruption, or better yet a return to the classical themes 
about Being and about the Absolute, although re-packaged after having passed through the 
awareness of the problematic question of critical gnoseology that is at the beginning of 
modern thought and which has conditioned developments leading up to our own times. 
 We thus arrive at the speculative nucleus of the conversation: "The thesis I wish to 
assert here," writes Messinese, "is that, after a more attentive reading of the texts, it is 
difficult to inscribe Hegelian philosophy within modern philosophy in the same sense in 
which such an operation is perfectly legitimate with regards the other previously mentioned 
philosophers [he refers to Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant]. One could say that Hegel is 
not worried so much about affirming the modern principle of doing philosophy, but rather the 
principle of doing philosophy, i.e., philosophy's proper capacity of having as the content of 
knowledge nothing less than the Absolute." (p. 21 f)
 It seems to us that one can summarize this interpretation as it is proposed through the 
confrontation of three pairs of comparisons: certainty and truth, form and content, faith and 
knowledge. Certainty and truth are typical Augustinian terms, taken by Descartes: certainty 
as the solution of doubt inasmuch as truth critically grounded. Form, in this context, is the 
idealistic knowledge which the Absolute has as content. Certainty, initially, is empty form; 
once filled with content, it becomes truth. And this is the most mature position of Hegel's 
thought in which form and content are not separable. 
 Within this position, we have the further specification between knowledge and faith, where 
knowledge that is not expressed in the empty, rationalistic Enlightenment formality is 
concrete knowledge. From within this dense, concrete knowledge we discover a dialectical 
tension between faith and reason, where reason, however, is no longer the illuministic 
intellect, but rather concrete thought, and faith is Christian faith, which from the narration of 
salvation or eschatological witness assumes the form of full knowledge, of truth. A further 
problem, which is indicated as a following task, is the internal clarification of this dialectical 
tension between an absolute, concrete knowledge and a faith as the content of the Christian 
message. 
 The problematic tension between faith and reason is thus transferred to the internal 
workings of philosophy itself. It is about "producing a kind of philosophical transcription of the 
'Christian religion,' through which the history of metaphysics becomes also the history of 
Christian theology, which is concluded with the Christian definition of God as Spirit." (p. 23) 
Is it possible to bring about, within the most mature Hegelian concept of thought, a divine 
reality, the Spirit that vivifies the world but also transcends it?
 Although Hegel's position certainly presents an advantage over past conflicting positions, 
there is still a risk: "that of erasing the irreducible difference between philosophy and 
(Christian) religion, between philosophy and theology, i.e., of not recognizing the difference 
between what could be called the 'religious transcendence' and the 'philosophical 
transcendence.'" (p. 24) 
 The risk that the Author alludes to opens a series of questions and stimulates further 
research. 
 The inaugural lesson of Leonardo Messinese is necessarily schematic and just as 
necessarily programmatic. Its finality is essentially to pinpoint the terms of the problem and 
indicate a working hypothesis to solve it, once he has delineated in an historical setting the 
context in which the problem arises in modern thought. Having done this, he skilfully takes a 
position concerning the very concept of modernity and thus concerning the anti-modern 
aspects of Hegel's thought: the return to the ontological-metaphysical dimension, interrupting 
the anthropological turn by overcoming the preliminary character of gnoseology. 
 There are still essential points that await clarification and, perhaps, signal a limitation that is 
not easily overcome: the justification of the finite dimension found in Totality; the interiorization 
and purification of thought that should open a path to transcendence passing through 
immanence. Of particular interest, we can point out the confrontation of the Kantian critique of 
the modern demonstrations of the existence of God, which would open a pathway from the 
debated demonstration to the "elevation of the human spirit to God." (p. 30)
 In order to understand the meaning of this approach it is convenient to read the few 
pages in Philosophical Theology and the 'Demonstration' of the Existence of God where 
demonstration and mediation are compared and contrasted. The traditional proofs would be 
demonstrations and therefore would always be situated in the environment of knowledge; 
whereas an authentic way (via), rather than a proof would be a mediation, i.e., a dialectical 
confrontation that would lead to an Aufhebung, i.e., to a definitive improvement, analogous to 
that which would be typical of Hegel's system. 
 Philosophical Theology is precisely the place of this mediation that brings about the 
aforementioned elevation. The conversation begins from the premise that "by definition, God 
is not only an object, even the highest, of philosophy, but rather he is the Totality of being 
and of thought," and it thus follows that, in a certain sense, it is more a question of 
recognizing, through thought, the existence of God than demonstrating it, thus distinguishing 
between "mediation" (in a philosophical sense) and "demonstration" (in a scientific sense) (cf. 
p. 28). This is a subtle consideration, and to a certain degree, an original one, attempting to 
legitimize the primacy of mediation as an instrument of philosophical Theology. 
 Armando Rigobello
Introduction
What is Modern Philosophy?
 The attempt to represent the philosophy of a specific historical period in a unitary fashion 
is an increasingly difficult task to pursue. Furthermore, if the philosophy in question is that of 
the modern period, the doubt spontaneously arises that even attempting such a task would 
be the expression of an incautious trust in the 'magical' virtues of conceptual thought, in 
which one can see once again a certain vice at the origin of modern philosophy, at least in its 
'rationalistic' version.
 Nevertheless, one cannot forget that unitary representations of modern philosophy are 
very wide-spread in our culture, whether philosophical or not. 
 Among the interpretations that describe the arch of knowledge to which our attention is 
drawn here, I wish to ponder in an introductory way two of these that are the most common 
and useful for the discussion that I intend to follow. 
 In terms of the first interpretation, the philosophy inaugurated by Cartesian 'rationalism' is 
constituted by a 'systematization' unknown by previous thought - also in virtue of the role 
played by the mathematical comprehension of being - which achieves its fulfillment in the 
'panlogistic' Hegelian system. Post-Hegelian philosophy, which we could unify under the 
label of an 'anthropological turn,' would have tried to do justice to an immense pretence 
regarding the possibilities of human reason and would have cleared the way for itineraries of 
thought which are closer to a 'human scale,' even allowing for their diversity and opposition.
 The second interpretation, however, sees in modern philosophy an enterprise which must 
recognize nihilism as its fulfillment, of which Nietzsche would offer the best diagnosis, and 
which constitutes, according to different modalities, the common base (albeit not always 
recognized as such) of important sectors of contemporary thought. 
 The 'nihilistic' success of modern philosophy would be attributed to the attempt, proper to 
the same philosophy, of substituting man for God as the foundation of being.1 
 Beyond the common link between these two 'interpretations' - in both, actually, modern 
thought is presented as a radical opposition with regards to 'Christian-mediaeval' thought - 
the following difference can be seen. In terms of the first interpretation, modern philosophy 
would have required too much from reason; as if here the echo of the vindication of a 'strong' 
reason (albeit in its neo-enlightenment version) can be heard in the thesis that reads 
modernity in terms of the 'legitimization' of the modern period.2 In terms of the second 
interpretation, 'modern' reason, apparently strong in its own autonomy, in reality would 
contain within itself the roots of its own weakness and of the eventual nihilistic success, 
having lost its authentic foundation, God. On this view, the thesis that regards modernity as a 
'secularization' of Christianity should in fact be recognized as being the expression of an 
implicit nihilism, and where not recognized as such, it would become inconsequential.3
 It is possible, however, to hypothesize a less 'radical' interpretation of modern thought, 
with regards both to its beginnings and its end, and therefore to tend towards a vision of the 
entire history of philosophy in which the elements of 'novelty' should not prevent the 
understanding of those 'permanent' elements of the different historical periods. The following 
reflections should be regarded in the light of this pre-comprehension. 

Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication:

God.
Philosophy and religion.
Philosophy, Modern.