What Chaim Navon probably means is that part of the Critique of Pure Reason called the “antinomies” (self-contradictions or paradoxes). Kant tries to show there what happens when pure reason is allowed to break free from the rod of criticism and the “knowledge” it produces is given theoretical standing. In his view, when that mistake is made, reason gets entangled in contradictions of its own and leads us into that same confusion in which two contradictory claims appear true at the same time.
As for whether Kant has a claim that proves there is no higher power, the answer is a bit more complicated, as I understand it. Kant argues that it is indeed impossible to prove the existence (or non-existence) of such a power from a theoretical point of view, but at the same time we have a moral duty to postulate its existence. This duty stems from what he calls the “practical use” of pure reason.

With Heaven’s help, 26 Adar II, 5782

In the first printings of the book Chayei Adam (Vilna 1810 and 1819, printed during the author’s lifetime, and also the Krotoschin edition of 1845), it says in Rule 1, section 5:

‘…And the meaning of this belief with regard to these three commandments is that a person should firmly establish in his soul that this is indeed the truth, and that no alternative is possible in any way. And even if he should see a conclusive proof to the contrary, Heaven forbid, he should believe that the proofs are absolute falsehood, as it is written in the portion of Re’eh: “If a prophet arises… and the sign or wonder comes to pass… you shall not heed the words of that prophet… for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord.”

And so wrote a great and famous philosopher from among them in the year 1785, that all rational proofs given by human beings are falsehood, and one should not rely on them. And he showed two proofs for the creation of the world and two proofs for its opposite, and all the philosophers were unable to refute the proofs. From this he proved that all proofs are absolute falsehood, and only what we have received from our forefathers is true, for Adam saw the world’s creation and transmitted it to Methuselah, and he to Noah, and Noah to Shem and Abraham, until Moses our teacher, peace be upon him…’

The passage about the philosopher from among them was omitted from the printings of Chayei Adam beginning with the Vilna 1857 edition, where it was printed: ‘…to know whether you love the Lord your God,’ and [then continues] ‘and only what we have received from our forefathers is true…’ And that is how the text appears in editions of Chayei Adam to this day.

I do not know whether Rabbi Avraham Danzig, author of Chayei Adam, read the words of the philosopher from the year 1785 in the original, or heard of them during his annual trips to the Leipzig fair—in any case, he did not refrain from mentioning them in his halakhic book, because he found them useful, as Maimonides wrote in Eight Chapters, that one should not refrain from mentioning things said by philosophers from the nations of the world, for “accept the truth from whoever says it.”

With blessings, Yiftach Lehadeh Haberman-Bakshi

Paragraph 4, line 3
… And that is how it appears in editions of Chayei Adam to this day.

Very interesting. He quotes that Kant’s conclusion is that philosophical proofs are nonsense and the main thing is the tradition from our forefathers? I don’t know which Kant he means, but certainly not Immanuel. He probably learned Kant through Korman.

To Rabbi Michael Abraham — hello,

Chayei Adam predates Avraham Korman by about 150 years 🙂 I had already guessed that he knew the philosopher’s words from the year 1785 second-hand. Presumably he heard about them on one of his trips to the Leipzig fair.

With blessings, YLHB

Another sage from Eastern Europe who had ties with Western Europe by virtue of his profession as a pharmacist was Rabbi Simcha Bunim of Peshischa. At one time I suggested the idea that Kant’s emphasis on purity of intention has a parallel in this emphasis in the teaching of the Rebbe of Peshischa, and perhaps he was influenced by winds that were blowing in the West in his day.

There could also have been movement in the opposite direction, from Jews in Eastern Europe who went to study with philosophers in Germany, such as Solomon Maimon, for example.

In a much later period, there may perhaps be a parallel between the ethical doctrine of “the greatness of man” developed by the Alter of Slabodka and similar ideas in Nietzsche.

He is citing Kant’s argument in the Critique of Pure Reason, according to which reason tries to go beyond the limits of the intellect, and Kant’s claim that reason’s attempt to go beyond the limits of the intellect is destined to fail. Kant proves this claim by presenting proofs and counter-proofs for the existence of God, and argues that the very ability to present a proof and a proof against regarding the same matter itself proves that reason is overstepping the limits of the intellect here. That is why Kant called his book a critique—because he is criticizing reason’s pretension to go beyond the limits of the intellect. In Kant’s view, all the intellect can do is identify or define laws for natural reality. Any pretension to go beyond that is doomed to fail.

From this Chayei Adam draws the conclusion that our ability to come into contact with God cannot come from the intellect, since God is defined from the outset as transcending natural reality, but only from His historical revelation at Mount Sinai—that is, tradition.

I still don’t understand what the proof and the counter-proof for the existence of God are. What is the counter-proof?

To Rabbi Michael Abraham and Y.D. — hello,

The proofs and counter-proofs mentioned by the Chayei Adam, which were produced by the “famous philosopher” in the year 1785, concern “the creation of the world,” not the existence of the Creator. Maybe that will help you.

It’s also worth googling on the internet for “Kant Chayei Adam” or something similar. Because if Rabbi Chaim Navon mentions the matter, he probably saw it in some article (I happened to learn of it by chance, in my late father’s library. There is a Krotoschin edition of Chayei Adam there [which he inherited from his brother-in-law, Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Tuvia of Mirvis from Amsterdam] in which these words appear, and once when I looked in another copy of Chayei Adam I was surprised to see that the words weren’t there).

With blessings, Yiftach Lehadeh Argamon-Bakshi

And indeed, “Rabbi Google, may he live long,” did not disappoint. In RAMBI [= “Index of Articles in Jewish Studies,” on the National Library website], there is a reference to the article by the scholar of Yiddish language and Jewish folklore, Professor Mordechai Kosover (1908–1969), “Did the author of Chayei Adam mention Kant?”, Hadar 48 (1969), p. 29. An article about the passing of Professor Mordechai Kosover appeared in the newspaper Davar on December 4, 1969, in the Historical Jewish Press archive.

With blessings, Yif”leh Av”k

9