En este artículo se desarrolla la hipótesis de que el conocimiento de la sustancia pensante en las Meditaciones sobre la filosofía primera y en Objeciones y Respuestas no es claramente explicitado por René Descartes. Se entiende que tal exposición es necesaria para una comprensión integral delestatus de la filosofía cartesiana en el momento de redactar las Meditaciones y, principalmente, paraasimilar cómo concebía Descartes el conocimiento de la sustancia pensante en los años 1641 y 1642.El conocimiento de la sustancia pensante es, (...) como se sabe, un elemento fundamental para toda la filosofía cartesiana. Para ello, se recurre, primeramente, a los dos modos en que Descartes presentael conocimiento de la sustancia pensante en las Meditaciones, destacando los problemas que cadauno de estos conlleva. Posteriormente, a partir de las Objeciones y Respuestas, principalmentela quinta y la séptima, se presenta las críticas de Pierre Gassendi y Pierre Bourdin sobre elconocimiento de la sustancia pensante. Tanto Gassendi como Bourdin subrayan que el texto deMeditaciones no es suficiente para esclarecer de qué manera la sustancia pensante es conocida. En este sentido, Gassendi y Bourdin cuestionan la posibilidad de este conocimiento, destacando la ambiguedad y oscuridad de las respuestas cartesianas. Se concluye que en las Meditaciones,Descartes enfrenta una brecha insalvable entre la ontología de la sustancia y su conocimiento, loque lo llevará a desarrollar y explicar mejor su teoría en escritos posteriores. (shrink)

….it [is] wholly irrational to regard as doubtful matters that are perceived clearly and distinctly by the understanding in its purity, on account of mere prejudices of the senses and hypotheses in which there is an element of the unknown.Descartes, Geometrical Exposition of the MeditationsSubstance dualism, once a main preoccupation of Western metaphysics, has fallen strangely out of view; today’s mental/physical dualisms are dualisms of fact, property, or event. So if someone claims to find a difference between minds and bodies (...) per se, it is not initially clear what he is maintaining. Maybe this is because one no longer recognizes ‘minds’ as entities in their own right, or ‘substances.’ However, selves - the things we refer to by use of ‘I’ - are surely substances, and it does little violence to the intention behind mind/body dualism to interpret it as a dualism of bodies and selves. If the substance dualist’s meaning remains obscure, that is because it can mean several different things to say that selves are not bodies. (shrink)

Drawing on Descartes' account of générosité, a reinterpretation of the Cogito is offered, emphasizing the role of the will. The paper's first part focuses on Cartesian ethics. It is argued that Descartes can be viewed as a Stoical thinker rather than a Baconian one. That is, he holds that theoretical contemplation is itself the primary ground of human happiness and tranquility of mind – experienced as the feeling of générosité. The paper's second part draws on the first in accounting for (...) the relation between radical doubt and certainty. By engaging with doubt, it is argued, the meditator comes to experience générosité, assert freedom. This experience is not, then, as argued by some, merely the Cogito's ethical counterpart. It is rather the Cogito's foundation. The meditator's assertion sum follows from – insofar as freedom is, as the definition of générosité asserts, ‘the only thing truly belonging to us', it consists in – the assertion of freedom. (shrink)

Two major interpretations have been advanced for the sum res cogitans passage in Descartes’s Second Meditation. According to the first interpretation, he argues in this passage that only thinking belongs to his essence. According to the second interpretation, due to Anthony Kenny, Harry Frankfurt and others, no such claim is defended by Descartes. Rather, it is his aim to argue that only thinking can be ascribed to him with certainty. In this essay, it will be shown that the “naive”, essentialist (...) reading of the sum res cogitans reasoning is closer to the text than the perhaps more sophisticated, purely epistemic reading. Although the interpretation defended here is not new, it will be arrived at by way of new arguments. (shrink)