Aunque Descartes pretende hablar de cuestiones morales en general, y de las pasiones en particular, como si nadie hubiera escrito antes sobre ellas, lo cierto es que, en el caso de la admiración, es clara su referencia al mundo antiguo. En concreto, en este caso el pensador francés se sitúa críticamente en contra de la postura aristotélica, que entiende la admiración como el inicio de la filosofía. Frente a la propuesta clásica, que convierte dicha emoción en el motor permanente de (...) la investigación de las primeras causas, para Descartes la curiosidad excesiva y el estupor del asombro son rechazables. No obstante, algunos han señalado el carácter ambivalente de las declaraciones cartesianas. No en vano la admiración es no sólo la primera de las pasiones, sino también un componente fundamental de todas ellas. Y si bien en el campo del conocimiento debe superarse, en otros ámbitos, como el de la contemplación de la divinidad o en el goce de la libertad de la voluntad humana, tal desdén desaparece. En ese sentido, pretendemos explorar el modo en que Descartes separa admiración y conocimiento para luego reivindicar su importancia en el plano práctico. Palabras clave: Admiración, asombro, curiosidad, libre albedrío, pasión. (shrink)

Es ya un tópico, aquél que establece una relación entre la obra de Montaigne y la de Descartes, bien como adversarios, bien como precedente el uno del otro o como alternativas por relación al concepto de sujeto, que no llegaron a formular plenamente con sus características actuales. Sin embargo, al hilo del estudio del papel del cuerpo en ambos pensadores trataremos de mostrar, primero, su cercanía contextual y, luego, sus filiaciones conceptuales. Ambos autores están mucho más cerca de lo que (...) suele creerse y las deudas intelectuales de Descartes con Montaigne se resumen, además, en una noción de individuo realmente existente y una concepción de la “vida” como alternativa a la filosofía tradicional, que pueden ser de gran interés para el pensamiento actual. There is a cliché that establishes a relationship between the works of Montaigne and the writings of Descartes, either as adversaries, either as a precedent one of the other or as alternatives in relation to a concept that they did not fully draw up with its contemporary characteristics, that is, the subject. However, in connection with the study of the role of the body in both thinkers we will try to show first its contextual closeness and then its conceptual affiliations. Both authors are much closer to what we usually believe and the intellectual debts of Descartes to Montaigne are also summarized in a notion of an existing individual and a conception of “life” as an alternative to traditional philosophy, which can be of great interest for current thinkers. (shrink)

ArgumentEighteenth-century Montpellerian vitalism and contemporaneous French “vitalist” materialism, exemplified by the medical and biological materialism of La Mettrie and Diderot, differ in some essential aspects from some later forms of vitalism that tended to postulate immaterial vital principles or forces. This article examines the arguments defending the existence of vital properties in living organisms presented in the context of eighteenth-century French materialism. These arguments had recourse to technological metaphors and analogies, mainly clockworks, in order to claim that just as machines (...) can have functional properties which its parts do not possess, so living organisms can, as material entities, also have organic or vital properties which its material parts do not possess. Such arguments, with the help of a healthy dose of epistemological scepticism, tend to strike a balance between two positions concerning the ontology of life which we now tend to label “vitalism” and “emergentism.” Although there is nothing inconsistent in viewing vital properties as emergent, some ambiguity results if one does not draw a clear distinction between properties and functions. The philosophical problems related to these ambiguities are revealed in Diderot's apparent hesitation concerning sentience as “a general property of matter or the product of organization.”. (shrink)

The article deals with the problem of phenomenological interpretation of Cartesian idea of evidence. The author demonstrates that implicit but constitutive characteristic of evidence is a property of excessiveness. The analysis of its conceptual versions and methodological representations in Husserl, Marion and Derrida’s philosophies deconstructs some stereotype interpretations of evidence as an attribute of I-centric philosophical systems and also as a carrier of qualities of fullness and presence. The author claims that excessiveness of evidence has two main aspects: (1) non-belonging (...) to the system assured by this very evidence and (2) tendency to self-surpassing (hyperbolization). The excessiveness of evidence is shown in particular with regard to the system of thinking governed by the “truth-falsehood” opposition. The author brings to light a trend to the increasing of degrees of evidence as a consequence of phenomenological critique and deconstruction as methodological hyperbolizations of Cartesian doubt. The common ground between Marionian and Derridian critiques of Husserl’s conception of evidence is found that is inconsistency between the principle of fulfillment of intention and the unrealizable regulative of the “Idea in Kantian sense” as two main ways of representation of evidence idea in Husserlian phenomenology. It is shown that in accordance with the paradigm of possibility as the common denominator of phenomenological attitude in general the very same criticized evidence becomes assimilated in Marion’s conception of “saturated phenomena” (a principle of hyperbolical givenness) and in Derridian deconstruction (hyperbolicity-excessiveness as heterogeneity and impossibility within the framework of his critique of presence). The author uncovers the essential connection between the idea of evidence and basic elements of deconstructive discourse, such as the metaphorical concept of secret and the quasi-concept différance. (shrink)

A recepção de Os meteoros, publicado em 1637 como um dos ensaios do Discurso do método, foi marcada por uma forte reação contra o mecanicismo cartesiano. Alguns de seus contemporâneos, adeptos da filosofia tradicional escolástica, elaboraram uma série de críticas quanto à maneira como Descartes concebia a natureza dos corpos e explicava os fenômenos naturais. Libert Froidmont, um de seus primeiros críticos, elaborou um conjunto de objeções contra A dióptrica e, principalmente, contra Os meteoros. Este artigo visa analisar alguns aspectos (...) sobre o debate entre Descartes e Froidmont concernente às hipóteses mecanicistas sustentadas pelo primeiro. (shrink)

In the _Meditations_ and related texts from the early 1640s, Descartes argues that the self can be correctly considered as either a mind or a human being, and that the self’s properties vary accordingly. For example, the self is simple considered as a mind, whereas the self is composite considered as a human being. Someone might object that it is unclear how merely considering the self in different ways blocks the conclusion that a single subject of predication—the self—is both simple (...) and composite, which is contradictory. In response to this objection, this paper develops a reading of Descartes’s various ways of considering the self. I argue that the best reading of Descartes’s qualified claims about the self, i.e., about the self _qua_ mind or the self qua human being, presupposes an account of the unqualified self, that is, of the self _simpliciter_. I argue that the self _simpliciter_ is not a mind, and that it is not a human being either. This result might suggest the pessimistic conclusion that Descartes’s view of the self is incoherent. To avoid this result, I introduce a new metaphysical account of the Cartesian self. On my view, the self is individuated by a unified mental life. The self is constituted by the beings that jointly produce this mental life, and derives its unity from it. (shrink)

Mary Astell (1666-1731) relies on a Cartesian account of the self to argue that both men and women are essentially thinking things and, hence, that both should perfect their minds or intellects. This account of the self might seem to ignore the inescapable fact that we have bodies. I argue that Astell accommodates the self’s embodiment along three dimensions. First, she tempers her sharp distinction between mind and body by insisting on their union. Second, she argues that the mind-body union (...) is good, at least when the body obeys the mind. Third, though Astell identifies the self with the mind, she identifies the person with the combination of mind and body. (shrink)

This chapter considers the encounter of skepticism with the Kantian and post-Kantian philosophical enterprise and focuses on the intriguing feature whereby it is assimilated into this enterprise. In this period, skepticism becomes interchangeable with its other, which helps understand the proliferation of many kinds of views under its name and which forms the background for transforming skepticism into an anonymous, routine practice of raising objections and counter-objections to one’s own view. German philosophers of this era counterpose skepticism to dogmatism and (...) criticism, ancient to modern skepticism, and, importantly, conceptualize the transitions from one form to another, which forms the conceptual matrix in which new disciplinary forms, such as psychology, anthropology, and historicism contend for cultural-intellectual standing beside philosophy. I present this assimilationist trajectory by reviewing three well-known moments of this encounter of skepticism and idealism: (1) Kant’s idealization of skepticism as a floating position amidst various philosophical positions through the dialectic, polemics, systematics, and history of pure reason; (2) Fichte’s schematic conception of skepticism as a dispute of systems in the early Wissenschaftslehre following his review of the skeptic G. E. Schulze’s attacks on Critical philosophy; (3) Hegel’s historicizing conception of skepticism in the context of differences between subjective idealism and speculative thought and his early Jena review of another work by the same skeptic Schulze. (shrink)

The emergence of complexity as an epistemological property of certain phenomena changed our idea of phenomenality. But, except from very technical approaches to epistemology, it has not been adopted by philosophical research. In any case, the large revolution the idea and the method of investigation of complex systems have lead to in science does not have an influence on the contemporary debate about realism in philosophy. In my paper I give a quick definition of the mutual relations between the philosophical (...) problem of reality on the one side and the scientific issues of complexity theory on the other side. Further, I develop a realistic approach to complexity by the idea of meta-ontological modeling grounded upon a realistic background. That is to say that an approach to complexity of phenomena as such does never deny its basic strong certitude of reality. In this way a philosophical approach to complexity can provide a synthesis between constructivism and realism. (shrink)

Po II wojnie światowej Paul Ricoeur podjął sie nauczania filozofii w Collège Cévenol w wiosce Chambon-sur-Lignon, gdzie napisał swój doktorat poświęcony fenomenologicznej analizie woli. Przejęte od Milana Kundery paradoksalne pojęcie „mądrości niepewności”, zastosowane do dzieła Ricoeura jako całości naświetla specyfikę jego wkładu w rozwój hermeneutyki filozoficznej XX wieku.

Purpose. Modern philosophy is presented as practical and is based on the necessity to give a new meaning and interpretation to moral and ethical problems. Purpose of the paper is to comprehend specifics of modern perception of Cartesian interpretation of nature and man that implies consistent stages of technomorphic perception, critical analysis of its authenticity in research literature and understanding of rehabilitation tendency of Descartes' ethics as practical philosophy. Originality. The research is focused on the problem of technomorphism authenticity in (...) the process of understanding and interpreting Descartes' practical philosophy. The authors are trying to defend rationale for phenomena interpretation concerning Descartes' technocratic orientation in terms of his ethical search. Critical interpretations of limited technomorphic perception of nature and man should be understood as some transition period towards ethics rehabilitation as practical philosophy. The study of Descartes on nature in its broad sense as metaphysical basis of his ethics has been revealed and analyzed. Conclusions. Technocratic interpretation of Descartes study is a superficial and distorted form of his practical philosophy interpretation. Until recently technomorphic perception of Descartes' study dominated in scientific literature, which has significantly determined limited perception of nature and man combined with superficial ethics perception. Critical rethinking of the developed Descartes' interpretations in recent scientific papers solves at the same time the tasks of theoretical denial of simplistic world perception and gives grounds for ethics rehabilitation as authentic form of its practical philosophy expression. One form of rehabilitation expression is increased attention to the concept of nature in its broad sense, which is a basis for its humanistic and ethical vision of philosophical tasks. (shrink)