BUENOS AIRES PROVINCE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT
academic unit of the Ecole Normale Superieure
TOP TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE No. 129
Faculty Chair in Philosophy: Modern Philosophy
Professor: Liliana Ponce
Student: Vivier, Andrea
Nature of work: Monograph
intuition as a starting point
The modern period begins with the birth of a new rationality , science seeks to present their findings in the language of mathematics. There are two features that characterize modernity, one is the absolute confidence in reason and there is the new modern science, the reason is the supreme tribunal to judge between true and false. Another feature is the acceptance of mathematics as a model of knowledge. Modern philosophy, in relation to the context in which it arises, will centrally address the problem of knowledge, the scope of human knowledge. In this paper we address the question of the origin of knowledge, ie what is the starting point that allows the man to know.
The subject begins to take a leading role for their active participation in building knowledge. The question we ask is, where do we start our knowledge? But the answer will not be unique but will be balanced against the philosophers and other cases related to conceptualize two schools of thought. The rationalism that will tell us that true knowledge comes from reason, innate principles that do not need empirical testing. Empiricism that will tell us that true knowledge comes from and is limited by the experience and should be tested empirically.
In this paper we will not emphasize this thematic division but what matters is how we build the edifice of knowledge in modernity as the two philosophers who will find and open the subjectivity of different ways. In relation to this, these thinkers are Descartes and Kant, who will explore the limits of human knowledge and conditions agreeing that the starting point of knowledge is intuition, though, the first tells of an intellectual intuition and an "I think analytical" in which intuition is a simple act that evidence emerging from this very reason, the content of our thought as Descartes are innate ideas that God has placed within us, which is why the idea of \u200b\u200bGod ends ensuring the equation between the thinking subject and object thought. Instead we will talk Kant of a sensible intuition and a "I think synthetic", criticizes the supreme power of reason as the only condition of possibility of knowledge and states that the sensitivity is the ability to provide data responsive to which the empirical intuition calls will be ordered by the pure forms of sensibility, pure intuition (space and time), they are a priori, ie independent of experience. The pure forms of sensible option then sorted by the understanding, through the categories and the pure principles.
René Descartes (1595-1650), is considered the founder of analytical philosophy. In the book Rules for the Direction the spirit (1701) explains the importance of a method as a set of rules to guide intelligence towards true knowledge, to which only accessible through intuition. This method is to doubt everything to get to a truth which can not be doubted: "The aim must be to direct studies to enable the spirit strong and true to form judgments about all things you have" 1. For Descartes, the self doubt, therefore, is the only thing you can be sure there is. Doubt leads to evidence of the thinking self and from there to its existence, or whether the ego is transcended to reality and even the existence of God is the ultimate reason: "Everything that has been revealed by God, more so than any other knowledge" 2
Descartes makes a distinction between thought and matter and this metaphysical Cartesian dualism establishes a radical distinction between mind, whose essence is thought, and matter, whose essence is the three-dimensional extension. For Descartes identity between self and thought, the self is a thinking substance exists, and there is also God's idea, because a man so superior idea must necessarily respond to a reality outside thought, and God is the only guarantee thought that the clear and distinct objects are real.
Cartesian physics considers the extent and single attribute of matter, which is geometric, eliminating all other qualities. The nature for it's mechanical and mathematical order and the amount of movement is constant. Descartes opt for a different interpretation, which came from the tradition of the method. Shares the idea that nature is a dynamic reality with mathematical structure. Also shares the need for the existence of the new method given the failure of previous methods in the knowledge of the truth. But it has a different interpretation of the meaning of mathematics. For Descartes the success of mathematics lies not in its structure today would be called axiomatic but in the method it uses. And this method is a deductive method. If knowledge of nature is possible thanks to mathematics is conceivable that using the method of mathematics to reach the truth and the accurate knowledge of the other aspects of reality.
Descartes, therefore, shares with Bacon and Galileo's method need to know the reality. The criticism that Bacon and Galileo made the Scholastic are similar to those provided by Descartes. The syllogistic method failure, the failure of Aristotelian physics, necessitate a new method for interpreting reality. This confidence is the reason that has been gaining autonomy in the turn of the century XVI and XVII. Descartes proposes a method that has to be a mathematician and universal, whatever your application or field of knowledge to which it relates, "So, I understand certain rules and easy method by which the exact look that will not ever anything false and true, and not using any unnecessary exertion of mind, but always gradually increasing their knowledge, come to true knowledge of everything that is capable of. "3
Compared to other solutions to the problem of knowledge and the constitution "science" that will arise at the time, such as empiricism, Descartes will choose the rational solution. Rationalism is characterized by the claim that the certainty of knowledge comes from reason, which is associated with the affirmation of the existence of innate ideas. This will involve the impairment of sensory knowledge, which can not be the knowledge base, being reason as the only source of knowledge. In parallel, mathematical models of knowledge (to the extent that mathematics does not depend on experience) are revalued. Rationalism affirm the intellectual intuition of ideas and clear principles, from which the deduction begins to know, just as the whole body of mathematics follows from a first obvious and unprovable principles. In this way, we can bring to the Discourse on Method (1637), the four rules or precepts of the same: the rule of evidence, the analysis, synthesis, and count:
"... instead the large number of precepts that make up the logic, I thought I would have enough with the four following, provided they take a firm and constant resolution not stop watching them even once.
- The first was not ever receiving anything as true that do not clearly recognize as such, ie carefully avoid precipitation and prevention and not cover in my judgments nothing more than what is presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
- Second, divide each of the difficulties to consider, in as many places as possible and was required to solve them better.
- The third, driving in my thoughts, starting with the simplest objects and easier to learn to climb slightly, and by degrees, to the knowledge of the most complex, even if an order among those who do not naturally precede each other.
- And finally, do all enumerations so complete and reviews so general that they stay safe are not missing anything. "4
The first two make up what has been called the analytical method; and the other two the plastic part. The method would comprise, for two basic operations: analysis and synthesis. With respect to analysis, represent what might be called a form of knowledge itself to the discovery and research allow us to separate the accidental, and establish order correction in the analytical sequence, asserting the primacy of simplicity. The synthesis would be a form of knowledge useful to expose, explain, or teach what we know through research or discovery, as well as the creation of knowledge as a system. Descartes offers us here
intuition and deduction as the only two ways of knowing and, therefore, as those elements on which method should be built. In Rule III, we define intuition as the starting point: "I understand by intuition, not the variable belief in the testimony of the senses or the deceptive judgments of the imagination, bad regulator, but the conception of a healthy spirit attentive, so different and so easy that no doubt is about the known, or what is the same, the design firm that is born in a healthy and friendly spirit, by the natural light of reason. "5
The intuition is as the basic element of knowledge. Actually claimed as a feature simplicity of intuition, which is associated in Descartes clearly and distinctly from the known. Intuition necessarily establishes a direct relationship with the object, so that should be noted character of immediacy. The object known, as we know, is a mental content and not an element of experience. Referred to intuition as a natural light, a kind of intellectual vision, an act of the intellect.
Indeed, intuition refers to a simple content, but not without relationships. When I grasp the idea of \u200b\u200ba triangle, I understand that is a figure of three sides, which is composed of three lines that intersect in the same plane, forming angles etc., and all these elements found in the intuition captured as elements necessarily correlated, ie not at the same instant, but the passing of temporality. Hence, intuition leads us inevitably to a deduction, which consist of a succession of intuitions, supported memory. The deduction "is a transaction by which we understand all the things that are a necessary consequence of other known to us with certainty" 6. Distinguish the intuition of the deduction that this is seen a movement or a certain sequence and it does not, because the deduction and intuition need not present evidence, but in somewhat borrows from memory. In short, intuition gives us knowledge of the principles and the deduction of the far-reaching consequences, which can not be reached otherwise.
Intuitive knowledge is what constitutes the beginning, the standard term and the whole process because the analytical and synthetic deduction is only articulated intuitions to which I give him a place in memory. This intuition which reduces all true knowledge is purely intellectual and refers to God in two ways, by its origin and nature, so that we can come to the conclusion that nothing can be known beyond these simple natures (intuitions) that turn are present in the prefect and infinite idea of \u200b\u200bGod. Intuitive knowledge only allows us in some way to the absolute.
The content of our thoughts are ideas and Descartes speaks of innate ideas are those that do not originate or external to experience mental or imaginative construction but the understanding is by nature itself. Are true and immutable essences, clear and distinct, ie they are intuitions: the idea of \u200b\u200bthought, of the existence of God and the principle of contradiction.
regard to the cause of occurrence of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod, there are three Cartesian arguments. The first says that the cause of an infinite idea can not be more than an infinite substance to which we arrive through intuition. The second states that God is conceived by me as infinite and perfect idea, if it had been the cause of myself, I would have given the perfections which I conceive the idea of \u200b\u200bGod as not, I have not created me myself and I had to be created by a being whose idea porto in my mind. The third argument says that it is not possible to conceive of God as non-existent, since, if supremely perfect being is clearly and distinctly that existence must be one of his perfections. Of these three trials concluded or inferred the existence of God and with him the evidence standard is the ultimate guarantee "That idea is as well as clear and distinct, well because contains within itself all that my mind clearly and distinctly conceives as real and true, and everything that involves some perfection. And that remains true, although I do not understand the infinite, or even a god has many things that I can not understand, or even meet with my thought: it is characteristic of the nature of infinity that I, being finite , can not understand it. "7
reason for Descartes represents the things we do know that external reality is also governed by rational laws, we have an intuition for everything we saw of it and is presented in a clear and distinct. So looking for the truth and the universal rational order to establish a science with a single method appears universal mathematics "only, it matters little whether seeking such as numbers, shapes, stars, sounds or any other object, and therefore, there must be a general science that explains everything that can be investigated about the order and measurement. "8
In connection with this, says Descartes, that having certainty that we know the external world of matter and intuition we capture two types of qualities from the world. Improper qualities are due to our spirit and the qualities are attributed to the material itself, the corporeal substance has only one natural, the extension, by virtue of being "extended body" have the same certainty that "I think therefore I am" and this is the intuitive certainty that all knowledge must begin the world, the qualities of the res extensa will be derived from its extension.
The subject begins to take a leading role for their active participation in building knowledge. The question we ask is, where do we start our knowledge? But the answer will not be unique but will be balanced against the philosophers and other cases related to conceptualize two schools of thought. The rationalism that will tell us that true knowledge comes from reason, innate principles that do not need empirical testing. Empiricism that will tell us that true knowledge comes from and is limited by the experience and should be tested empirically.
In this paper we will not emphasize this thematic division but what matters is how we build the edifice of knowledge in modernity as the two philosophers who will find and open the subjectivity of different ways. In relation to this, these thinkers are Descartes and Kant, who will explore the limits of human knowledge and conditions agreeing that the starting point of knowledge is intuition, though, the first tells of an intellectual intuition and an "I think analytical" in which intuition is a simple act that evidence emerging from this very reason, the content of our thought as Descartes are innate ideas that God has placed within us, which is why the idea of \u200b\u200bGod ends ensuring the equation between the thinking subject and object thought. Instead we will talk Kant of a sensible intuition and a "I think synthetic", criticizes the supreme power of reason as the only condition of possibility of knowledge and states that the sensitivity is the ability to provide data responsive to which the empirical intuition calls will be ordered by the pure forms of sensibility, pure intuition (space and time), they are a priori, ie independent of experience. The pure forms of sensible option then sorted by the understanding, through the categories and the pure principles.
René Descartes (1595-1650), is considered the founder of analytical philosophy. In the book Rules for the Direction the spirit (1701) explains the importance of a method as a set of rules to guide intelligence towards true knowledge, to which only accessible through intuition. This method is to doubt everything to get to a truth which can not be doubted: "The aim must be to direct studies to enable the spirit strong and true to form judgments about all things you have" 1. For Descartes, the self doubt, therefore, is the only thing you can be sure there is. Doubt leads to evidence of the thinking self and from there to its existence, or whether the ego is transcended to reality and even the existence of God is the ultimate reason: "Everything that has been revealed by God, more so than any other knowledge" 2
Descartes makes a distinction between thought and matter and this metaphysical Cartesian dualism establishes a radical distinction between mind, whose essence is thought, and matter, whose essence is the three-dimensional extension. For Descartes identity between self and thought, the self is a thinking substance exists, and there is also God's idea, because a man so superior idea must necessarily respond to a reality outside thought, and God is the only guarantee thought that the clear and distinct objects are real.
Cartesian physics considers the extent and single attribute of matter, which is geometric, eliminating all other qualities. The nature for it's mechanical and mathematical order and the amount of movement is constant. Descartes opt for a different interpretation, which came from the tradition of the method. Shares the idea that nature is a dynamic reality with mathematical structure. Also shares the need for the existence of the new method given the failure of previous methods in the knowledge of the truth. But it has a different interpretation of the meaning of mathematics. For Descartes the success of mathematics lies not in its structure today would be called axiomatic but in the method it uses. And this method is a deductive method. If knowledge of nature is possible thanks to mathematics is conceivable that using the method of mathematics to reach the truth and the accurate knowledge of the other aspects of reality.
Descartes, therefore, shares with Bacon and Galileo's method need to know the reality. The criticism that Bacon and Galileo made the Scholastic are similar to those provided by Descartes. The syllogistic method failure, the failure of Aristotelian physics, necessitate a new method for interpreting reality. This confidence is the reason that has been gaining autonomy in the turn of the century XVI and XVII. Descartes proposes a method that has to be a mathematician and universal, whatever your application or field of knowledge to which it relates, "So, I understand certain rules and easy method by which the exact look that will not ever anything false and true, and not using any unnecessary exertion of mind, but always gradually increasing their knowledge, come to true knowledge of everything that is capable of. "3
Compared to other solutions to the problem of knowledge and the constitution "science" that will arise at the time, such as empiricism, Descartes will choose the rational solution. Rationalism is characterized by the claim that the certainty of knowledge comes from reason, which is associated with the affirmation of the existence of innate ideas. This will involve the impairment of sensory knowledge, which can not be the knowledge base, being reason as the only source of knowledge. In parallel, mathematical models of knowledge (to the extent that mathematics does not depend on experience) are revalued. Rationalism affirm the intellectual intuition of ideas and clear principles, from which the deduction begins to know, just as the whole body of mathematics follows from a first obvious and unprovable principles. In this way, we can bring to the Discourse on Method (1637), the four rules or precepts of the same: the rule of evidence, the analysis, synthesis, and count:
"... instead the large number of precepts that make up the logic, I thought I would have enough with the four following, provided they take a firm and constant resolution not stop watching them even once.
- The first was not ever receiving anything as true that do not clearly recognize as such, ie carefully avoid precipitation and prevention and not cover in my judgments nothing more than what is presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
- Second, divide each of the difficulties to consider, in as many places as possible and was required to solve them better.
- The third, driving in my thoughts, starting with the simplest objects and easier to learn to climb slightly, and by degrees, to the knowledge of the most complex, even if an order among those who do not naturally precede each other.
- And finally, do all enumerations so complete and reviews so general that they stay safe are not missing anything. "4
The first two make up what has been called the analytical method; and the other two the plastic part. The method would comprise, for two basic operations: analysis and synthesis. With respect to analysis, represent what might be called a form of knowledge itself to the discovery and research allow us to separate the accidental, and establish order correction in the analytical sequence, asserting the primacy of simplicity. The synthesis would be a form of knowledge useful to expose, explain, or teach what we know through research or discovery, as well as the creation of knowledge as a system. Descartes offers us here
intuition and deduction as the only two ways of knowing and, therefore, as those elements on which method should be built. In Rule III, we define intuition as the starting point: "I understand by intuition, not the variable belief in the testimony of the senses or the deceptive judgments of the imagination, bad regulator, but the conception of a healthy spirit attentive, so different and so easy that no doubt is about the known, or what is the same, the design firm that is born in a healthy and friendly spirit, by the natural light of reason. "5
The intuition is as the basic element of knowledge. Actually claimed as a feature simplicity of intuition, which is associated in Descartes clearly and distinctly from the known. Intuition necessarily establishes a direct relationship with the object, so that should be noted character of immediacy. The object known, as we know, is a mental content and not an element of experience. Referred to intuition as a natural light, a kind of intellectual vision, an act of the intellect.
Indeed, intuition refers to a simple content, but not without relationships. When I grasp the idea of \u200b\u200ba triangle, I understand that is a figure of three sides, which is composed of three lines that intersect in the same plane, forming angles etc., and all these elements found in the intuition captured as elements necessarily correlated, ie not at the same instant, but the passing of temporality. Hence, intuition leads us inevitably to a deduction, which consist of a succession of intuitions, supported memory. The deduction "is a transaction by which we understand all the things that are a necessary consequence of other known to us with certainty" 6. Distinguish the intuition of the deduction that this is seen a movement or a certain sequence and it does not, because the deduction and intuition need not present evidence, but in somewhat borrows from memory. In short, intuition gives us knowledge of the principles and the deduction of the far-reaching consequences, which can not be reached otherwise.
Intuitive knowledge is what constitutes the beginning, the standard term and the whole process because the analytical and synthetic deduction is only articulated intuitions to which I give him a place in memory. This intuition which reduces all true knowledge is purely intellectual and refers to God in two ways, by its origin and nature, so that we can come to the conclusion that nothing can be known beyond these simple natures (intuitions) that turn are present in the prefect and infinite idea of \u200b\u200bGod. Intuitive knowledge only allows us in some way to the absolute.
The content of our thoughts are ideas and Descartes speaks of innate ideas are those that do not originate or external to experience mental or imaginative construction but the understanding is by nature itself. Are true and immutable essences, clear and distinct, ie they are intuitions: the idea of \u200b\u200bthought, of the existence of God and the principle of contradiction.
regard to the cause of occurrence of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod, there are three Cartesian arguments. The first says that the cause of an infinite idea can not be more than an infinite substance to which we arrive through intuition. The second states that God is conceived by me as infinite and perfect idea, if it had been the cause of myself, I would have given the perfections which I conceive the idea of \u200b\u200bGod as not, I have not created me myself and I had to be created by a being whose idea porto in my mind. The third argument says that it is not possible to conceive of God as non-existent, since, if supremely perfect being is clearly and distinctly that existence must be one of his perfections. Of these three trials concluded or inferred the existence of God and with him the evidence standard is the ultimate guarantee "That idea is as well as clear and distinct, well because contains within itself all that my mind clearly and distinctly conceives as real and true, and everything that involves some perfection. And that remains true, although I do not understand the infinite, or even a god has many things that I can not understand, or even meet with my thought: it is characteristic of the nature of infinity that I, being finite , can not understand it. "7
reason for Descartes represents the things we do know that external reality is also governed by rational laws, we have an intuition for everything we saw of it and is presented in a clear and distinct. So looking for the truth and the universal rational order to establish a science with a single method appears universal mathematics "only, it matters little whether seeking such as numbers, shapes, stars, sounds or any other object, and therefore, there must be a general science that explains everything that can be investigated about the order and measurement. "8
In connection with this, says Descartes, that having certainty that we know the external world of matter and intuition we capture two types of qualities from the world. Improper qualities are due to our spirit and the qualities are attributed to the material itself, the corporeal substance has only one natural, the extension, by virtue of being "extended body" have the same certainty that "I think therefore I am" and this is the intuitive certainty that all knowledge must begin the world, the qualities of the res extensa will be derived from its extension.
substance
The world is vast and knowable by an intellectual intuition. Descartes is the substance that might not need another to survive, in conclusion, there are three substances in line with the three ideas that have been working: res extensa (matter, the world), res cogitans (thought), respectively infinite (God). With regard to knowledge of things in the world, tells us that can take account of other powers to access the truth of knowledge the two essential mechanism for achieving true knowledge are intuition and deduction: "Finally, it must employ all means of understanding, of the imagination, the senses and the memory, just to have an intuition different propositions conveniently simple to compare what you are looking to what is known. "9
corollary to the implementation of the doubt as a research method emphasizes Descartes search for certainty as their goal. Believes that knowledge, to be taken as true, must possess the characteristic of certainty, which would mean a sort of security in the truth of knowledge. In his book Meditations metaphysical (1641), speaks of the knowledge of God and the things he says that man is the union of cogitans res and res extensa, first conceived the primary properties of objects through reason and the second , handles sensory and emotional properties for transmission to the "I thought, but also appears infinite res is the bridge between ideas with things. God has planted in us the ideas that help us understand the world: "And no wonder that God, in creating me have placed in me this idea as the seal of the artist, printed in his work, nor is it necessary that this stamp is something other than the work itself. But on only having created me, is to believe that God has me in a way, his image and likeness, and I conceive this similarity by the same faculty that I perceive myself: "10
The world is vast and knowable by an intellectual intuition. Descartes is the substance that might not need another to survive, in conclusion, there are three substances in line with the three ideas that have been working: res extensa (matter, the world), res cogitans (thought), respectively infinite (God). With regard to knowledge of things in the world, tells us that can take account of other powers to access the truth of knowledge the two essential mechanism for achieving true knowledge are intuition and deduction: "Finally, it must employ all means of understanding, of the imagination, the senses and the memory, just to have an intuition different propositions conveniently simple to compare what you are looking to what is known. "9
corollary to the implementation of the doubt as a research method emphasizes Descartes search for certainty as their goal. Believes that knowledge, to be taken as true, must possess the characteristic of certainty, which would mean a sort of security in the truth of knowledge. In his book Meditations metaphysical (1641), speaks of the knowledge of God and the things he says that man is the union of cogitans res and res extensa, first conceived the primary properties of objects through reason and the second , handles sensory and emotional properties for transmission to the "I thought, but also appears infinite res is the bridge between ideas with things. God has planted in us the ideas that help us understand the world: "And no wonder that God, in creating me have placed in me this idea as the seal of the artist, printed in his work, nor is it necessary that this stamp is something other than the work itself. But on only having created me, is to believe that God has me in a way, his image and likeness, and I conceive this similarity by the same faculty that I perceive myself: "10
In the first meditation are treated certainly the main reasons that can affect all their knowledge. The senses are the main source of our knowledge, however, many times I have found that the senses deceive me, as when as when I see the sun as a circle is really small, giant, and similar situations. It is unwise to rely on who has deceived us on occasion, so it will be necessary to place doubt and, therefore, put on hold all knowledge derived from the senses. I can consider, then, that there is no certainty in knowledge, and to consider false all derived from the senses.
However, it might seem exaggerated to doubt everything that I perceive through the senses, as seems obvious to me that I'm here and things like that, but, says Descartes, that security in the immediate sensitive data can also be questioned, given that we can not clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep, (what happens to us when we are awake or when we are asleep). This inability to distinguish sleep from waking, to me seem exaggerated, it must lead not only to spread doubt all sensible, but also within the scope of my thoughts, understanding more intellectual operations, which all seem to derive from the senses. The lack of distinction between sleep and wakefulness leads me to extend the question of the sensible to the intelligible, so that all my skills now seem highly uncertain.
Still, seems to have some knowledge of which I can not reasonably doubt, as the mathematical knowledge. But Descartes raises the possibility that the same God who created me I could have created so that when I judge that 2 +2 = 4 I'm wrong, in fact sometimes allows me wrong, so that could allow I always mistaken, even when I judge truths as "obvious" as mathematical truths. In that case all my skills would be questionable and therefore, according to established criteria, should be considered all false.
For all these reasons, Descartes presents another option: that there is an evil genius who is always interfering in my mental operations so as to make it constantly take the false for true, so I always cheat. In this case, since I am unable to eliminate this possibility, because sometimes I really cheating, I consider all my skills are questionable. Thus, the question has to be extended to all the knowledge that seem to derive from the experience. Doubt progresses therefore, sensible to the intelligible, covering the whole of my knowledge, through the four stages outlined above. Not only do I doubt all the knowledge that comes from the senses, but also those that appear to come from the senses, as I am unable to remove the uncertainty that surrounds them.
In the second meditation, going over the uncertain situation where at the end of the first, was forced to doubt everything, Descartes realizes, however, that there must be deceived by what it perceives the following proposition: "I think, I exist" must be true, at least while you're thinking: "So after having thought and careful consideration of all things, we must conclude, and rest assured that this proposition, I think, I exist, is necessarily true, every time you utter or conceive it in my spirit. "11 This proposition beyond all reason of doubt, even assuming the existence of an evil genius that makes me always wrong, when I think that 2 and 2 make four, for example, is necessary so that I'm wrong, there. This proposition, "I think, I am "is presented with absolute clarity and distinction, so it resists all grounds for doubt and enjoys absolute certainty:" This is the first truth that I can be sure than I can say is obvious, but warned Of course, when I would think that luck, that everything is false, it was necessary for me, that I thought, was something, and noting that this truth "I think, therefore I am 'was so firm and sure that the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics are unable to move her, I thought I could receive it without scruple as the beginning of philosophy I was looking for. "13
As the characteristics with which I am presented with such evidence are clearly and distinctly, these two properties will consider Descartes as the characteristics required of all proposals to be considered true. Having discovered that first truth, "There is, therefore, doubt some of which I am, as I deceived and misled as much as me, will never make me be nothing, while I'm thinking I'm something. So that, having thought about it and having carefully considered everything, it follows finally have the constant and the following proposition: "I am, therefore I exist" is necessarily true while I'm speaking or conceiving in my mind. " 14 The cogito is an intuitive knowledge, which means that it is known immediately, and not as direct deduction of a major premise.
show respect to the content of thought, Descartes tells us that there are three types of ideas: some that appear to come from outside me, which he calls "adventitious ideas", while others appear to have been produced by me, which called "fictitious ideas" and others, finally, that seem to come from abroad or have been produced by me, which call "innate ideas." Adventitious ideas, as they seem to come from external objects to me, are subject to the same doubt that the existence of external objects, so that can not be used in advancing the process of deduction, and so does factitious ideas, in so far appears to be produced by me, using adventitious ideas and should therefore also be subject to doubt. We have only innate ideas.
is to eliminate possibility that these ideas may have been caused by me. Once assured that Descartes considers two of these ideas, the infinity and perfection, and arguing that there may have been caused by me, since I am finite and imperfect, could only have been caused by a being provided to them by what must have been placed in me by an infinite and perfect, that is the cause of the ideas of infinity and perfection that is in me. From them, Descartes demonstrated the existence of God through the two known arguments based on the idea of \u200b\u200binfinity and perfection. Demonstrated the existence of God, because God can not be imperfect, eliminating the possibility that I've created so I always cheat, and the possibility of allowing an evil genius deceiving me constantly, so that the grounds for doubting both the mathematics and general truths of all the intelligible and the truths that seem to derive from the senses are eliminated. I can therefore believe in the existence of the world, ie the existence of an external reality me with the same certainty with which it is true the statement "I think, I exist" (which led me to the existence God, who appears as the ultimate guarantor of the existence of extra-mental reality of the world).
In conclusion, intuition and deduction are the way knowledge that elapses. The method has to show the internal dynamism of reason, which is unique. Therefore, we can say that "I think, therefore I am" is the result of intuition. This intuition will be the first in a genetic system such as Cartesian. For Descartes, knowledge does not come from reality, but of reason, which raises the thought. Things are objects of knowledge. It is a symmetrical inversion of classical thought: if, before the foundation was out, now inside, if before the truth was the adaptation of thought to reality, now is clarity of thought itself, which in itself imposes like rational evidence.
However, it might seem exaggerated to doubt everything that I perceive through the senses, as seems obvious to me that I'm here and things like that, but, says Descartes, that security in the immediate sensitive data can also be questioned, given that we can not clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep, (what happens to us when we are awake or when we are asleep). This inability to distinguish sleep from waking, to me seem exaggerated, it must lead not only to spread doubt all sensible, but also within the scope of my thoughts, understanding more intellectual operations, which all seem to derive from the senses. The lack of distinction between sleep and wakefulness leads me to extend the question of the sensible to the intelligible, so that all my skills now seem highly uncertain.
Still, seems to have some knowledge of which I can not reasonably doubt, as the mathematical knowledge. But Descartes raises the possibility that the same God who created me I could have created so that when I judge that 2 +2 = 4 I'm wrong, in fact sometimes allows me wrong, so that could allow I always mistaken, even when I judge truths as "obvious" as mathematical truths. In that case all my skills would be questionable and therefore, according to established criteria, should be considered all false.
For all these reasons, Descartes presents another option: that there is an evil genius who is always interfering in my mental operations so as to make it constantly take the false for true, so I always cheat. In this case, since I am unable to eliminate this possibility, because sometimes I really cheating, I consider all my skills are questionable. Thus, the question has to be extended to all the knowledge that seem to derive from the experience. Doubt progresses therefore, sensible to the intelligible, covering the whole of my knowledge, through the four stages outlined above. Not only do I doubt all the knowledge that comes from the senses, but also those that appear to come from the senses, as I am unable to remove the uncertainty that surrounds them.
In the second meditation, going over the uncertain situation where at the end of the first, was forced to doubt everything, Descartes realizes, however, that there must be deceived by what it perceives the following proposition: "I think, I exist" must be true, at least while you're thinking: "So after having thought and careful consideration of all things, we must conclude, and rest assured that this proposition, I think, I exist, is necessarily true, every time you utter or conceive it in my spirit. "11 This proposition beyond all reason of doubt, even assuming the existence of an evil genius that makes me always wrong, when I think that 2 and 2 make four, for example, is necessary so that I'm wrong, there. This proposition, "I think, I am "is presented with absolute clarity and distinction, so it resists all grounds for doubt and enjoys absolute certainty:" This is the first truth that I can be sure than I can say is obvious, but warned Of course, when I would think that luck, that everything is false, it was necessary for me, that I thought, was something, and noting that this truth "I think, therefore I am 'was so firm and sure that the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics are unable to move her, I thought I could receive it without scruple as the beginning of philosophy I was looking for. "13
As the characteristics with which I am presented with such evidence are clearly and distinctly, these two properties will consider Descartes as the characteristics required of all proposals to be considered true. Having discovered that first truth, "There is, therefore, doubt some of which I am, as I deceived and misled as much as me, will never make me be nothing, while I'm thinking I'm something. So that, having thought about it and having carefully considered everything, it follows finally have the constant and the following proposition: "I am, therefore I exist" is necessarily true while I'm speaking or conceiving in my mind. " 14 The cogito is an intuitive knowledge, which means that it is known immediately, and not as direct deduction of a major premise.
show respect to the content of thought, Descartes tells us that there are three types of ideas: some that appear to come from outside me, which he calls "adventitious ideas", while others appear to have been produced by me, which called "fictitious ideas" and others, finally, that seem to come from abroad or have been produced by me, which call "innate ideas." Adventitious ideas, as they seem to come from external objects to me, are subject to the same doubt that the existence of external objects, so that can not be used in advancing the process of deduction, and so does factitious ideas, in so far appears to be produced by me, using adventitious ideas and should therefore also be subject to doubt. We have only innate ideas.
is to eliminate possibility that these ideas may have been caused by me. Once assured that Descartes considers two of these ideas, the infinity and perfection, and arguing that there may have been caused by me, since I am finite and imperfect, could only have been caused by a being provided to them by what must have been placed in me by an infinite and perfect, that is the cause of the ideas of infinity and perfection that is in me. From them, Descartes demonstrated the existence of God through the two known arguments based on the idea of \u200b\u200binfinity and perfection. Demonstrated the existence of God, because God can not be imperfect, eliminating the possibility that I've created so I always cheat, and the possibility of allowing an evil genius deceiving me constantly, so that the grounds for doubting both the mathematics and general truths of all the intelligible and the truths that seem to derive from the senses are eliminated. I can therefore believe in the existence of the world, ie the existence of an external reality me with the same certainty with which it is true the statement "I think, I exist" (which led me to the existence God, who appears as the ultimate guarantor of the existence of extra-mental reality of the world).
In conclusion, intuition and deduction are the way knowledge that elapses. The method has to show the internal dynamism of reason, which is unique. Therefore, we can say that "I think, therefore I am" is the result of intuition. This intuition will be the first in a genetic system such as Cartesian. For Descartes, knowledge does not come from reality, but of reason, which raises the thought. Things are objects of knowledge. It is a symmetrical inversion of classical thought: if, before the foundation was out, now inside, if before the truth was the adaptation of thought to reality, now is clarity of thought itself, which in itself imposes like rational evidence.
Like Descartes, Kant in his famous work: CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON (1781), we are also going to talk about intuition as a starting point, but it will explain the concepts of empirical intuition and pure intuition. The first deals with the set of sensations or impressions that we perceive the outside world (through experience), and the second is formed by space and time as pure forms, a priori, sensitivity. But before delving here, we will explain the development of his thought, which goes to show that the order, rationality, which we found in the outer, is given by the inner of the subject. The notion of building knowledge will drive the intuition. Metaphysics in which Kant was formed to take mathematics as an ideal of science and believed that philosophy should be a deductive activity, based on pure reason (Descartes). Kant argued at first this kind of philosophy but later found a new foundation of metaphysics, which consisted of a critique of reason itself on its scope and limits. The most important thing is that Kantian work tries to establish the parameters of the exercise of reason that does not take his support in the experience but that unfolds from itself. Kant believes that legitimate use of reason when limited to knowledge of empirical objects, objects that appear in our perceptual experience (whether internal or external). However, when using pure reason with the aim of reaching non-physical objects or psychic but transcendent, human reason beyond its limits and leads to contradictions and absurdities.
Kant: "There is no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. Then why would wake up where the ability to know, for exercise, and not through objects that affect our senses and now lead their own representations, now set in motion our intellectual capacity to compare, link them, or separate and develop so, with the raw material of sensible impressions, knowledge of objects called the experience? "(...)" But if it all our knowledge begins with experience, not all of it that originated in the experience, "15 there knowledge priori, independent of all experience and empirical knowledge which subsequently found its source in experience. In asserting that knowledge is limited to the experience, the Kantian philosophy is close to empiricism, and say that not all knowledge comes from experience is close to dogmatism. The essential problem is to try to Kant is the limit and the possibility of human knowledge. The experience can only be understood through an interior space-time structure. In Kant, for example, mathematics is not placed priority field of the derivation of logical principles, is not analytical, but it is synthetic because it requires the intervention of intuition (space-time) a priori in the measure that is independent of experience.
Human reason is driven to want to know about issues that can not be answered by the empirical use of reason, nor by principles drawn from the experience: "From all this follows the idea of \u200b\u200ba special science that can be called critical Pure Reason. For reason is the faculty that provides the principles of knowledge a priori. So it is pure reason that it contains the principles for knowing absolutely a priori. "16 Kant called transcendental all knowledge which is devoted to study the mode of knowing objects, as this is possible a priori. TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC
Kant calls, science of all principles a priori of sensibility, this section will present the concept of intuition: "The immediate reference to an object. But this does not take place but as an object is given to us (...). The ability to receive representations by how we are affected by objects, call sensibility. "17 This means that through awareness we are given the objects and it gives us insights. The sensitivity gives us feelings and intuition when referring to the object through sensation is called empirical intuition. They are pure intuitions "all the representations which is not anything that belongs to sensation." 18 The synthesis of sensations or empirical data, as matter, and form a priori is the phenomenon. The pure forms or a priori principles of the sensitivity are the space and time, conditions of possibility of all experience.
Kant argues that human receptivity has conditions, certain ways that do not depend on experience, which he calls, as stated above pure intuitions. Space is the form of all phenomena in the external sense and time is the form of inner sense, ie the intuition of ourselves and our inner state, how the sense by which we become aware of ourselves. Keep in mind that time is the formal condition of all phenomena in general, because all representations whether or not external things as objects in themselves belong to the internal state, such as determinations of the spirit. The exhibition
metaphysics of space, we say that space is not experience, but experience is the space as its condition, ie, space is a priori: "Space is a necessary representation a priori, that is based all external intuitions. We can never represent that there is no space, though we think very well that the objects are few. It is considered therefore the space as the condition of possibility of phenomena and not as a determination dependent on these, and is a representation a priori, which necessarily is the basis of external phenomena.. "19 Kant tries to show that space is the basis of certain a priori synthetic knowledge a priori. The geometry determined syntactically a priori the properties of space. For this, the space must be a priori or pure intuition. Space is not a concept but a pure intuition because it gives me immediately, not discursively not through abstracting the common note after passing through different representations. It gives me a whole at a time. Space has no boundaries, extending indefinitely:
Kant: "There is no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. Then why would wake up where the ability to know, for exercise, and not through objects that affect our senses and now lead their own representations, now set in motion our intellectual capacity to compare, link them, or separate and develop so, with the raw material of sensible impressions, knowledge of objects called the experience? "(...)" But if it all our knowledge begins with experience, not all of it that originated in the experience, "15 there knowledge priori, independent of all experience and empirical knowledge which subsequently found its source in experience. In asserting that knowledge is limited to the experience, the Kantian philosophy is close to empiricism, and say that not all knowledge comes from experience is close to dogmatism. The essential problem is to try to Kant is the limit and the possibility of human knowledge. The experience can only be understood through an interior space-time structure. In Kant, for example, mathematics is not placed priority field of the derivation of logical principles, is not analytical, but it is synthetic because it requires the intervention of intuition (space-time) a priori in the measure that is independent of experience.
Human reason is driven to want to know about issues that can not be answered by the empirical use of reason, nor by principles drawn from the experience: "From all this follows the idea of \u200b\u200ba special science that can be called critical Pure Reason. For reason is the faculty that provides the principles of knowledge a priori. So it is pure reason that it contains the principles for knowing absolutely a priori. "16 Kant called transcendental all knowledge which is devoted to study the mode of knowing objects, as this is possible a priori. TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC
Kant calls, science of all principles a priori of sensibility, this section will present the concept of intuition: "The immediate reference to an object. But this does not take place but as an object is given to us (...). The ability to receive representations by how we are affected by objects, call sensibility. "17 This means that through awareness we are given the objects and it gives us insights. The sensitivity gives us feelings and intuition when referring to the object through sensation is called empirical intuition. They are pure intuitions "all the representations which is not anything that belongs to sensation." 18 The synthesis of sensations or empirical data, as matter, and form a priori is the phenomenon. The pure forms or a priori principles of the sensitivity are the space and time, conditions of possibility of all experience.
Kant argues that human receptivity has conditions, certain ways that do not depend on experience, which he calls, as stated above pure intuitions. Space is the form of all phenomena in the external sense and time is the form of inner sense, ie the intuition of ourselves and our inner state, how the sense by which we become aware of ourselves. Keep in mind that time is the formal condition of all phenomena in general, because all representations whether or not external things as objects in themselves belong to the internal state, such as determinations of the spirit. The exhibition
metaphysics of space, we say that space is not experience, but experience is the space as its condition, ie, space is a priori: "Space is a necessary representation a priori, that is based all external intuitions. We can never represent that there is no space, though we think very well that the objects are few. It is considered therefore the space as the condition of possibility of phenomena and not as a determination dependent on these, and is a representation a priori, which necessarily is the basis of external phenomena.. "19 Kant tries to show that space is the basis of certain a priori synthetic knowledge a priori. The geometry determined syntactically a priori the properties of space. For this, the space must be a priori or pure intuition. Space is not a concept but a pure intuition because it gives me immediately, not discursively not through abstracting the common note after passing through different representations. It gives me a whole at a time. Space has no boundaries, extending indefinitely:
"Space is nothing but us how all phenomena of outer sense, ie, the subjective condition of sensibility, under which is only possible for us outer intuition.. "20 The responsiveness of the subject to be affected by objects is precedent, the form of all phenomena is given in the spirit before the actual perceptions.
metaphysical time exposure, according to Kant, we says that time is not experience, but on the contrary, experience is the time as a condition of it, because the representation of time is not the way by abstraction of temporal relations, but they make sense only if they involve the time: "Time is a necessary representation that lies at the root of all intuitions.." 21 We can think of a time gap in which there is no object, but it is not possible to represent any phenomenon if there is time. The time is not a discursive concept but is a pure form of sensible intuition. The time is the form of inner sense, is the formal condition a priori of all phenomena in general, space is limited to external events can change over time gives meaning to our inner, reflective awareness of ourselves in front of what surrounds us and in front of our subjectivity.
Finally, Kant says that space and time have empirical reality and transcendental idealism, the first thing to say that space and time are valid for all objects that we sense in the experience, and the latter means that if we disregard the conditions of our sensibility, space and time are nothing, because all knowledge is knowledge of phenomena, things in themselves are unknowable: "We wanted to say that our intuition is nothing more than a representation of the phenomenon we sense that things are not in themselves what we sense in them, nor are they established their relations in themselves as we appear to us .... "22 The space and time itself can not exist by themselves, but only in us. We can not access the knowledge of what are the things themselves, we can only know how to intuit.
knowledge is not built only on intuition, they are the starting point by which an object is given to us, but then we have to think according to their representation. Sensitivity is the receptivity of our mind to receive representations in As it is affected in some way. Understanding is the ability to produce our own performances, or the spontaneity of knowledge. "Our nature entails that intuition can not be more than sensitive, ie to enclose only the way we are affected objects" (22)
however is understanding the power of thinking the object of sensible intuition. "If any of these properties is given then there is no knowledge." Without awareness, we would not be given any object, and without understanding, no one would have thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind (...) Only the union can lead to knowledge " 23
sensitivity performed the first synthesis to unify sensations in time and space. In the transcendental analytic is to study the faculty of understanding. Think the logic is concerned, Kant not build a general but a transcendental logic, which will study the pure thought, ie, a thinking which deals with the concepts which relate a priori to objects. As before we talk about the insights, concepts are also empirical and pure, the first derived from references given in the experience as "dog", the latter are concepts that refer to objects but are independent of experience, he calls categories (quality, quantity, modality of the relationship). The metaphysical deduction shows how many and what categories and the transcendental deduction, deals with the objective validity of pure concepts. Understanding is the ability to know the concepts, ie judgments. The judge is to link representations. Therefore, thinking is an act of synthesis or binding representations: "I understand short, in the most general sense, the action of adding different representations to each other and understand their diversity in knowledge." 24
The transcendental deduction of all a priori concepts thus has a principle to which should be straightened research: that these concepts have to be known as a priori conditions of possibility of the experience. The manifold of representations can be given in intuition, but the link is given by the spontaneity of understanding: "Link is the representation of the synthetic unity of the many" .25 However, for that link has all representations, is words, all are referred to a single consciousness to a unique self, because if a representation was not referring to me as a thinking activity, not absolutely nothing: "The I think must be able to accompany all my representations. (...) The representation that can be given before all thinking, is called intuition. So everything has multiple relationships with I think, in the same subject in which this manifold is found. ".26. The principle of the possibility of all intuition about the sensitivity, was that all the multiple of that is under the formal conditions of space and time, the supreme principle of the intuition regarding the understanding is that all the manifold of intuition is under the conditions of the original synthetic unity of apperception. The transcendental unity of apperception is a concept that unites all the multiple object given in intuition. For knowledge is need to link the diversity, this short, is what Kant called transcendental apperception, the synthetic unity of consciousness, which is the condition under which every intuition must be to become an object for me, if not multiple would not join in an awareness .
metaphysical time exposure, according to Kant, we says that time is not experience, but on the contrary, experience is the time as a condition of it, because the representation of time is not the way by abstraction of temporal relations, but they make sense only if they involve the time: "Time is a necessary representation that lies at the root of all intuitions.." 21 We can think of a time gap in which there is no object, but it is not possible to represent any phenomenon if there is time. The time is not a discursive concept but is a pure form of sensible intuition. The time is the form of inner sense, is the formal condition a priori of all phenomena in general, space is limited to external events can change over time gives meaning to our inner, reflective awareness of ourselves in front of what surrounds us and in front of our subjectivity.
Finally, Kant says that space and time have empirical reality and transcendental idealism, the first thing to say that space and time are valid for all objects that we sense in the experience, and the latter means that if we disregard the conditions of our sensibility, space and time are nothing, because all knowledge is knowledge of phenomena, things in themselves are unknowable: "We wanted to say that our intuition is nothing more than a representation of the phenomenon we sense that things are not in themselves what we sense in them, nor are they established their relations in themselves as we appear to us .... "22 The space and time itself can not exist by themselves, but only in us. We can not access the knowledge of what are the things themselves, we can only know how to intuit.
knowledge is not built only on intuition, they are the starting point by which an object is given to us, but then we have to think according to their representation. Sensitivity is the receptivity of our mind to receive representations in As it is affected in some way. Understanding is the ability to produce our own performances, or the spontaneity of knowledge. "Our nature entails that intuition can not be more than sensitive, ie to enclose only the way we are affected objects" (22)
however is understanding the power of thinking the object of sensible intuition. "If any of these properties is given then there is no knowledge." Without awareness, we would not be given any object, and without understanding, no one would have thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind (...) Only the union can lead to knowledge " 23
sensitivity performed the first synthesis to unify sensations in time and space. In the transcendental analytic is to study the faculty of understanding. Think the logic is concerned, Kant not build a general but a transcendental logic, which will study the pure thought, ie, a thinking which deals with the concepts which relate a priori to objects. As before we talk about the insights, concepts are also empirical and pure, the first derived from references given in the experience as "dog", the latter are concepts that refer to objects but are independent of experience, he calls categories (quality, quantity, modality of the relationship). The metaphysical deduction shows how many and what categories and the transcendental deduction, deals with the objective validity of pure concepts. Understanding is the ability to know the concepts, ie judgments. The judge is to link representations. Therefore, thinking is an act of synthesis or binding representations: "I understand short, in the most general sense, the action of adding different representations to each other and understand their diversity in knowledge." 24
The transcendental deduction of all a priori concepts thus has a principle to which should be straightened research: that these concepts have to be known as a priori conditions of possibility of the experience. The manifold of representations can be given in intuition, but the link is given by the spontaneity of understanding: "Link is the representation of the synthetic unity of the many" .25 However, for that link has all representations, is words, all are referred to a single consciousness to a unique self, because if a representation was not referring to me as a thinking activity, not absolutely nothing: "The I think must be able to accompany all my representations. (...) The representation that can be given before all thinking, is called intuition. So everything has multiple relationships with I think, in the same subject in which this manifold is found. ".26. The principle of the possibility of all intuition about the sensitivity, was that all the multiple of that is under the formal conditions of space and time, the supreme principle of the intuition regarding the understanding is that all the manifold of intuition is under the conditions of the original synthetic unity of apperception. The transcendental unity of apperception is a concept that unites all the multiple object given in intuition. For knowledge is need to link the diversity, this short, is what Kant called transcendental apperception, the synthetic unity of consciousness, which is the condition under which every intuition must be to become an object for me, if not multiple would not join in an awareness .
Kant To conclude, we refer to the concept of idea that works in the Dialectic Trancendental. The knowledge we have not enough things in themselves, but this is a phenomenal knowledge, ie we know is the way things appear to us. But this does not mean that our knowledge is illusory, however is a valid and objective knowledge of real things not appearances, but things appear to us: "The transcendental dialectic be content therefore with discovering the illusion of trials, transcendental and prevent the same time, that this delusion." 27
Man's knowledge can not reach the absolute. Understanding by its very nature is led to make ever larger synthesis, until a time that jumps beyond all that experience gives us. Then when you make this leap of understanding that is why we in the faculty of principles, of the unconditioned of ideas: "I understand by idea a necessary concept of reason, for which there can be in any way consistent object. "28 The ideas as Kan (of soul, God and the world), spring from reason itself, and in this sense, metaphysics is a natural disposition, but not enough reason never absolute. The reason you think the ideas but can not know. No intuition any ideas are empty concepts of reason are referred to objects that can never be perceived. The proposed nature of reason and are transcendent because they exceed the limits of all experience. Are soul, world and God. The ideas are pure representations, not empirical, of Reason, are generated as a result of the operation of this peculiar cognitive faculty (the search of the unconditioned or the ultimate foundation of phenomena) and are the traditional object of metaphysics, the soul, world and God. Do not have a constitutive but regulative use: that to which they refer (the soul, the world as a whole and God) can not be object of knowledge (metaphysics is possible as a science) but they serve as regulatory elements and principals of the activity Thus science, reason falls into fallacies and contradictions. In the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant asks if possible a priori synthetic judgments in metaphysics, asked about the transcendental conditions of the power of reason. Metaphysics seeks an understanding of reality as and as is itself beyond the limits and conditions of the experience. Knowledge is the noumenon which is divided into the ego (rational psychology, the world (cosmology) and God (natural theology). The knowledge of God seeks to go beyond our experience, something transcendent, beyond time and space. The I of metaphysics is the soul as substantial reality and the world is the substance and reality independent of us. Knowledge is a synthesis of the diversity of feelings in the institutions and institutions in the trials. The power of reason bearing unifying tendency of human thought to the search for a synthesis unconditioned of our knowledge. Thus, it is the idea of \u200b\u200bsoul (synthesis unconditional phenomenal knowledge of our inner experience), it forms the world's idea (synthesis unconditional phenomenal knowledge of our external experience) and the idea of \u200b\u200bGod (unconditional summary of our experiences internal and external). Metaphysics seeks an application of the principles of reason beyond the scope of experience, so here the use of transcendental ideas leads to mistakes, which Kant called the transcendental illusion.
Metaphysics can not be a science in that it seeks knowledge beyond phenomena, even if science in establishing the foundations of knowledge, ie as critical metaphysics. Kant studies deceptive reasoning: the fallacies (is part of the inner experience to affirm the reality of the soul like substance that is the subject of such acts. What is the condition of consciousness can not be also the subject of consciousness. The antinomies (shown as the reason falls into contradiction with itself when it seeks to extend knowledge beyond the phenomena, the antinomies are arguments that state a thesis and its opposite). The ideal of pure reason reveals the inability of the reason for demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God. The cosmological argument and the teleological argument is reduced to the ontological argument, and reaching a uncaused cause, which has to be perfect. Both are wrong, because they aim to reach an abused from the conditioned to the unconditioned.
After the above, having developed as each author works the subject of intuition, one might conclude that there is an important connection between Descartes and Kant, as both relate to the need of intuition as a starting point for understanding . For Descartes, there is a relationship between the intuitive and deductive reasoning, intuition is connected to innate ideas brought by the divine hand, have an order divine order yet abstract concept. The first intuition is the "I think, therefore I am" which is also the foundation of knowledge and certainty. For Kant, as well as the need for an object in mathematical reasoning, establishing the need for construction of knowledge from pure intuition. The notion of intuition is linked to the construction. The "I" in Kant, appears in two forms, empirical and pure, the first is the empirical subject as it offers the experience, the self as phenomenal reality, subject to time and space, the second is the transcendental subject , the self to the extent that a condition of possibility final synthesis of all knowledge. The "I am" Descartes, is a thing in itself, exists as an absolute substance, whose existence is not dependent on any condition. According
, Morente, "Kant called transcendental to the condition in which I discover an object into unknowable object: And the first step in the position of the object-subject correlation, is that in which the subject printed in the order terms of space and time. Terms of space and time are not transcendent, not properties of things, but they are properties that things have for the subject in a spirit of knowledge, has been the object. (...) So say that Kant has put on the things themselves (which vainly chasing the idealists came from Descartes), a definitive statement of exclusion. Things in themselves do not exist, and if so, we can not tell them anything ... "29 In closing, in modern philosophy" I "will occupy a central position, the subject becomes the center around which rotate all the problems. The spirit of objectivity will be supplanted by subjectivity. Every phenomenon is our creation, nothing beyond the phenomenon exists. It is not that the powers of self-producing a legislative but reality itself. Idealism is characterized precisely by not being achieved and thrive in a world of pure possibility.
Conclusion:
both Kant and Descartes, the starting point for the construction of knowledge is intuition, therefore, can be said to reflect through the characteristic epistemological theory important modern philosophy is subjectivity, and that intuition is not a quality of the thing but belongs to the subject, for both thinkers the construction of knowledge is because the subject has this insight that will allow to know the objects, but Descartes speaks of intellectual intuition as a property of spirit and Kant speaks of pure intuition as a way of feeling and intuition as a set of empirical perceptions. Similarly, despite some differences, the similarity is shown that gives the subject a central place in the construction of knowledge. Although Kant, will try to overcome the dogmatic conception of reason as to say the sole possessor of knowledge, as it will demonstrate the importance of sensible option for conocimeinto of phenomena. Understanding shapes reality, the subject makes things phenomena then become the object of knowledge.
Notes:
Notes:
1-Descartes Rule 1 Rules for the Direction spirit.
2 - Rule III. Ibid.
3-Rule IV: ibid.
3-Rule IV: ibid.
4-Discourse on Method
5-Rule III. Ibid.
5-Rule III. Ibid.
6-Rule III. Ibid.
7 - Metaphysical Meditations, the 3rd Medit .-
8-Rule IV. Ibid (I)
9 - Rule XII. Ibid (1)
10-First Meditation. Ibid (7)
11 - Second Meditation.
12 - Ibid (7)
13-Ibid (4)
14-Ibid (7)
15 - Kant: Critique of Pure Reason. (Introducción. Of the distinction of pure and empirical knowledge).
16-Introduction VII. Ibid (15) 17-
Transcendental Aesthetic. Ibid (15)
18-Ibid (17)
19-Ibid (17)
20 - Ibid (17)
21-Ibid (17)
22-Ibid (17)
23 - Analytical transcendental . Ibid (15)
24 - Third section. Ibid (23) 25-
transcendental deduction of the concepts of pure understanding. Ibid (23)
26-Ibid (25) 27-Dialectics
transcendental-28-Ibid (27)
29-García Morente: Preliminary Lessons of philosophy. Lesson II.
Bibliography:
Descartes: Discourse on Method, Alianza Editorial, Madrid 1995.
Descartes: Rules for the Direction of the Mind, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2003.
Descartes: Meditations on Metaphysics, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2005.
Kant: Critique of Pure Reason. Edit. Colihue, BA, 2007.
Morente: Preliminary Lessons of philosophy. Edit. Losada, Buenos Aires, 1983.
Ángel González Álvarez: Manual of history of philosophy. Edit. Gredos, Madrid, 1960. Mora Ferrater
Dictionary of philosophy. Edit. Ariel, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1994
Bibliography:
Descartes: Discourse on Method, Alianza Editorial, Madrid 1995.
Descartes: Rules for the Direction of the Mind, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2003.
Descartes: Meditations on Metaphysics, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2005.
Kant: Critique of Pure Reason. Edit. Colihue, BA, 2007.
Morente: Preliminary Lessons of philosophy. Edit. Losada, Buenos Aires, 1983.
Ángel González Álvarez: Manual of history of philosophy. Edit. Gredos, Madrid, 1960. Mora Ferrater
Dictionary of philosophy. Edit. Ariel, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1994
0 comments:
Post a Comment