The Decartes’ paradox and the modern philosophy as the foundation farse

IF 0.2 0 ART
M. Brdar
{"title":"The Decartes’ paradox and the modern philosophy as the foundation farse","authors":"M. Brdar","doi":"10.2298/zmsdn2177001b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article the author identifies a paradox at the heart of Descartes? foundationalist project. The components of the paradox are as follows: on the one hand, ontological certainty of cogito, on the other hand, its epistemic uncertainty: it is impossible for the solus ipse to establish the elementary truth: at present it is impossible to determine whether it is now night or daylight. For Descartes the solution consists of introducing God and in believing in His existence. But this is no solution whatsoever, for a subject would require direct contact with God in order to receive clear and distinct ideas, which are at the same time marks of their truth. The author concludes the following: firstly, Descartes managed to establish a foundation for nothing; secondly, the Cartesian project that includes the necessity of contact with God as a way to attain the Truth, becomes completed only in Hegel?s philosophy of Absolut Knowledge (in Wiss. der Logik), along with his justification provided in the Phenoimenologie des Gesites. The post-Hegelian philosophy, however, has engendered its own paradox by abandoning Hegel?s own solution despite it being fully Cartesian in its character. This was the consequence of abandoning God and declaring Hegel?s philosophy as a deplorable conservative revival of theology; something that was beyond understanding by modern philosophers. The abandonment of God had as its consequence the return to the Cartesian paradox, which reopened the question of truth - connected to the Cogito, and the question of sense (Sinn) - connected to the sum of human subject. The neglect of God leads to the departure from ratio-centrism in two ways: the epistemic perspectivism and relativism, on the one hand, and Nihilism, voluntarism with decisionism, along with existentialism, on the other. Consequently, with the death of God, and the fall of Hegel?s system, the modern metaphysics of subjectivity reveals itself as founded merely on the Will to power - as a will for God, until Hegel, and a will against God, subsequently. Thus, Heidegger was right when he said that Nietzsche?s Will to Power was the end of the Western metaphysics. The author complements this finding by adding that this kind of metaphysic had already been concealed within the Descartes Meditations from the start, in the forms of the will for the Reason and the will for God. Finally, the author concludes that the modern philosophy completes its own Odyssey of looking for a foundation by abandoning the Hegelian solution, blind to the fact that Hegel?s solution was the only consequent Cartesian one. The ultimate result was the fall of ratio-centrism into nihilism, voluntarism, and existentialism, as promoted under a thin vail of Picodellamirandolian humanism.","PeriodicalId":40081,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Matice Srpske za Likovne Umetnosti-Matica Srpska Journal for Fine Arts","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Matice Srpske za Likovne Umetnosti-Matica Srpska Journal for Fine Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/zmsdn2177001b","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article the author identifies a paradox at the heart of Descartes? foundationalist project. The components of the paradox are as follows: on the one hand, ontological certainty of cogito, on the other hand, its epistemic uncertainty: it is impossible for the solus ipse to establish the elementary truth: at present it is impossible to determine whether it is now night or daylight. For Descartes the solution consists of introducing God and in believing in His existence. But this is no solution whatsoever, for a subject would require direct contact with God in order to receive clear and distinct ideas, which are at the same time marks of their truth. The author concludes the following: firstly, Descartes managed to establish a foundation for nothing; secondly, the Cartesian project that includes the necessity of contact with God as a way to attain the Truth, becomes completed only in Hegel?s philosophy of Absolut Knowledge (in Wiss. der Logik), along with his justification provided in the Phenoimenologie des Gesites. The post-Hegelian philosophy, however, has engendered its own paradox by abandoning Hegel?s own solution despite it being fully Cartesian in its character. This was the consequence of abandoning God and declaring Hegel?s philosophy as a deplorable conservative revival of theology; something that was beyond understanding by modern philosophers. The abandonment of God had as its consequence the return to the Cartesian paradox, which reopened the question of truth - connected to the Cogito, and the question of sense (Sinn) - connected to the sum of human subject. The neglect of God leads to the departure from ratio-centrism in two ways: the epistemic perspectivism and relativism, on the one hand, and Nihilism, voluntarism with decisionism, along with existentialism, on the other. Consequently, with the death of God, and the fall of Hegel?s system, the modern metaphysics of subjectivity reveals itself as founded merely on the Will to power - as a will for God, until Hegel, and a will against God, subsequently. Thus, Heidegger was right when he said that Nietzsche?s Will to Power was the end of the Western metaphysics. The author complements this finding by adding that this kind of metaphysic had already been concealed within the Descartes Meditations from the start, in the forms of the will for the Reason and the will for God. Finally, the author concludes that the modern philosophy completes its own Odyssey of looking for a foundation by abandoning the Hegelian solution, blind to the fact that Hegel?s solution was the only consequent Cartesian one. The ultimate result was the fall of ratio-centrism into nihilism, voluntarism, and existentialism, as promoted under a thin vail of Picodellamirandolian humanism.
笛卡儿悖论与现代哲学为基础的谬误
在这篇文章中,作者指出了笛卡尔思想核心的一个悖论。项目基础主义者。这个悖论的组成部分是:一方面是我思的本体论的确定性,另一方面是我思的认识论的不确定性。唯一存在是不可能确立基本真理的,目前还不可能确定现在是黑夜还是白昼。对笛卡儿来说,解决之道在于引入上帝并相信他的存在。但这绝不是解决问题的办法,因为一个主体必须与上帝直接接触,才能得到清晰而明确的观念,而这些观念同时也是真理的标志。作者得出以下结论:首先,笛卡尔成功地建立了一个虚无的基础;第二,笛卡尔的计划,包括与上帝接触的必要性,作为一种获得真理的方式,只有在黑格尔才完成?他的绝对知识哲学(瑞士语)以及他在《物象学》(phenomenenologie des Gesites)中提供的论证。然而,后黑格尔哲学却因抛弃黑格尔而产生了自身的悖论。尽管它的性质完全是笛卡尔式的。这就是抛弃上帝,宣布黑格尔?美国哲学是令人遗憾的神学保守复兴;一些现代哲学家无法理解的东西。抛弃上帝的结果是回到笛卡尔悖论,这重新打开了真理的问题-与我思有关,和感觉的问题(Sinn) -与人类主体的总和有关。对上帝的忽视从两个方面导致了对比率中心主义的背离:一方面是认识论的透视主义和相对主义,另一方面是虚无主义、意志主义和决定主义,以及存在主义。因此,随着上帝的死亡和黑格尔的堕落?在黑格尔的哲学体系中,主体性的现代形而上学揭示了它本身仅仅是建立在权力意志之上的——在黑格尔之前,它是一种支持上帝的意志,而在黑格尔之后,它是一种反对上帝的意志。因此,当海德格尔说尼采?《权力意志》是西方形而上学的终结。作者补充说,这种形而上学从一开始就隐藏在笛卡尔的《沉思》中,以理性意志和上帝意志的形式。最后,作者得出结论,现代哲学通过放弃黑格尔的解决方案来完成自己寻找基础的奥德赛,而忽视了黑格尔?s的解是唯一的随式笛卡尔解。最终的结果是,比率中心主义堕落为虚无主义、唯意志主义和存在主义,并在皮德拉米兰多式人文主义的薄薄面纱下得到推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信