The apparently circular arguments in Descartes’s Meditations should be read as analytic arguments, as Descartes himself suggested. This both explains and excuses the appearance of circularity. Analysis “digs out” what is already present in the meditator’s mind but not yet “expressly known”. Once this is achieved, the meditator may take the result of analysis as an epistemic starting point independent of the original argument. That is, analytic arguments may be reversed to yield demonstrative proofs that follow an already worked-out order (...) of ideas. The “Cartesian Circle,” for example, is circular only when Descartes’s original analytic argument is mistaken for the demonstration that it enables. This approach to Cartesian Circles is unlike the standard approach, which attempts to show that Descartes’s original arguments do work as demonstrations after all. (shrink)

Since Descartes, the nature of doubt has played a central role in the development of metaphysics both positively and negatively. Despite this fact, there has been very little discussion centering round the specific nature of doubt which led, for example, to the Cartesian discovery of the cogito. Certainly, the role of doubt has been well recognized: through doubt Descartes arrives at his indubitable first principle. But what can it mean to doubt the existence of the sensible world? This would (...) seem to rest upon the assumption that we have clear and distinct knowledge of the precise nature of what it means to exist and indeed of what it means to be. As it stands, Descartes’ initiates his Meditations upon certain definite assumptions that demand more thorough interrogation. In this paper and presentation, I examine the possible assumptions inherent in the Cartesian method of doubt within the first and second meditation and the manner in which this leads to the discovery of the cogito. I consider a number of essential questions in light of this: What presuppositions lie at bottom to Cartesian doubt? What is the precise nature of metaphysical doubt? What can it mean to doubt the existence of the sensible world? (shrink)

In De gravitatione, Newton contends that Descartes' physics is fundamentally untenable since the "fixed" spatial landmarks required to ground the concept of inertial motion cannot be secured in the constantly changing Cartesian plenum. Likewise, it is has often been alleged that the collision rules in Descartes' Principles of Philosophy undermine the "relational" view of space and motion advanced in this text. This paper attempts to meet these challenges by investigating the theory of connected gears (or "kinematics of mechanisms") for (...) a potential Cartesian method of positing the permanent reference frames necessary to uphold Descartes' conservation law for the quantity of motion. In particular, the insights gained from an examination of the kinematics of mechanisms will provide the Cartesian with much needed resources to counter the two threats posed above. (shrink)

Chapter 2 primarily discusses Bernstein’s account and its differences both from Nagle’s metaphysical realism and Rorty’s postmodern pragmatism. Trying to diagnose assumptions that polarize thinkers to become objectivists and relativists, Bernstein articulates a Cartesian Anxiety he thinks they ironically both share. Descartes’ anti-skeptical wave of rigor was presented as a rationalistic project of rebuilding an unstable and dilapidated ‘house of knowledge’ on secure philosophical and scientific foundations. His overtly foundationalist metaphor of rebuilding from timbers set “in rock or hard (...) clay” shapes Descartes’ attempt to refute the skeptic and to secure the objectivity of knowledge as pursued by a more rigorous and analytical method of knowing. (shrink)

This article reexamines Vico’s early critique of Cartesian reasoning and of how the Cartesian method, which comes from epistemology, creates problems for the sciences once embedded into their methodologies and given a foundational role. The focus will be on De nostri temporis studiorum ratione (1709), where Vico argues against generalizing the Cartesian method and overemphasizing clarity and distinctness in the search for truth. To this end, Vico’s relation to Cartesianism is first carefully contextualized. Then, Vico (...) is presented as a hylomorphist when it comes to how scientific disciplines and their instruments interrelate, something key for understanding why he questions the “instrumentalization” of the Cartesian method in the first place. Afterwards, Vico’s account of the impossibility of maximal scientific progress when the Cartesian method is prioritized across the sciences is presented, as probabilistic reasoning and the importance of the imagination and memory take centerstage. Lastly, the article looks at Vico’s opposition to the geometrical method’s role in physics and his defense of visual thinking in mathematics. The hope throughout is to advance a picture of the early Vico as being not only a neo- Baconian pragmatist, but a hypermodern ”meta-Cartesian” thinker concerned with humanity’s optimizing its creative potential in order to achieve scientific advances. (shrink)

The essay investigates two personae: Socrates as depicted by Plato and Descartes as narrator of the Discourse on Method and Meditations. Socrates is aware of his ignorance and insists on remembering to care for the self; Descartes claims to have overcome ignorance through a method that breaks problems into simple and certain elements, establishing a self-certain yet impersonal subject that comprehends and controls objects. The Cartesian approach has led to the modern process of “liquidation” that reduces beings, (...) property, and truth to resources, wealth, and information – initiating the dangerous and unprecedented epoch known as the Anthropocene. The Socratic approach offers some promise of reintegration and resistance to liquidation by urging us to care for wholeness and recognizing that being exceeds what we comprehend. (shrink)

What did Descartes regard as subject to doubt, and what was beyond doubt, in the Meditations? A review of the Objections and Descartes' reactions in the Replies provides some useful clarification, but viewing Descartes' method of doubt in conjunction with his professed theory of knowledge in the Rules for the Direction of the Mind further elucidates his own understanding of the project. In the Rules, Descartes introduces the mind's intuition of "simple natures" as the atomistic basis of all knowledge, (...) its form as well as its content. The simple natures, Descartes claims, can only be understood thoroughly, and I argue that Descartes' doubt in the  Meditations appears not to include doubt of simple natures. A related attempt to link the earlier work to the Meditations by Peter Schouls is considered and criticized; I suggest as an alternative that there are three classes of objects pertaining to the construction of knowledge in the Meditations: a) first principles and concepts that are constituents of other knowledge, intuited and not doubted, nor called 'knowledge' by Descartes; b) what Descartes calls clearly and distinctly perceived knowledge that survives doubt, known through a kind of intuition; and c) science, as remembered collections of clearly and distinctly perceived knowledge. Finally, because the two works do have important dissimilarities, I also consider how differences between the Rules and the Meditations might affect the applicability of the simple natures to the arguments of the Meditations, especially in the light of clues found in the intellectual autobiography of the Discourse on Method. (shrink)

Descartes wants to show that clear and distinct ideas are trustworthy. However, his argument seems circular. For his premise that God is trustworthy depends on clear and distinct insight. Descartes’ reaction to the circularity reproach can be interpreted in two ways. The first is a psychological one. Clear and distinct insights are coercing. Thus they cannot be doubted as long as one attends to them. The argument is only meant to extend this instantaneous coercion to the whole range of psychological (...) states. This reaction does not fit Descartes’ aim of more reliable beliefs. The second interpretation integrates this aim of reliability into the demands of clarity and distinctness. Clear and distinct insights are to bridge the gap between internal accessibility and external reliability. Yet in this interpretation the invocation of God’s trustworthiness seems superfluous. Departing from contemporary epistemological ideas two possibilities to nevertheless make sense of this invocation are discussed. The first is that the argument of God’s trustworthiness provides a gain in reflective coherence. However, this reasoning conflicts with the situation of methodic doubt which involves suspending one’s whole system of belief. The second, more promising possibility is that it is an epistemic aim to provide an account of origin and purpose of our cognitive faculties. (shrink)

Methodical Doubt is more kierkegaardian than cartesian.

This paper examines an insoluble Cartesian problem for classical AI, namely, how linguistic understanding involves knowledge and awareness of u’s meaning, a cognitive process that is irreducible to algorithms. As analyzed, Descartes’ view about reason and intelligence has paradoxically encouraged certain classical AI researchers to suppose that linguistic understanding suffices for machine intelligence. Several advocates of the Turing Test, for example, assume that linguistic understanding only comprises computational processes which can be recursively decomposed into algorithmic mechanisms. Against this background, (...) in the first section, I explain Descartes’ view about language and mind. To show that Turing bites the bullet with his imitation game, in the second section I analyze this method to assess intelligence. Then, in the third section, I elaborate on Schank and Abelsons’ Script Applier Mechanism (SAM, hereby), which supposedly casts doubt on Descartes’ denial that machines can think. Finally, in the fourth section, I explore a challenge that any algorithmic decomposition of linguistic understanding faces. This challenge, I argue, is the core of the Cartesian problem: knowledge and awareness of meaning require a first-person viewpoint which is irreducible to the decomposition of algorithmic mechanisms. (shrink)

Recent research has defended the surprising thesis that in many cases the search for truth is better off if the information exchanged between the members of an epistemic community is limited. This is what one may call the limited information thesis. There is, however, the possibility of an even more radical position than this: the thesis that any communication between peers has zero epistemic value and that the search for truth is better off if the truth-inquirer does not take into (...) consideration the truth-claims of her peers. This can be called the solitude thesis. The paper defends the claim that Descartes is a supporter of the solitude thesis with respect to metaphysical inquiry. The defense is facilitated by means of interpreting textual evidence found in Descartes’ essays Discourse on the Method, The Search for Truth and the Meditations on First Philosophy. (shrink)

The mind-body problem is a perennial philosophical problem that seeks to uncover the relationship or causal interaction that exists between the corporeal and incorporeal aspects of the human person. It thrives under the assumption that the human person is made up of two distinct entities, that is, mind and body, which explains their assumed causal relation. As attractive as this may seem, not all philosophers agree to this feigned idea of interaction and bifurcation of the human person. One philosopher of (...) note, who sorts to address this problem in the 17th century, is René Descartes. For Descartes, minds and bodies are distinct kinds of substance, where bodies are spatially extended substances (a res extensa) and minds are unexpended substances characterised primarily by thought (a res cogitans). But, if minds and bodies are radically dissimilar, how could they causally interact? This paper therefore attempts to examine the philosophical foundations of Cartesian dualism. It also articulates the major arguments adopted by Descartes through his methodic doubts to address the mind-body problem. The paper concludes by highlighting some fundamental criticisms of Cartesian Interactionism in the light of recent trends in parapsychology and neuro-scientific research. (shrink)

I argue that Descartes intended the so-called ontological "argument" as a self-validating intuition, rather than as a formal proof. The textual evidence for this view is highly compelling, but the strongest support comes from understanding Descartes's diagnosis for why God's existence is not 'immediately' self-evident to everyone and the method of analysis that he develops for making it self-evident. The larger aim of the paper is to use the ontological argument as a case study of Descartes's nonformalist theory of (...) deduction and his method of analysis, showing how he conceives the latter as a form of philosophical therapy. (shrink)

Editor's Intro to the journal issue. Wittgenstein's methods are more important than his solutions or views on particular problems. He also attacks processes which give rise to philosophical problems, such as Cartesian dualism and Platonism and other more narrow pictures or assumptions. His recommendations that progress be based on what we get from juxtaposing examples with philosophical temptations are still being absorbed by the discipline. This is more the case now, fifteen years aftr I wrote this introduction.

Abstract: The development of technology pushes human to increase productivity by changing manual system to automatic system. Modernization affect almost all aspect especially in art. Batik is a ancestor legacy of indonesian people that recogized by UNESCO as culture legacy of Indonesia yet batik industries are not develop as much. Modernization in batik art is expected to optimize its productivity. This research design algorithm and the program in MATLAB that used for controlling movement protype of batik maker 2 dof (...) class='Hi'>cartesian robot. The input data is a picture that will be processed to obtain the order of coordinate edge. Then it procesed and sent to plantby using MATLAB based on Graphical User Interface (GUI). The 2 dof Cartesian robot and a pen (end effector) is used to draw a pattern. A servo motor is installed to activate end effector and two stepper motor coupled with thread mechanic that used to move it towards the X and Y axis. Testing is done by sending coordinat orders to the plant or by observing drawing process order. Obtained error from program and algorithm testing is 2,32% . (shrink)

The paper advances the hypothesis that René Descartes presents a skeptical system of philosophy in Thomas Reid’s reading. There is a sort of ‘involun-tary’ or ‘accidental’ skepticism that results from the adoption by Descartes of both a skeptical method and a skeptical principle. The first section shows to what extent the Cartesian method of doubt – which focuses on the reliability of the faculties of the mind - is a skeptical demand that cannot be satisfied. The second (...) section shows how the principle of the Cartesian system – which establishes that ideas are the immediate objects of the operations of the mind – is not only skeptic but leads exactly and naturally to the most radical form of skepticism, namely, solipsism. The third section discusses the Cartesian sources of the doubt on the existence of external world according to Reid. (shrink)

RENÉ DESCARTES E O MÉTODO CARTESIANO -/- RENÉ DESCARTES AND THE CARTESIAN METHOD -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva - CAP-UFPE, IFPE-BJ e UFRPE. E-mails: [email protected] e [email protected]. WhatsApp: (82)98143-8399. -/- INTRODUÇÃO -/- Antes de abordar a metafísica tal qual Descartes a propõe como uma sólida “fundamentação” das ciências e, também, antes de falar das ciências construídas para a busca desse fundamento, é necessário analisar o método cartesiano, salve que é a alma desse presente artigo. Não se trata (...) apenas de relatar os preceitos do método ao seu modelo matemático, e sim, também, para entender porque o método em si necessita de uma fundamentação alicerçada na metafísica. Mas isso é a maneira pelo qual o projeto revolucionário de Descartes substituiu a autoridade da tradição pela autoridade da razão. -/- I – UM PROJETO REVOLUCIONÁRIO -/- No se pode deixar atingir-se, lendo o Discurso do Método, pelo caráter revolucionário que Descartes queria conferir ao seu projeto. É notável, e vale salientar o cuidado que Descartes toma na primeira parte, sublinhando o que seu projeto tem de singular: “Assim, meu propósito não é ensinar aqui o método que cada um deve seguir para bem conduzir sua razão, mas somente mostrar de que modo procurei conduzir a minha” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 5). Ainda mais notável é o fato escolhido por Descartes e destacado na segunda parte, a da casa que deve ser derrubada para reconstruí-la: -/- É verdade que não vemos demolirem-se todas as casas de uma cidade só com o propósito de refazê-las de outra forma e de tornar as ruas mais belas, mas não é incomum vermos muitos mandarem derrubar as suas para reconstruí-las, e até, por vezes, a isso são obrigados quando elas correm o risco de cair por si mesmas e os alicerces não estão muito firmes (DESCARTES, 1996. pp. 17-18). -/- Descartes enfatiza explicitamente a oposição entre tal abordagem e a estratégia reformista de “redigitar” a sua casa, organizando-a, reparando-a aqui e ali. Certamente ele está combatendo a ideia revolucionária na política, o design ambicioso daqueles que querem perturbar o Estado, porque nesta área a destruição tornaria a reconstrução futura impossível. Mas o que é insano sobre “uma cidade inteira” torna-se possível quando se trata de cada um de sua própria casa. -/- O que é possível torna-se necessário, quando a casa ameaça entrar em colapso, uma vez que seus alicerces são vulneráveis. Casa vacilante, que seria inútil só querer reparar, é assim que Descartes considera o todo “opiniões” que lhe foram transmitidas em sua educação. Essas opiniões são, acima de tudo, incertas: pode haver alguma verdade nelas, mas provavelmente também há o lado falso, e essa mistura indissociável faz com que todas sejam falsas, a verdade só tem valor para nós se pudermos distinguir com certeza do erro. -/- O julgamento negativo de Descartes de tudo o que ele tem, como escreve, “recebido em dívida”, pressupõe, é claro, uma crítica do conteúdo dessas opiniões e, acima de tudo, uma crítica aos princípios sobre os quais eles descansam. Mas isso não é o suficiente para fazer as pessoas entenderem a escolha inicial de uma abordagem revolucionária, de preferência ao empreendimento reformista, que seria criticar, uma após a outra, as opiniões recebidas, e consolidar, pouco a pouco, a sua “Casa”. Mais do que o conteúdo peculiar das opiniões recebidas, é o próprio fato que elas são recebidas, em uma aquisição desordenada e perigosa, o que importa. E se temos que revolucionar o conhecimento, se temos que destruir essas opiniões antes de substituí-las por outras é, antes de mais nada, uma questão de substituir conquista controlada da desordem e chance de sua aquisição, em vez de se limitar a correções que só aumentariam essa confusão. -/- Nisso, a decisão primeira de Descartes ultrapassa as circunstâncias históricas do seu aparecimento, e conserva em todos os tempos o valor de um modelo para o pensamento: a filosofia nasce de uma ruptura, não com esta ou aquela tradição, mas com a tradição como tal. -/- II – DESCARTES E A TRADIÇÃO -/- A tradição é um pensamento sem sujeito: pensamento que ninguém pensa, não pensa. Descartes se opõe ao requisito essencial, para toda ciência, de ser a matéria de um sujeito: não há ciência até que toda verdade seja reconhecida em seu poder de sugerir notícias, de acordo com uma sequência que deve ser reconhecida, para que eu (Descartes) possa reivindicar, de forma legítima, a ciência universal. Quando Descartes expressa essa afirmação, em seu próprio texto, em seus textos de juventude, o que nos parece ser a marca de uma excessiva arrogância, expressa, antes, uma condição inscrita na própria natureza do conhecimento. -/- O projeto revolucionário está assim ligado à uma ideia que Descartes enuncia no início da segunda parte do Discurso do Método: “[...] não há tanta perfeição nas obras compostas de várias peças, e feitas pelas mãos de vários mestres, como naquelas em que apenas um trabalhou” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 15). Certamente, por “perfeição, Descartes entende menos a magnitude e a riqueza essa ordem e consistência. Ele reconhece que algumas áreas são, irremediavelmente, entregues à imperfeição. Este é o caso do Estado e das instituições políticas em geral: resultados não intencionais de uma multidão de ações históricas entrelaçadas, nossas instituições nunca correspondem a um projeto consciente, e não seria razoável empreender sua reforma de acordo com tal projeto. Descartes não ignora as virtudes da cooperação para a execução de atividades materiais complexas. Porque as aptidões corporais dos homens são distintas e capazes de se especializar, os indivíduos podem interferir uns com os outros e se harmonizar visando a colaboração do todo. -/- Não obstante, as obras de pensamento, as ciências em particular, não conseguem encontrar a perfeição de que são susceptíveis por serem construídas por sucessivas sedimentações históricas, de acordo com a descoberta uma das outras, fazendo com que todas essas descobertas, a ciência, não seria obra de ninguém. Se o exercício de uma atividade manual nos impede de praticar outra (porque as mesmas mãos dificilmente podem se exercitar ao mesmo tempo para cultivar os campos e tocar a cítara), o conhecimento de uma verdade nos ajuda a encontrar outras verdades. Finja que esse conhecimento é apenas uma contribuição fragmentada para uma síntese coletiva da qual o princípio nos escapa, é desconsiderar sua fecundidade, isto é, o que faz dele um verdadeiro conhecimento. -/- O que Descartes está lutando, essa necessidade de que todos participem de uma instituição já iniciada e que ninguém pode dominar, essa herança de aceitar, enriquecer e transmitir é o que chamamos de tradição: então ele escreve o Discurso do Método não em latim, linguagem de transmissão histórica do conhecimento, mas em francês, linguagem “vulgar”. Certamente, Descartes luta contra a tradição científica e filosófica em vigor em seu tempo, a herança já enfraquecida do pensamento de Aristóteles, transmitida durante a Idade Média pelas Universidades (o que denominamos de “escolasticismo”), mas ele luta acima de tudo em sua pretensão de manter seu valor de ser, precisamente, uma tradição. Esta não é uma luta em nome da “novidade” ou da “modernidade”, que são sempre definidas em relação a uma tradição, mas uma luta em nome da verdade, o que é mais antiga do que qualquer tradição. -/- III – A LIGAÇÃO ENTRE AUTORIDADE E A VERDADE -/- Descartes assim fórmula seu projeto, na segunda parte do Discurso do Método: [...] mas, quanto às opiniões que até então eu aceitara, o melhor que podia fazer era suprimi-las de uma vez por todas, a fim de substituí-las depois, ou por outras melhores, ou então pelas mesmas, quando eu as tivesse ajustado ao nível da razão (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 18). -/- Que uma opinião poderia ter sido recebido por ele em sua vida, sem ter sido ajustada ao nível da razão, significa que foi considerada a sua verdade, sem que ele tenha que se pronunciar sobre o julgamento do que declarava verdadeiro. Então foi um preconceito, que ele achava que era verdade apenas para tê-lo recebido, isto é, por causa de sua fonte. Que a afirmação de uma opinião como verdadeira é validada por sua fonte, e isso corresponde ao que denominamos como “argumento de autoridade”: é verdade porque Platão, ou Aristóteles, disseram isso. Agora é possível, é claro, descobrir verdades lendo Platão ou Aristóteles, desde que essas descobertas sejam não apenas para conferir Platão, Aristóteles, ou qualquer outro autor (“autoritário”), mas para encontrar a si mesmo com as verdades em questão. Parece, portanto, que a revolução cartesiana visa romper o elo entre as concepções de verdade e autoridade. -/- -/- Todavia, olhando mais de perto, veremos que esse não é o caso. Quebrar o elo entre autoridade e verdade é ser crítico, enquanto Descartes encara sim o “espírito da dúvida”. Ser crítico é estar interessado apenas no conteúdo das ideias e ser perfeitamente indiferente à sua fonte. Descartes, como supracitado, não se compromete a criticar suas antigas opiniões uma após a outra, o que seria o passo mais oposto ao princípio de autoridade, quanto mais indiferente à questão da fonte. O que Descartes propõe é bem diferente: ele propõe substituir, com todas as autoridades que estão fora dele (em seu exterior), pela autoridade que está nele (em seu interior), e que muitas vezes é até confundida, veremos isso. Agora é sobre “ajustar as opiniões ao nível da razão”: a razão, isto é, a razão de Descartes, tal qual o fala e presente em cada um, deve ser autoritária em matéria de verdade, deve ser o tribunal diante do qual tudo aparece. É uma interiorização do argumento de autoridade, não é uma rejeição deste argumento. -/- A interiorização da autoridade explica o lugar central da certeza na filosofia de Descartes. O que importa na verdade é a certeza de possuí-la, e essa certeza é uma ato de confiança em relação às fonte autorizada da verdade: tudo que é “ajustado ao nível da razão” será certo, se a razão for o que é autoritário. -/- Duas questões orientadoras sucessivas inspirarão a investigação da certeza: -/- 1 – A primeira consistirá em estabelecer o que ele realmente tem certeza, delimitando o domínio da certeza autêntica daquilo que é garantido pela autoridade da razão. 2 – A segunda consistirá em se perguntar se ele está certo em ter certeza sobre algo, porque a autoridade internalizada deve se questionar. -/- A primeira questão, considerada isoladamente, leva à ideia cartesiana de método. O conjunto das duas questões, a passagem da primeira para a segunda, depois da segunda para a primeira, constitui a metafísica de Descartes. -/- IV – O QUE É A RAZÃO ? -/- O que significa ter razão em um tribunal? As primeiras linhas do Discurso do Método definem a razão como sendo um senso comum, isto é, a faculdade de distinguir a verdade da mentira, o que nos diferencia dos animais. Em outras palavras, a razão é o poder, não para racionar, mas degenerar, pensando na medida em que se pronuncia sobre qualquer objeto que se apresente. Separado em um sentido de outras faculdades do pensamento, este poder está envolvido em qualquer operação de pensamento: a memória supõe um julgamento sobre o passado, o desejo um julgamento sobre o que procurar, o amor um julgamento sobre o que é digno de ser amado... Nesse sentido, a razão se confunde com o próprio pensamento. É até confuso, para todos, consigo mesmo, pois ninguém pode julgar sua razão sem voltar a agir: mesmo aqueles que estão acostumados a reclamar do que foi dado a eles nunca reivindicam, nota Descartes, uma razão de melhor qualidade: pois isso equivaleria a desqualificar essa afirmação conforme a expressam. -/- Coextensiva com o pensamento, a razão está em nós como uma luz natural. Como a luz do Sol que ilumina a variedade das coisas no mundo sem perder sua identidade, permanecendo a mesma luz, o pensamento julgador mantém sua unidade sem nunca se quebrar ou se perder, seja qual for os objetos aos quais se aplica: seja o que for que eu julgue, é sempre eu quem julgo. A ciência deve ser difundida mediante essa ideia, isto é, como um certo modo de julgar, ou pensar, e não dá diversidade de seus objetos. -/- -/- Rejeitar as opiniões recebidas, e julgadas boas porque foram recebidas, é recuperar o poder soberano de julgar aquilo que até então passou despercebido. Colocar a razão no tribunal não é uma novidade, mas uma revolução no sentido estrito, isto é, um retorno. A razão é o senso comum, o poder, não apenas para julgar, mas julgar bem, para distinguir o verdadeiro do falso. Julgar mal, tomar o falso pela verdade, não deve ser dotado de um “poder de julgar mal”, é errado usar nosso poder para julgar bem. A diferença entre o bem e o mal não está no poder, mas no uso desse poder, na maneira de usá-lo, de proceder quando se julga, em uma palavra, o método. É necessário romper com uma aquisição sem método de conhecimento, de acordo com as influências sofridas, e conferir a si mesmo um método firme, que será como o procedimento do tribunal da razão. E como nossa capacidade de comer é saudável por si só, esse método não deve ser tomado como uma técnica destinada para melhorá-lo, para torná-lo mais eficaz, e sim como uma higiene projetada para preservá-lo. -/- Mas onde encontrar as regras desse método? Em um domínio, precisamente, onde nosso poder de regulação ou gerenciamento tem sido relativamente preservado, fazendo com que se possa explorar esse domínio, descobri-lo e extrair dele um procedimento universal. Porque o pensamento sendo esta luz que ilumina de igual forma as variedades de tudo que se apresenta a ela, o que torna-se verdadeiro nesse domínio deve ser de todos os outros. Essa área de referência é o domínio da matemática. -/- V – O MODELO MATEMÁTICO -/- Descartes acredita que é no domínio da matemática e, precisamente da geometria, que os antigos fizeram descobertas difíceis e duradouras. A geometria dos antigos e a dos modernos e, especialmente a de François Viète (1540-1603), acrescentou a análise na matemática, o que denominamos de “álgebra”. A descoberta em 1631 da geometria analítica, que relaciona curvas geométricas com equações algébricas, é também o principal título de fama de Descartes como matemático. No entanto, não devemos superestimar a importância que esta descoberta teve para o próprio Descartes. Seu principal interesse era, em sua opinião, metodológico: permitia libertar a mente para simplificar as técnicas de cálculo. -/- Porque na matemática Descartes é compartilhado entre admiração pelo que eles permitem, e desprezo pelo que fazem com ele. A ideia de facilidade é o motivo comum dessa admiração e desprezo. Matemática é fácil, e sua virtude nos mostrar como o conhecimento é fácil, é fácil para o homem saber tudo o que ele pode saber, desde que o mesmo tenha tempo. Todavia, essa facilidade faz com que a atividade habitual dos matemáticos seja um pouco ridícula, a resolução de “problemas matemáticos”, que Descartes considerava como um mero divertimento, é dificilmente digna de consideração. É novamente em nome desse caso que Descartes mais uma vez repreende os antigos matemáticos por terem dado seus resultados mas obstruindo ou ocultando seu método, a fim de impressionar os crédulos, dificultando a aparência do que não é. O método está em contraste com o essencial do que pode ser aprendido com a matemática. -/- -/- Para identificar corretamente este método, é necessário abstrair os próprios objetos matemáticos (números, figuras etc.), que nos faz acreditar que a matemática é uma ciência especial ao lado das outras ciências, o que nos leva a uma divisão em ramos separados da mesma (aritmética, geometria, álgebra etc.). Então aparece uma matemática universal, consistindo no estudo de “vários relatórios ou proporções” que podem ser encontrados entre quaisquer objetos, para que possamos constituí-los em séries contínuas e deduzi-los uns dos outros, e chegar, daqueles que são conhecidos, àqueles que ainda não estão distantes, tão distantes como estão, tão ocultos como parecem ser. -/- Não há nada difícil em tal conhecimento, há apenas o simples e o complexo, e o tempo necessário para alcançar o complexo mediante o simples. Não há nada difícil porque não há nada oculto: se “conhecer” era a perigosa empreitada de se aventurar na dimensão secreta das coisas, seria necessário um gênio e o uso de poderes ocultos. Mas “conhecer” é um exercício do senso comum que direciona sua luz para tudo que pode esclarecer: é, portanto, suficiente para um método. -/- Nós todos sabemos que as primeiras verdades matemáticas são simples. Mas por que elas são? Porque elas nos contam tudo sem reservas, sem nada opaco, sobre tudo que estão falando e tratando: seu objeto é completamente iluminado, não há a necessidade de voltar à ele para aprofundá-lo indefinidamente, devemos passar para outro. Estas são representações estritamente adequadas ao que elas alegam, para representar o que Descartes denominou de ideais claras e distintas: claro, porque percebemos todos os elementos distintos, porque não podemos confundi-los com os outros. -/- Se a primeira verdade é considerada simples, a segunda, por sua vez, não parece ser assim. Seria, sem dúvida, considerada difícil, reservando uma parte do desconhecido se o enfrentássemos de frente. Mas é apenas complexo, isto é, só podemos entendê-lo depois de ter compreendido o primeiro, e depois entender que não há mais nada para entender no primeiro, e sim passar adiante: basta respeitar essa ordem, que é a ordem do nosso entendimento, para que seja também considerado uma ideia claro e distinta. -/- Até onde podemos prosseguir? Até o fim, de acordo com Descartes, até a conclusão do que podemos saber, uma vez que nossa mente, que agora é ordenada por nosso conhecimento, é limitada: limite claro, limite esse que não é misteriosamente abrigado no mundo ou na espessura da realidade. Abaixo desse limite, nosso conhecimento pode ser perfeito se for metódico. Abaixo do limite, nada oculto, nada profundo, tudo toma o seu lugar nas “longas cadeias de razões”; além do limite, nada escondido, apenas o que é não é nossa responsabilidade. -/- Se não há nada escondido, a realidade que conhecemos não vai além do que sabemos sobre ela. Logo, o método não é apenas uma maneira humana de pedir objetos a nossa conveniência: atribuindo-lhes o seu lugar em nossa ordem, tornando-os claros para nós, envolve-os em seu verdadeiro ser. A revolução cartesiana consiste, então, no fato de que as condições de nosso conhecimento definem a verdade do ser conhecido. -/- Não obstante, sempre perpetua-se uma “dificuldade”, que nada mais é do que o tempo. Se não há a necessidade de o gênio saber perfeitamente, leva tempo para ir do simples ao complexo. O homem só pode saber se tem tempo, muito tempo antes dele: essa preocupação para com a necessidade de tempo, retorna com uma obsessão sob a caneta e a perspectiva de Descartes. Essa necessidade, então, de ter tempo diferencia radicalmente, como veremos, o problema do conhecimento e da ação, da conduta a ser mantida na vida, da moralidade, uma vez que “as ações da vida muitas vezes não sofrem demora...”. -/- VI – REGRAS DO MÉTODO: OS QUATRO PRECEITOS -/- Podemos agora compreender os quatro preceitos aos quais, segundo Descartes, o método é reduzido (Discurso, segunda parte). -/- VI.I - Regra de evidência -/- O primeiro era de nunca aceitar coisa alguma como verdadeira sem que a conhecesse evidentemente como tal; ou seja, evitar cuidadosamente a precipitação e a prevenção, e não incluir em meus juízos nada além daquilo que se apresentasse tão clara e distintamente a meu espírito, que eu não tivesse nenhuma ocasião de pô-lo em dúvida (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). -/- Mesmo que sua declaração o duplique, é de fato um mesmo preceito acerca do que deve ser concebido como verdadeiro. Receber com método é esperar até que a coisa se apresente para ele: essa paciência, esse “cuidado”, remove os preconceitos característicos das ideias recebidas antes da hora, a precipitação e a prevenção que fazem parecer obscuro o que é o tempo. Se, nessa apresentação para ele, ele tomou um cuidado de aderir (nada mais) ao que é claro e distinto, é sem reserva que uma “coisa” pode ser recebida, sem poder surgir o risco, a “oportunidade”, de ter que voltar mais tarde: ele teria visto a sua verdade, e está evidência foi o suficiente para que ele pudesse duvidar disso. -/- VI.II - Regra de análise -/- “O segundo, dividir cada uma das dificuldades que examinasse em tantas parcelas quantas fosse possível e necessário para melhor resolvê-las” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). Ora, o que é apresentado como difícil de examinar, na verdade não o é, é apenas complexo, composto de múltiplas parcelas. Quantas parcelas? É a resolução da dificuldade que deve decidir essa questão: quando um matemático consegue estabelecer um teorema “difícil”, ligando-o às proposições mais simples por uma cadeia contínua de deduções, ele sabe que não há mais nada a saber em seu objeto, que contém exatamente tantas divisões quantas forem necessárias para formar está série. Logo, não precisamos nos preocupar com mais nada. -/- VI.III - Regra de ordem -/- O terceiro, conduzir por ordem meus pensamentos, começando pelos objetos mais simples e mais fáceis de conhecer , para subir pouco a pouco, como por degraus, até o conhecimento dos mais compostos; e supondo certa ordem mesmo entre aqueles que não se precedem naturalmente uns aos outros (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). -/- Essa é a ordem, de acordo com os pensamentos de Descartes, o que pode ser visto no fato de que, entre os objetos mais simples e os mais complexos, a distinção está na ordem de facilidade, isto é, os primeiros são os mais fáceis de saber, enquanto o segundo, por sua vez, só pode ser conhecido quando dominamos a totalidade do primeiro. O importante é passar de um para o outro como por graus, numa série contínua, sem estar diante de um hiato como o conhecimento prévio não seria suficiente para deixar claro o novo conhecimento. E desde que está ordem de razões, fixando cada objeto em seu devido lugar, nos entrega em sua totalidade, é também a ordem objetiva, a ordem dos próprios objetos, tanto que não devemos hesitar em supor isso entre eles, mesmo quando o modo como se apresentam não revela ordem. -/- VI.IV - Regra de enumeração -/- “E, o último, fazer em tudo enumerações tão completas, e revisões tão gerais, que eu tivesse certeza de nada omitir” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). Omitir alguma coisa séria destruir o próprio princípio da ordem das razões, uma vez que qualquer objeto só pode ser visto clara e distintamente se todos que o precederam também tiverem sido vistos em seu lugar. Se a dedução atingir este objeto, significa que nada foi omitido até então. Porém, quando a dedução torna-se muito longa, torna-se, também, mais difícil de mantê-la inteira, como deveria, sob o olhar da mente; somos então tentados a confiar apenas em sua memória. O preceito de enumeração não deve ser entendido como uma preocupação retrospectiva (certifique-se de que nada o tenha esquecido), mas no sentido atual, como os meios de manter em mente todas as evidências do passado necessárias para a evidência presente. Dos quatro preceitos do método, é o único a ter um caráter de técnica e não de simples higiene: é aqui que se confronta a única dificuldade real do conhecimento, o fato de que leva tempo, e sua consequência, recorrer à memória, à faculdade pela qual as velhas ideias descartenses foram “concebidas em sua dívida”. -/- -/- VII – O MÉTODO EXIGE UM FUNDAMENTO METAFÍSICO -/- O método permite responder à uma questão: do que tenho certeza? É certo que homens que seguem ideias aceitas também conhecem esse estado psicológico chamado “certeza”. Todavia, entre esse estado psicológico e a verdadeira certeza do conhecimento metódico, há uma diferença de que o primeiro está imune a “oportunidades” de duvidar, já que ele não tem autoconfiança. Toda oportunidade de dúvida que se apresenta transformaria essa “certeza” em incerteza: por isso que é sensato duvidar em princípio das opiniões recebidas, sem esperar, por assim dizer, oportunidades de duvidar, e decretar antecipadamente seu conteúdo incerto, não necessariamente substituí-lo por outro conteúdo, mas aceitar apenas o que lhe fora assegurado. -/- Poderia ser o mesmo com a certeza do conhecimento metódico? Pode ser apresentado a ele como uma oportunidade para duvidar, e seria sábio também duvidá-lo antecipadamente, submetendo-o a uma dúvida de princípio? Seria então uma dúvida muito diferente da anterior. Descartes exclamou que: “Se alguma vez duvidei um dia do que me aperfeiçoei seguramente, tal dúvida deveria permanecer fora da certeza: não a destruiria, nem mesmo a enfraqueceria, a colocaria em suspenso no vazio; ele não sugeriria para mim que eu talvez esteja menos certo do que pensava, mas sim que posso estar errado em ter tanta certeza. Eu vou manter minha certeza enquanto duvidoso, porque não haveria nenhuma esperança para eu encontrar melhor do que ela: minha única esperança seria descobrir que ela é verdadeiramente fundamentada, que eu confio com razão, e não porque eu não posso contrário.” -/- Mas por que uma oportunidade para duvidar dessa maneira? A própria razão, na medida em que é incontestavelmente autoritária, deve levantar essa dúvida por sua própria autoridade. É porque é autoritária que tem o direito de se perguntar sobre o que o autoriza, sobre o que o investe com tal autoridade. Afinal, a certeza de sua autoridade é uma certeza, que não pode ser classificada entre as certezas que ela nos ensina, uma vez que reconhecemos essa autoridade. -/- Por isso, é importante encontrar, para essa certeza, um fundamento para abrigá-lo, de uma vez por todas, desta suspeita sobre si mesmo. A busca por esse fundamento deve ser metódica, mas deve ao mesmo tempo abalar nossa confiança no método, a fim de encontrar o que o justifica. Essa busca paradoxal é o que Descartes denomina de "metafísica". Desdobra-se principalmente nas seis Meditações da Primeira Filosofia de 1641, geralmente chamadas de Meditações Metafísicas. Seu exame pode ser dividido em duas partes: -/- • o primeiro diz respeito à dúvida e ao seu trabalho; • o segundo diz respeito à fundação de certas ciências, ou seja, a existência de um Deus verdadeiro. -/- REFERENCIAL TEÓRICO -/- DESCARTES, R. Discurso do método. Trad. Maria Ermantina Galvão. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1996. ______________. Discurso do método. Coleção Os pensadores, vol. XV. Trad. J. Guinsburg e Bento Prado Jr. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1973. -/- Estimule a criatividade, respeite o direito autoral. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva © 2019. (shrink)

The first work that René Descartes wrote was the Compendium Musicæ in 1618, this was his first experiment with the future cartesian method. As a work of youth, the author must have studied music in your education, mainly in the college of La Flèche. Conventionally, the work of Gioseffo Zarlino had been considered the main source, because was cited in the Compendium. Since the text starts with music´s definition and eight propositions, about which the rest of work was (...) developed; check the way that them appear in other treatises of the time could help to deduce the possible musical sources that the author used.This dissertation starts with a necessary reconstitution of philosophical and musical context of the epoch, followed by an analysis of jesuits conceptions of knowledge and music. In this way, it can be considered what motivated the author to write about music, as his the debates. In resemblance to his mature work, the text proposes a methodological turn that is only perceived with the context of the time in mind. After an interpretation of the definition of the music and the eight propositions, it could be possible compare with the others works form the epoch to verify his musical sources. With this process, it could evidence the influence of Aristotle, Aristoxenus, Jean de Murs, Pontus de Tyard, Gioseffo Zarlino and Francisco de Salinas. (shrink)

_(MA thesis)_ Immunity to error through misidentification (IEM) describes a sort of immunity against such a situation that the thinker wrongly identifies something as other things. Philosophers consider it as being especially relevant to first-person or de se judgments. Many philosophers seem to advance IEM as an alternative to a Cartesian method of defining first-person privilege and of circumscribing the first-person perspective. However, as more and more representative instances are substantiated as being vulnerable to error through misidentification, it (...) is thus necessary to offer an account sufficient to explain IEM. Then, there are roughly two approaches in the literature: the identification-freedom approach and the metasemantic approach. The former is characterised by the claim that the presence of IEM is always explained by the absence of an identificatory-component in the thought's grounds. The latter is more heterogeneous than the former. Nevertheless, it can be roughly described by their focus on explaining the IEM of de se thoughts based on an account of how the reference of de se thoughts is fixed, rather than just on the grounds of particular de se thoughts. However, there are still some problems with the existing accounts. More specifically, some problems from the indexical thoughts put at risk Recanati's appeal, which is viewed as a representative of the metasematic approach. Nonetheless, I think these problems can be resolved competently by pointing out the fact that there are three levels of reflection in introspection. Thoughts produced by the first level of reflection (first-level thoughts, hereafter) correspond to Recanati's implicit thoughts; Third-level thoughts are Recanati's explicit thoughts (whether it is made explicit by an extra reflective act, as Recanati puts it). However, second-level thoughts, which include a sort of aboutness in their content, could explain the subject appearing in indexical statements with IEM, guaranteeing IEM of these thoughts in the meanwhile. (shrink)

The Cartesian concept of nature, which has determined modern thinking until the present time, has become obsolete. It shall be shown that Hegel's objective-idealistic conception of nature discloses, in comparison to that of Descartes, new perspectives for the comprehension of nature and that this, in turn, results in possibilities of actualizing Hegel's philosophy of nature. If the argumentation concerning philosophy of nature is intended to catch up with the concrete Being-of-nature and to meet it in its concretion, then this (...) is impossible for the finite spirit in a strictly a priori sense – this is the thesis supported here which is not at all close to Hegel. As the argumentation rather has to consider the conditions of realization concerning the Being-of-nature, too, it is compelled to take up empirical elements – concerning the organism, for instance, system-theoretical aspects, physical and chemical features of the nervous system, etc. With that, on the one hand, empirical-scientific premises are assumed (e.g. the lawlikeness of nature), which on the other hand become (now close to Hegel) possibly able to be founded in the frame of a Hegelian-idealistic conception. In this sense, a double strategy of empirical-scientific concretization and objective-idealistic foundation is followed up, which represents the methodical basic principle of the developed considerations. In the course of the undertaking, the main aspects of the whole Hegelian design concerning the philosophy of nature are considered – space and time, mass and motion, force and law of nature, the organism, the pro-blem of evolution, psychic being – as well as Hegel's basic thesis concerning the philosophy of nature, that therein a tendency toward coherence and idealization manifests itself in the sense of a (categorically) gradually rising succession of nature: from the separateness of space to the ideality of sensation. In the sense of the double strategy of concretization and foundation it is shown that on the one hand possibilities of philosophical penetration concerning actual empirical-scientific results are opened, and on the other hand – in turn – a re-interpretation of Hegel's theorem on the basis of physical, evolution-theoretical and system-theoretical argumentation also becomes possible. In this mutual crossing-over and elucidation of empirical and Hegelian argumentation not only do perspectives of a new comprehension of nature become visible, but also, at the same time – as an essential consequence of this methodical principle – thoughts on the possibilities of actualizing Hegel's philosophy of nature. (shrink)

How must we and the world be constituted if science is possible? René Descartes had some ideas: For example, he wrote in 1639 to Marin Mersenne, “The imagination, which is the part of the mind that most helps mathematics, is more of a hindrance than a help in metaphysical speculation.” In another missive he suggested that, “besides [local] memory, which depends on the body, I believe there is also another one, entirely intellectual, which depends on the soul alone” (pp. 59, (...) 52). Peter Schouls marshals brief passages such as these alongside discussions of Descartes’ major works to sketch a partial portrait of the human being and the universe. Schouls touches on both metaphysics and cognition, asking how things must be arranged to allow Descartes’ famous method to be mobilized. His conclusions run as follows. First, what should come as no surprise, Descartes “insists on a thoroughgoing dualism that allows him to characterize human beings as essentially free and to characterize nature as causally determined.” (44) Second, Schouls develops from Descartes’ cues a theory of cognition that allows for the pursuit of science by the exploitation of that free human creativity. ). Third, Schouls brings the previous points into full development with a speculative discussion of intellectual argument and scientific method. (shrink)

Abstract: This article explores the medical theories of the Dutch philosopher and physician Henricus Regius (1598-1679), who sought to provide clearer notions of medicine than the traditional theories of Jean Fernel, Daniel Sennert and Vopiscus Plempius. To achieve this, Regius overtly built upon the natural philosophy of René Descartes, in particular his theories of mechanical physiology and the corpuscular nature of matter. First, I show that Regius envisaged a novel partitioning of medicine, intended to make it independent in exposition but (...) conceptually grounded in natural philosophy. This served his overall purpose of making medicine a ‘clearer’ discipline. To this end Regius detaches the general notion of physiology as the study of the human body (which pertains to natural philosophy) from a medical physiology that concerns only health. Secondly, I show that Regius’s notions of health, disease, temperament and medicaments were the product of a Cartesian interpretation of traditional concepts, which was influenced by Santorio Santorio’s project of practicing medicine without occult elements. As a consequence, Regius’s classification of these notions is largely traditional. In conclusion, I show that Regius’s method of investigation in the area of natural philosophy consisted of a problem-solving procedure based on sensorial ideas. This approach can be traced back to Descartes, but was grounded on a purely empirical theory of knowledge, by which he rejected Descartes’s metaphysics. Regius’s order of exposition in natural philosophy and medicine, on the other hand, proceeds by definitions and divisions, and omits proofs. The reasons why Regius adopted this order were: 1) his rejection of Descartes’s metaphysical interpreta-tion of physics, and 2) his wish to emphasize the conceptual clarity and continuity of natural philosophy and medicine. (shrink)

Methodological innovations have a special status in disciplinary histories, because they can be widely adopted and anonymised. In the 1950s, this occurred to Georges Laplace’s innovative use of 3-dimensional metric Cartesian coordinate system to record the positions of archaeological objects. This paper proposes a conceptual and social history of this process, with a focus on its spatial context, the Pyrenean region (Spain, Basque Country, and France). Main results of this research based on archives, publications, and bibliometric data, include: 1) (...) a critical discussion of the notions concerning authorship of such methodological innovations; 2) a presentation of the lesser-known aspects of Laplace’s method, showing its contribution to the abstraction and formalisation of archaeological observations and data recording; and 3) the identification of an international Pyrenean intellectual lineage of innovation regarding stratigraphy and excavation methods, from the late 19th century to the early 21th century. (shrink)

The Cell Ontology (CL) is designed to provide a standardized representation of cell types for data annotation. Currently, the CL employs multiple is_a relations, defining cell types in terms of histological, functional, and lineage properties, and the majority of definitions are written with sufficient generality to hold across multiple species. This approach limits the CL’s utility for cross-species data integration. To address this problem, we developed a method for the ontological representation of cells and applied this method to (...) develop a dendritic cell ontology (DC-CL). DC-CL subtypes are delineated on the basis of surface protein expression, systematically including both species-general and species-specific types and optimizing DC-CL for the analysis of flow cytometry data. This approach brings benefits in the form of increased accuracy, support for reasoning, and interoperability with other ontology resources. 104. Barry Smith, “Toward a Realistic Science of Environments”, Ecological Psychology, 2009, 21 (2), April-June, 121-130. Abstract: The perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson embraces a radically externalistic view of mind and action. We have, for Gibson, not a Cartesian mind or soul, with its interior theater of contents and the consequent problem of explaining how this mind or soul and its psychological environment can succeed in grasping physical objects external to itself. Rather, we have a perceiving, acting organism, whose perceptions and actions are always already tuned to the parts and moments, the things and surfaces, of its external environment. We describe how on this basis Gibson sought to develop a realist science of environments which will be ‘consistent with physics, mechanics, optics, acoustics, and chemistry’. (shrink)

We reply to Philippe Depoortère’s paper “On Ricardo’s method: The Unitarian influence examined. Some comments on Cremaschi and Dascal’s article ‘Malthus and Ricardo on Economic Methodology’”. Depoortère asks two questions: (1) was Ricardo’s ‘conversion’ to Unitarianism sincere? (2) did Ricardo follow the methodologies of Priestley and Belsham? His answers are that he was a ‘religious skeptic’ and he was not an ‘empiricist’ like Priestley and Belsham. We reply that the sincerity of Ricardo’s religious beliefs is irrelevant since we start (...) with the evidence that he was exposed for a long time to the intellectual influence of Belsham, primarily in matters of philosophy, and to deny this would imply a negative answer to a different question, namely, did Ricardo attend Unitarian meetings for 15 years? Then we reply that Ricardo inherited Belsham’s version of Newtonian methodology which omitted the fourth rule, that is the most anti-Cartesian and anti-systematic rule, and this has little to do with empiricism but instead with apriorism. (shrink)

Bad philosophy is responsible for the climate and nature crises, and other global problems too that threaten our future. That sounds mad, but it is true. A philosophy of science, or of theatre or life is a view about what are, or ought to be, the aims and methods of science, theatre or life. It is in this entirely legitimate sense of “philosophy” that bad philosophy is responsible for the crises we face. First, and in a blatantly obvious way, those (...) institutions, organizations, corporations, businesses, endeavours, and activities of humanity that cause the crises and global problems we face, do so because of the aims they pursue (profit perhaps, or power, or heat and light for homes), and the methods adopted in pursuit of those aims – the philosophy in other words, built into the institution, organization, business, human activities, or whatever it may be. It is the philosophy of these institutions, organizations and activities that we need to change to put a stop to, or at least lessen the severity of, the crises we face, the global problems that confront us, above all the climate and nature crises. One institution has an especially crucial role in this respect: our universities. They are dominated in a multitude of ways by a particularly disastrous philosophy, a philosophy of inquiry which may be called knowledge-inquiry. This holds that the basic aim of the university is to acquire and apply knowledge. First, knowledge is to be acquired; once acquired, it can be applied to help solve social problems. But this philosophy of knowledge-inquiry is an intellectual disaster. As a result, universities are, in devastating and almost entirely unrecognized ways, humanitarian disasters too. Judged from the standpoint of helping to promote human welfare, the university shaped by the philosophy of knowledge-inquiry violates THREE of the four most elementary rules of rational problem solving conceivable in a wholesale, structural fashion, and it is this gross, wholesale, structural irrationality of the university, unnoticed by all but a few scientists and scholars, that is in part responsible for the creation of our grave global problems, and our current incapacity to learn how to solve them. The pursuit of knowledge, conducted in universities, within the framework of knowledge-inquiry over the decades and centuries, has produced much of great benefit to humanity. It has made the modern world possible. It has led to modern power production, modern industry and armaments, modern agriculture, modern hygiene and medicine, modern travel and communications, and the internet. But these very successes have also created many of our most serious current global problems: the climate crisis; the destruction of natural habitats, the catastrophic loss of wild life, and impending mass extinction of species (the nature crisis); the lethal character of modern war; the impact on the natural world of the rapid growth of the human population; the menace posed by nuclear weapons; pollution of earth, sea and air; threats to democracy caused in part by the internet and social media. All these grave global problems have been made possible by modern science and technology, pursued largely in universities within the framework of knowledge-inquiry. Nevertheless, it is not science and technology as such that are the problem, but science pursued in a way that is dissociated from a more fundamental task of the university to help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, so that progress may be made to a better world. Science and technology, pursued within the framework of knowledge-inquiry, create for some of us the power to act, but not the power to act wisely – not the power to learn how to resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways. For that, we need our institutions of learning, above all our universities, to take as their primary task to help humanity learn how to do it. In order to do that, the philosophy of inquiry put into practice by universities needs to be dramatically transformed. We urgently need to bring about a revolution in the overall aims and methods of academic inquiry – a revolution in the philosophy of the university, all around the world, wherever possible, so that the basic aim becomes to seek and promote wisdom, construed to be the capacity, active endeavour, and perhaps desire, to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom in this sense including knowledge, understanding and technological know-how, but much else besides, methods being dramatically modified too so as to help achieve the new academic aim. The basic task of the university would be, not to solve problems of knowledge, but rather to help people in the social world beyond the university to resolve conflicts and problems of living so that what is of value in life may be realized by everyone, insofar as that is possible. The pursuit of knowledge would be vital, but not intellectually fundamental. The intellectual and institutional revolution we so urgently need in our universities would affect every discipline and aspect of the university; it would dramatically affect both research and education, and the whole way the university is related to the rest of the social world. The revolution, from knowledge-inquiry to wisdom-inquiry would dramatically enhance the intellectual integrity and rationality of natural science, social inquiry, the humanities and technology, the character of these disciplines and the relationships they have with one another. University education throughout the university would be dramatically improved. And academic inquiry as a whole would do what, on the whole, it fails to do at present: it would help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational and, as a result, increasingly successful ways, progress at last being made to a genuinely good, civilized world – a world in which there is peace, justice, liberal democracy, individual freedom, education, reasonable equality, sustainable prosperity and worthwhile opportunities in life, all of these for everyone, insofar as this is possible. Why, it may be asked, has academic philosophy not noticed that we urgently need to transform the current bad philosophy of inquiry of knowledge-inquiry into the far more intellectually rigorous and humanly valuable philosophy of wisdom-inquiry, so that we can begin to do what so far we have failed to do so lamentably: learn how to avoid impending disasters, and even make progress to a better world, something that seems at present almost unthinkable given the horrors of war, poverty, political enslavement of the 20th century, and the horrors of this century so far too? The answer is that academic philosophy is in a particularly pitiful state, as philosophers themselves, are just beginning to realize and lament. That is why academic philosophers are blind to the intellectual and humanitarian disaster of the bad philosophy that dominates universities today, and inconceivable to them to them that they might have, as a disciplinary task, to ensure academic inquiry implements a good philosophy of inquiry, and advocate and argue for change if it does not. Once upon a time, in Europe at least, philosophy was an intellectual power in the world. In the 17th century it created modern science which massively increased and improved our knowledge and understanding of the world, which in turn led to the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the modern world. Philosophy was once so intellectually powerful and influential that it changed the course of history. But philosophy also made in the past three disastrous intellectual blunders: the post-Cartesian blunder, the post-Newtonian blunder, and the Enlightenment blunder. Never acknowledged and corrected by subsequent philosophy right down to the present, these unrecognized intellectual blunders rendered academic philosophy the esoteric, pathetic, and powerless discipline it is today, so that throughout the last century and, so far, throughout this one, academic philosophy has remained blind to the intellectual disaster of knowledge-inquiry, and thus failed entirely to take up its proper disciplinary task of warning fellow academics of the structural irrationality of the philosophy that prevails in the university, and of proposing what steps need to be taken to put things right. Instead of performing such an urgently needed philosophical task, so-called analytic philosophy was reduced to analysing the meaning of words. Since then, there has been hardly any discernible improvement, even if analysis of concepts no longer dominates the scene. Bad academic philosophy is indeed responsible for intellectual and humanitarian failures of the university. What the three past intellectual blunders of philosophy are, why their persistence so dramatically reduces academic philosophy to a triviality, and why, furthermore, this results in the failure of scientists and scholars to see what is so blatantly bad about the philosophy prevailing in universities around the world – the failure to see what so urgently needs to be done to put right what has been wrong for so long: all this is made clear in this book. A new kind of philosophy emerges during the course of the argument, critical fundamentalism, which has as its task to keep alive imaginative and critical – that is rational – thinking about our fundamental problem: How can our human world, the world we experience and live in – the world of living things, people, consciousness, free will, meaning and value – how can all of this exist and best flourish embedded as it is in the physical universe? That problem encompasses all others of life, science and thought. Critical fundamentalism tries to improve answers to aspects of this problem; but it also seeks to encourage everyone to think about the problem, from time to time, and think about how it interacts, in both directions, with more urgent particular and specialized problems of life and thought. Critical fundamentalism sets out to help improve bad philosophy wherever it is to be found: in social, political, commercial, legal, financial, and international life; and especially in academia, in institutions of learning, so that they become devoted to enhancing the capacity of people to learn how to achieve what is of genuine value in this brief life of a few decades if we are fortunate. Critical fundamentalism does everything it can to bring about the revolution in our universities we so urgently need. If taken up by mainstream philosophy, it might really have an impact, and begin to transform universities for the better, in both intellectual and humanitarian terms, and thus, enable humanity to learn how, after the grim failures and horrors of the last century and this one, to make progress to a better world. -/- . (shrink)

The relationship between Adam Smith's official methodology and his own actual theoretical practice as a social scientist may be grasped only against the background of the Humean project of a Moral Newtonianism. The main features in Smith's methodology are: (i) the provisional character of explanatory principles; (ii) 'internal' criteria of truth; (iii) the acknowledgement of an imaginative aspect in principles, with the related problem of the relationship between internal truth and external truth, in terms of mirroring of 'real' causes. Smith's (...) Newtonian (as opposed to Cartesian) methodology makes room for progress in social theorizing in so far as it allows for a decentralization of the various fields of the Moral Science, contributing to the shaping of political economy. On the other hand, the Cartesian legacy in Smith's Newtonian methodology makes the relationship between phenomena and theoretical principles highly problematic. (shrink)

The theses in this book are: 1) the tension between the Leibnizian theory of the tropes and their use is resolved in a "pragmatic of discourse" that gives the metaphor a richer dimension than the theorized one, that is, that of "a mechanism capable of combining elements coming from different conceptual spaces into a new metaphorical conceptual space, 'shapeless' to which the metaphor itself provides an adequate language to describe and structure it"; 2) the role of metaphors is placed for (...) Leibniz in the context of a 'multi-method' idea that combines the inventive and the formalizing moment and allows for a multiplicity of directions; 3) the Leibniz system is organized according to a 'logic' that is not deductive but analogical; 4) the valid relations in the system are not only connections of a logical nature; on the contrary, the organization is 'reticular', and the primacy of a relation depends from time to time on the prevalence assigned to a metaphor according to the problem being faced; 5) Leibniz's central metaphors are "emerging parts of a wider submerged translation", i.e. they are both expression and conceptualizing vehicle of a cognitive strategy that wants to govern the complexity of knowledge by organizing it around themes; this strategy is alternative to the Cartesian formulation of "Method" based on the disjunction of objects and notions and instead gives philosophical expression to the Baroque sense of the constant mutability that rules the world. (shrink)

Preface -/- 1. 'Anima' and 'res cogitans'. The Cartesian idea of nature and mind as a residual concept. The first chapter discusses the genesis of the concept of mind in Cartesian Philosophy; the claim is advanced that 'res cogitans' is a residual concept, defined on the basis of a previous definition of matter as 'res extensa'. As a consequence, a contradictory ontology of the mind is Descartes's poisoned bequest to the following tradition of 'scientific' psychology. -/- 2. The (...) Mathematical method in the theory of the mind and the passions. The second chapter discusses the first ambitious attempt in this direction, namely Spinoza's theory of the mind and the passions in Ethics II and III; the topics treated are Spinoza's program of a mathematical science of the mind and his transformation of the genre 'treatise of the passions' into a would-be mathematical science of the motions of the soul. -/- 3. The definition of affections and the impossibility of reducing inadequate to adequate ideas. The third chapter discusses a tension in Spinoza project of a theory of the passions, namely a need to reduce concepts to pure mathematical definitions and the opposite need to keep inadequate imaginative definitions of the phenomena under scrutiny, namely the passions, in order to avoid a radical reduction of the subject-matter to the only truly existing reality (the world order in itself) that would leave the theory without any subject-matter at all. -/- 4. 'Conatus', 'potentia', 'vis'. Concepts of force in the theory of passions and the impossibility of eliminating occult qualities. The fourth chapter discusses the troubles arising in the original project deriving from difficulties in the treatment of dynamic concepts, such as the notion of conatus, which were an unavoidable consequence of Cartesian assumptions. -/- 5. Overview and discussion. Chapter five tries to draw a general discussion, focusing on the tension between the Cartesian assumptions and the actual practice in the new post-Galilean sciences, including attempts at giving birth to psychology or science of man. -/- Appendices I. The mind-body problem in Spinoza. II. Concepts of force in Newton and Spinoza. III. Materialist readings of Newton and Spinoza. IV. On the opposition of materialism and spiritualism and Geisteswissenschaften and natural science. V. Conatus, the idea of liberation and social theory in Spinoza. (shrink)

Introduction. The book is a study in Adam Smith's system of ideas; its aim is to reconstruct the peculiar framework that Adam Smith’s work provided for the shaping of a semi-autonomous new discipline, political economy; the approach adopted lies somewhere in-between the history of ideas and the history of economic analysis. My two claims are: i) The Wealth of Nations has a twofold structure, including a `natural history' of opulence and an `imaginary machine' of wealth. The imaginary machine is a (...) kind of Newtonian theory, whose connecting links are principles; provided either by `partial' characteristics of human nature or by analoga of physical mechanisms transferred to the social world; ii) a domain of the economic, understood as a self-standing social sub-system, was discovered first by Adam Smith. His `discovery' of the new continent of the economic was an `unintended result' of a deviation in his voyage to the never-found archipelago of natural jurisprudence. -/- 1. Imaginary machines and invisible chains: natural philosophy and method. The first chapter reconstructs Smith's views on the method in natural philosophy, presented primarily in the History of Astronomy (HA). The peculiar kind of semi-sceptical Newtonianism which permeates the essay is highlighted. Its reconstruction of the history of one natural science is shown to be based on the assumptions of Hume’s epistemology, and to lead to a self-aware deadlock. Smith's dilemma is between an essentialist realism and sceptical instrumentalism; the Cartesian presuppositions he shares with Hume and with the 18th century as a whole make it impossible for him to overcome his dilemma. The following chapters will show how, on the one hand, Smith's skeptical methodology encourages him in the enterprise to `carve off' a new self-contained discipline and how, on the other hand, his epistemological dilemma is reflected in the inner tensions of his moral and political theory as well as in a number of basic oscillations concerning the status of the new discipline. -/- 2. Chessboards and clocks: moral philosophy and method. -/- The second chapter reconstructs Smith's views on the method in the parallel field of moral philosophy, including the theory of moral sentiments and natural jurisprudence. I argue that The Theory of Moral Sentiments, when considered together with with the Lectures on Jurisprudence, where Smith's peculiar version of a `weaker' form of natural law is presented, wins special interest, not only for the history of ethics but even more for the history of political theory and the social sciences. The two most striking features of Smith's work in this area are highlighted. First, his effort at reformulating the `practical science' is a methodologically self-aware attempt at applying the Newtonian method to moral subjects. Secondly, this attempt ends in a stalemate as two distinguished kinds of normative order are introduced: one ultimate order of Reason, ultimately justifiable but inaccessible, and one weaker order of our `natural sentiments', to which we have empirical access, but which is so variable as to lack any ultimate value as a basis for grounding our normative claims. These two parallel conundrums may arguably account for the author's inability to publish during his lifetime both The History of Astronomy and the projected history and theory of law and government. -/- 3. Wheels, dams, and gravitation: the structure of scientific argument in The Wealth of Nations. -/- The third chapter provides the core of the book, dealing with the structure of the argument in WN. I argue that the main presupposition that makes the shift possible from a `natural history' to a `system' approach is the Newtonian contrast of `mathematical' with `physical' explanation; that is, Smith drops any discussion of the "original qualities" of human nature that could account for economic behaviour, while introducing, as `principles' for the system, a set of `hypothetical' statements of `observed' regularities in human behaviour and of `observed' super-individual self-regulating mechanisms. In bringing this presupposition to light, the coexistence of a teleological with a mechanistic approach is clarified; fresh light is shed on the notion of the invisible hand by a comparison of its occurrence in Smith with the occurrence of the same expression (until now overlooked) in the correspondence between Newton and Cotes. Finally, the peculiar semi-prescriptive and semi-descriptive character of political economy are highlighted, and the consistency of Smith's `impure' semi-prescriptive social science, when understood in his own terms, is defended against familiar charges with inconsistency and against even more familiar strained modernizations. -/- 4. Apples, deer, and frivolous trinkets: the construction of the economic. -/- The fourth chapter draws consequences from the third, examining how Smith's achievement in political economy, marking its transition to scientific status, carried a re-description of the phenomena, creating the comparatively independent and unified field of the economic. Smith's achievement is interpreted not as the `discovery' of an autonomous character already possessed by the economy out there, so much as a Gestalt-switch by which our perception of social phenomena is modified making us `see' the partial order of the economy as an isolated system. To sum up, the autonomy of the economic in social reality and the autonomy of the economic in social consciousness are shown to be two sides of one process. -/- 5. Concluding considerations: Political economy and the Enlightenment halved. -/- A few suggestions on the status of economic theory two centuries after The Wealth of Nations in its relationship to ‘practical philosophy’ are illustrated. (shrink)

By definition, “logic of postmodernism" would appear to be a contradiction in terms: philosophic post¬modernism emerged as a critique of attempts to found philosophy on some principle of reasoning and to found reasoning on some formal guidelines for how we ought to think. Nonetheless, there are two reasons why Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) ought to be labeled the logician of postmodernism — the philosopher who, more than any other, etched out the normative guidelines for postmodern thinking. The first reason is (...) that Peirce attempted to accomplish the impossible, or at least the contradictory. He launched his philosophic career with a logical critique of "Cartesianism" — his label for the modernist attempt to found philosophy on some formal principles of reasoning. He then attempted to replace the principles of Cartesian reasoning with a set of anti-modernist principles that proved themselves to be as modernist as their contraries. The second reason for giving Peirce his label is that his failures to accomplish the impossible engendered in him something he was unable to achieve willfully: a habit of self-critical yet self-affirming thinking that was neither modernist nor anti-modernist but, rather, a disciplined variety of postmodern thinking. In his later years, Peirce began to sketch out the principles of philosophic postmodernism by describing features of his own emergent habit of thinking. This sketching comes close enough to what I would label a logic of postmodernism — where the method of logic is as postmodern as the thinking it describes. (shrink)

Two stories have dominated the historiography of early modern philosophy: one in which a seventeenth century Age of Reason spawned the Enlightenment, and another in which a skeptical crisis cast a shadow over subsequent philosophy, resulting in ever narrower "limits to knowledge." I combine certain elements common to both into a third narrative, one that begins by taking seriously seventeenth-century conceptions of the topics and methods central to the rise of a "new" philosophy. In this revisionist story, differing approaches to (...) the central subject matter of early modern metaphysics--knowledge of substances through their essences and causal powers--arise as a result of disagreements about the powers of the human cognitive faculties. Methodological writings are seen as attempts to direct readers in the proper use of their cognitive faculties. The early modern rejection of the Aristotelian theory of cognition ranks equally in importance with rejection of Aristotelian doctrines about nature. Skepticism is more often than not a tool to be used in teaching the reader the proper use of the cognitive faculties, or indeed in convincing the reader of the existence or inexistence of certain cognitive faculties or powers. Instead of early modern "epistemology" or "theory of knowledge," one speaks, with seventeenth century writers, of theories of the cognitive faculties and their implications for the possibility of human knowledge. The early modern rejection of Aristotelian logic can then be seen as reflecting a negative assessment about the fit between syllogistic reasoning and logic as an art of reasoning or thinking which refines the use of the cognitive faculties. -/- Central to this new historiography is the story of the relation between the intellect and senses as cognitive faculties or powers. The development of philosophy from Descartes to Kant can be portrayed as a series of claims about the power of the intellect to know the essences of things, with resulting consequences for ontology and the foundations of natural philosophy. I illustrate this revised narrative by comparing three conceptions of the intellect in three philosophical settings, provided by several late scholastic Aristotelians, Descartes, and Locke. I have two aims: first, to exhibit the central role played by the conception of intellect or understanding in these authors, and, second, to locate their discussions of the cognitive faculties in relation to recent understandings of psychology, epistemology, logic, mind, and their relations. Early modern writings do not easily fit into the modern categories of epistemology and psychology; more generally, the early modern concern with the workings of mind does not coincide with recent conceptions of naturalism. These findings can help us to see problems with our current categories. (shrink)

The German philosopher Johannes Clauberg (1622–1665) was the first academic teacher who attempted to put the philosophy of René Descartes (1596–1650) at the basis of all disciplines of the traditional curriculum of studies, that is, to establish a Cartesian Scholasticism. To this aim, he developed a first philosophy, i.e. a metaphysics including rational-theological arguments, which was based on Descartes’s Meditationes de prima philosophia (1641). By it, Clauberg attempted to provide philosophy with a foundation, namely with a demonstration of the (...) reliability of clear and distinct knowledge. Moreover, he elaborated a comprehensive logical theory showing how Descartes’s rules of the method could be completed by a Scholastic-inspired theory of definition, division and syllogism. Nevertheless, Clauberg maintained in the corpus of philosophical disciplines a metaphysics dealing with the meanings of ‘being’. Accordingly, he developed a twofold metaphysics: on the one hand, a discipline concerned with the principles of thought and rational theology, being this a philosophia prima in the order of sciences. On the other hand, a metaphysics dealing with the most abstract notions of being, viz. an ontosophia, to be studied at the end of the philosophical curriculum. Building on the account of Clauberg’s work provided by Massimiliano Savini, in this paper I explore the relations between Clauberg’s philosophia prima and ontosophia: after clarifying the overall plan of his philosophy, and presenting some examples of metaphysical arguments belonging to the philosophia prima, I argue that Clauberg’s ontosophia, despite being conceived as the most abstract of the philosophical sciences, plays a foundational role with regards to metaphysics as philosophia prima by unveiling its conceptual assumptions. (shrink)

Skepticism is one of the most enduring and profound of philosophical problems. With its roots in Plato and the Sceptics to Descartes, Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein, skepticism presents a challenge that every philosopher must reckon with. In this outstanding collection philosophers engage with skepticism in five clear sections: the philosophical history of skepticism in Greek, Cartesian and Kantian thought; the nature and limits of certainty; the possibility of knowledge and related problems such as perception and the debates between objective (...) knowledge and constructivism; the transcendental method as a response to skepticism and the challenge of naturalism; overcoming the skeptical challenge. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the puzzling question of what motivates the radical epistemological shift necessary for engaging in transcendental phenomenology. Husserl touches on the problem of motivation on many occasions, but it becomes an explicit issue in Fink’s bold reimagining of the transcendental theory of method, as presented in the Sixth Cartesian Meditation. In the first section, I briefly introduce the problem as it appears in Husserl. The second section of the paper discusses Fink’s Hegelian dissolution of it. (...) Finally, I point to several historical, practical, and ethical aspects of transcendental phenomenology, and argue that a good account of motivation for phenomenology ought to find a way to address these without hastily bracketing them. (shrink)

The paper describes how a simple idea, that of a new foundation of moral philosophy taking Galilean new natural philosophy as a mode , lead to unforeseen developments once the competition between a Cartesian and a Newtonian paradigm emerged. Those developments are reconstructed in Hume, Smith, Ferguson.

I offer a novel reading in this dissertation of René Descartes’s (1596–1650) skepticism in his work Meditations on First Philosophy (1641–1642). I specifically aim to answer the following problem: How is Descartes’s skepticism to be read in accordance with the rest of his philosophy? This problem can be divided into two more general questions in Descartes scholarship: How is skepticism utilized in the Meditations, and what are its intentions and relation to the preceding philosophical tradition? -/- I approach the topic (...) from both a historical and a text-based analysis, combining textual and contextual research. I examine Descartes’s skepticism against two main traditions in the historical analysis: philosophical skepticism and Aristotelian Scholasticism. I argue that skepticism in the Meditations is intended to oppose and upheave both Scholasticism and skepticism. The intended results of the work are not merely epistemological but also metaphysical and even ethical. Furthermore, these ambitions cannot be neatly distinguished but merge into each other. -/- The third historical context against which the skeptical meditations are examined is the literary genre of meditative exercises, particularly from the 1500–1600’s, which, while religiously and spiritually oriented, likewise provided the practitioner with an enlightened understanding of self-knowledge and their cognitive place in the world on the way to closer spiritual proximity to God. I argue by this reading that the skepticism of the Meditations is an attentive, meditational cognitive exercise that is not merely instrumental and methodological but is to have a genuine and serious (psychologically real) effect on our thinking. The skeptical meditation is not simply a theoretical thought experiment but is to be seriously practiced as a transformative process of reorienting one’s cognitive framework to discover truth, certainty, and a way to a happy, tranquil, and virtuous life. -/- I offer a close reading in the textual analysis of the first three meditations of the Meditations. I argue that the meditative skepticism employed in the work does not reject the previous beliefs but suspends judgment on them, withdrawing assent until further evidence can be found. I introduce a new term into Descartes scholarship in this analysis, based on the terminology of ancient skepticism: Cartesian epochē (gr. epochē, suspension, withdrawal). Instead of rejecting previous beliefs or assenting to the probably false, the skeptical procedure of the Meditations is argued to emulate in important ways the suspension of judgment on equally balanced reasons in ancient Pyrrhonian skepticism. Novel interpretations are presented along the way of the will’s freedom, of the First Meditation’s skeptical scenarios, of the cogito, and of the vindication of metaphysical certainty, as well as a clarification of the Cartesian Circle problem. -/- Reinterpreting the relation of Descartes’s skepticism to the preceding historical and literary traditions leads to a new look at the skeptical method itself. Presenting a new interpretation of skepticism in the Meditations leads at the same time to a new look at its relation to the historical context. The two research questions are, then, intrinsically tied together. -/- My focus in the study is on the Meditations, but I also reference and discuss Descartes’s other philosophical works, as well as his correspondence, when necessary. (shrink)

The Nineteenth Annual Biosemotics Gathering was hosted by the Philosophy Faculty of Lomonsov Moscow State University. That it was hosted by a philosophy faculty rather than a science faculty, and that it was hosted in Russia, are both significant. Biosemiotics is a challenge to mainstream biology, still struggling to gain acceptance despite the work of a great many researchers and a great many publications, along with nineteen annual biosemiotics gatherings. But it is much more than this, and this accounts for (...) why gaining acceptance is so difficult. In Thomas Kuhn’s terminology, it is revolutionary science, not normal science. It has not yet achieved a consensus on philosophical issues, basic concepts and methods that allows its practitioners to get on with the business of puzzle solving and forget about philosophy. More importantly, it is a challenge not only to mainstream assumptions in biology but also a challenge to deeper assumptions about what counts as science, what is science, and what is the relationship between science and other cultural fields. It is also a challenge to the broader culture of modernity with its tacit acceptance of Cartesian dualism, manifest in the division between the sciences and the humanities. (shrink)

Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) is considered the founder of modern philosophy. Profoundly influenced by the new physics and astronomy of Kepler and Galileo, Descartes was a scientist and mathematician whose most long-lasting contributions in science were the invention of Cartesian coordinates, the application of algebra to geometry, and the discovery of the law of refraction, what we now call Snell’s law.His most important books on philosophy were The discourse on method(1637) and The meditations(1642). Descartes’ writings display an (...) exemplary degree of clarity and an aversion to pedantry. I explore Descartes' break with Aristotle, but also shine a light on the intellectual continuity Descartes had with Aristotle's thought. I also draw attention to some overlooked but interesting possibilities for an experimental test of a dualistic theory of mind. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to advance the idea according to which the Cartesian Cogito, the ground of modern philosophy and the source of the notion of thinking subject, is tributary of a certain method whose legitimation is grounded in western history. According to this hypothesis, there is a certain tool that plays a fundamental role in the production of this new philosophical notion: the dream. The argument will be developed in four parts. We will first proceed (...) to (i) an analysis of the role of the hypothesis of the dream in the formulation of the notion of res cogitans, what will bring us to (ii) an exploration of the conception of private world supposed by such a hypothesis so as to (iii) clarify the specificity of the Cartesian notion of knowledge, a knowledge that must be acquirable in a dream; in conclusion (iv) we will indicate in a schematic way the historic-cultural anchor of the Cartesian dream where the subject is originated. (shrink)

With the advent of Postmodernism, the recent discussions in Continental thought has called into question the philosophy of the Subject, particularly the Cartesian “cogito” and the related method of reflection. One of the important ramifications of these questioning of the reflective subject is to do with the phenomenological doctrine of intentionality of consciousness. Recently, David Carr, himself a phenomenologist, has advanced a serious objection to the phenomenological approach to social reality. In what follows, I will be attempting a (...) defence of phenomenology against criticisms like Carr’s. (shrink)

In the autumn of 1667, the young Leibniz published a «new method» for the science of law. Producing a revised edition of that early work was to become his lifelong project, to the purpose of which he wrote, in the 1690s, a succession of new versions of most of its sections. The main reason for this enduring interest was probably the fact that the juridical part of the treatise was preceded with a more general one, encapsulating in a few (...) pages a systematic overview of the disciplines composing the baroque encyclopaedia, after the model of Johann Heinrich Alsted’s monumental Encyclopaedia septem tomis distincta. If Leibniz still depended on Alsted’s notion of philosophy as the «circle of disciplines», he deeply transformed that pre-Cartesian conception of knowledge by two decisive innovations: following Bacon, he defines each branch of demonstrative science as bearing on one single «quality», abstracted from the subjects in which it inheres; yet, contrary to Bacon, he no longer conceives of these qualities as the ultimate components of reality, but as those of our experience of it, marking the limit of the explanatory capacity of language. (shrink)

Changes that occurred in science in the second half of the twentieth century, led to the emergence of a number of Sciences, the subject of study of which requires the involvement of interdisciplinary methodology and theory of neuroscience, for example, neurobiology, neurolinguistics, neuroanthropology, neurophilosophy, neurophenomenology, etc. One of the features of modern anthropology is that the subject of its research involves an interdisciplinary dialogue, the involvement of methods and theories of socio-human and natural Sciences, which led to the formation of (...) neuroanthropology as a science. One of the trends in the development of neuroanthropological theory is the introduction of biogenetic structuralism in the field of research. The article is devoted to the analysis of the biogenetic structuralism as an example of an interdisciplinary dialogue in which transpersonal and phenomenological approaches are integrated in neuroanthropology. Appeal to the main areas ofneuroanthropologic research allows going beyond the framework of Cartesian dualism and considering issues of the relationship between body and mind in terms of an integrative approach. The biogenetic structuralist neurophenomenological theory is of great importance as a theoretical and methodological basis for cross-cultural studies of consciousness. (shrink)

This article studies the academic context in which Cartesianism was absorbed in Germany in the mid-seventeenth century. It focuses on the role of Johann Clauberg (1622-1665), first rector of the new University of Duisburg, in adjusting scholastic tradition to accommodate Descartes’ philosophy, thereby making the latter suitable for teaching in universities. It highlights contextual motivations behind Clauberg’s synthesis of Cartesianism with the existing framework such as a pedagogical interest in Descartes as offering a simpler method, and a systematic concern (...) to disentangle philosophy from theological disputes. These motivations are brought into view by situating Clauberg in the closely-linked contexts of Protestant educational reforms in the seventeenth century, and debates around the proper relation between philosophy and theology. In this background, it argues that Clauberg nevertheless retains an Aristotelian conception of ontology for purely philosophical reasons, specifically, to give objective foundations to Descartes’s metaphysics of substance. In conclusion, Clauberg should not be assimilated either to Aristotelianism or to Cartesianism or, indeed, to syncretic labels such as ‘Cartesian Scholastic’. Instead, he should be read as transforming both schools by drawing on a variety of elements in order to address issues local to the academic milieu of his time. (shrink)

Leibniz proposed the ‘Most Determined Path Principle’ in seventeenth century. According to it, ‘ease’ of travel is the end purpose of motion. Using this principle and his calculus method he demonstrated Snell’s Laws of reflection and refraction. This method shows that light follows extremal (local minimum or maximum) time path in going from one point to another, either directly along a straight line path or along a broken line path when it undergoes reflection or refraction at plane or (...) spherical (concave or convex) surfaces. The extremal time path avoided the criticism that Fermat’s least time path was subjected to, by Cartesians who cited examples of reflections at spherical surfaces where light took the path of longest time. Thereby it became the standard method of demonstration of Snell’s Laws. Ptolemy’s theorem is a fundamental theorem in geometry. A special case of it offers a method of finding the minimum sum of the two distances of a point from two given fixed points. We show in this paper that Leibniz’s calculus proof of Snell’s Laws violates Ptolemy’s theorem, whereby Leibniz’s proof becomes invalid. (shrink)

This contribution aims to present the different philosophical interpretations of Descartes and Cartesian philosophies in the 17th century within the Revue Internationale de Philosophie. Studies on Descartes and Cartesian philosophies profoundly influenced the scientific orientations of the Revue by promoting the encounter between historical-philosophical and epistemological research. By reconstructing a century of Cartesian interpretations in the Revue, from the 1930s to the present day, the contribution examines the link between the universality of philosophical ideas and the analysis (...) of texts, between the history of ideas and the history of philosophical systems. (shrink)

In this paper I provide an analysis of an anonymous text which appeared at Sondershausen and Mühlhausen in 1687: Initiatio philosophi sive Dubitatio Cartesiana, ad indubiam philosophiam viam monstrans, iuxta mentem Renati des Cartes, Nobilis Galli, utraque methodo explicata, titled after Johannes Clauberg’s homonymous 1655 treatise. It consisted of (1) an abridgement of his Paraphrasis in Renati Des Cartes Meditationes (1658), and (2) a demonstration more geometrico of the necessity of methodical doubt as the beginning of philosophy, partially based on (...) Clauberg’s own 1655 Initiatio. I place the publication of the 1687 text in the context of the attacks on Cartesianism taking place in German areas especially after 1677 and the appearance of Spinoza’s texts, focusing on the ways in which Clauberg’s philosophy was adapted to the rebuking of such attacks and to the re-establishment of a Cartesian presence in Germany. (shrink)

This article provides an analysis of Johannes Clauberg’s intentions in writing his Logica vetus et nova (1654, 1658). Announced before his adherence to Cartesianism, his Logica was eventually developed in order to provide Cartesian philosophy with a Scholastic form, embodying a complete methodology for the academic disciplines based on Descartes’ rules and a medicina mentis against philosophical prejudices. However, this was not its only function: thanks to the rules for the interpretation of philosophical texts it encompassed, Clauberg’s Logica was (...) meant to provide a general hermeneutics designed to put an end to the quarrels raised by the dissemination of Cartesianism. Such quarrels, according to Clauberg, were caused by the misinterpretation of Descartes’ texts in Revius’ Methodi cartesianae consideratio theologica (1648) and Statera philosophiae cartesianae (1650) and in Lentulus’ Nova Renati Descartes sapientia (1651), which criticized the apparent lack of a logical theory in Descartes’ philosophy and its supposed inconsistencies. Clauberg answers their criticisms by giving a clear account of Descartes’ logical theory and by undermining the interpretative criteria they assumed, in light of a general theory of error. Polemics over Cartesian philosophy, in this way, favored the development of a comprehensive Cartesian methodology for academic disciplines and of the first hermeneutics for philosophical texts. (shrink)

The present study defines the function of the foundation of science in early modern Dutch philosophy, from the first introduction of Cartesian philosophy in Utrecht University by Henricus Regius to the acceptance of Newtonian physics by Willem Jacob ‘s Gravesande. My main claim is that a foundation of science was required because the conceptual premises of new ways in thinking had to be justified not only as alternatives to the established philosophical paradigms or as an answer to the “sceptical (...) crisis” signalled by Richard Popkin, but also in order to be introduced in the academia. This being my general thesis, different kinds of foundation of scientific knowledge are analysed in the light of the specific problems philosophers had to face. To this end, foundational theories are analysed in the light of 1) the overall aim of their philosophy, 2) the relations of disciplines they thought out, 3) what they regarded as scientific knowledge. Through this analysis, I assess that the foundation of science was carried out by metaphysical, logical and theological arguments, which fitted the needs of answering the didactical and introductory requirements of new paradigms, assessed the reliability of new methodology in leading us to grasp the truth, and provided philosophy with its conceptual apparatus. Finally, I demonstrate that a philosophy of science as a reflection on the principles, methods, concepts and application of modern science emerged in the Dutch Republic. (shrink)

A large part of Richard Rorty’s works focus on criticizing the received view about philosophy. He argues, in his historical reconstruction of philosophical activity, that there has always been a misconception about philosophy in the history of philosophy. This misconception assumes that philosophy aims to grasp the ultimate knowledge, so it desperately engages in an attempt to achieve “truth”. In this view, which he calls representationalism and points to it by the metaphor of the mirror of nature, knowledge aims to (...) represent something out of mind, and the duty of philosophy is to put forward a theory about the representation. According to Rorty, based on this popular view philosophy is a foundational discipline that aims to evaluate epistemological claims of other disciplines. Rorty attempts to criticize and reject this Cartesian epistemological agenda for philosophy. Rorty’s approach to philosophy is therapeutic; that is, he tries to resolve philosophical problems rather than solve them. By adopting a historical method, Rorty seeks to show that “philosophy as epistemology” is a result of the dominance of what he calls the metaphor of the mirror of nature. From a critical rationalist perspective, the present article intends to critique Rorty’s views on epistemology. In this paper, Rorty’s historiographical approach is criticized in several ways. First, Rorty offers a one-sided and biased reconstruction of the history of philosophy to fit the abovementioned metaphor. Secondly, he treats history as rigid data from which it is possible to draw doctrinal conclusions. Whereas, as critical rationalists have said time and again, history by itself has no meaning. Moreover, Rorty’s justificationism is criticized. Rorty maintains that knowledge needs to be justified, and since it cannot be justified through representation, it must be justified by the consent of society. In other words, agreement in a group of people can provide an epistemic authority. Thus, both Rorty’s view and foundationalism, despite their differences, share justificationism in epistemology. That is, they both believe that knowledge needs to be justified. On the other hand, as critical rationalists have shown, justification in any shape and form, whether internal or external, is neither possible nor necessary. We also attempt to illustrate how Rorty’s epistemological approach results in confusion between epistemology and psychology; moreover, his epistemological behaviorism still suffers from some sort of justifications. In conclusion, Rorty expresses his criticism of epistemology with the metaphor of the mirror of nature. According to him, foundationalism is the result of the conflation of the Platonic conception of knowledge as something unchangeable, with the Cartesian mind that seeks certainty. However, his ignorance of the main crux of the matter in epistemology causes his own suggestion of epistemological behaviorism to suffer from the same problem, that is justificationism, which now appears in another form, i.e., social consensus. While, as critical rationalists repeated time and again, justification is neither possible nor necessary and not even desirable. They have shown that a non-justificationist approach to knowledge aimed at truth as a regulative idea could be a better approach. (shrink)