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)

Mikä tarkalleen ottaen on aistimusten rooli ulkoisten objektien havaitsemisessa Descartesin mukaan? Descartes esittää, ettei ulkoisia olioita havaita aistien avulla, vaan pelkästään mielen tarkastelulla. Yksi tapa ymmärtää Descartesin väite on ajatella, että suhde havaitsijan ja objektin välillä edellyttää päättelyä aistimuksista itse olion läsnäoloon. Toinen mahdollisuus on ajatella, että itse asiassa aistimukset ovat suhteellisen yhdentekeviä havainto-relaatiolle, ja että tämä relaatio muodostuu tietyllä tapaa syvemmän maailman rakenteen ymmärtämisestä. Tässäkin näkemyksessä aistimuksilla on tietty rooli, mutta kyse ei ole päättelystä aistimuksista objektin läsnäoloon, kuten edellisessä (...) näkemyksessä, vaan päättelykyvyn käyttäminen kohdistuu pikemmin ajattelijan ja objektin välisten suhteiden ymmärtämiseen laajemman metafyysisen viitekehyksen avulla. Tämä kirjoitus tarkastelee tätä jälkimmäistä vaihtoehtoa mahdollisena tulkintana Descartesin havaintokäsityksessä ja pohtii samalla erityisesti aistimusten toimintoa havainnossa. (shrink)

In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Richard Rorty locates the perceived ills of modern philosophy in the "epistemological turn" of Descartes and Locke. This chapter argues that Rorty's accounts of Descartes' and Locke's philosophical work are seriously flawed. Rorty misunderstood the participation of early modern philosophers in the rise of modern science, and he misdescribed their examination of cognition as psychological rather than epistemological. His diagnostic efforts were thereby undermined, and he missed Descartes' original conception of a general (...) physics, and Locke's probabilist analysis of the grounds for rational belief. (shrink)