Статтю присвячено дослідженню альтернативних можливостей інтерпретації Декартової концепції cogito: як авто-референтної структури і як авто-афекційності. Контекстом аналізу виступає трансцендентально-феноменологічний ракурс погляду на картезіанську філософію як на засновок трансцендентального мотиву. Визначено роль принципу авто-референтності в трансцендентальному дискурсі. На ґрунті розгляду перспектив тлумачення картезіанського підходу, запропонованих М. Анрі й Ж.-Л. Марйоном, виявлено моменти іррелевантності авто-афекційної настанови вимогам трансцендентального мислення і втомивовано адекватність авто-референтної моделі його засадам. Авторка доходить висновку, що, попри позірну пріоритетність авто-афекційності для трансцендентального дискурсу, пов’язану насамперед з притаманною їй (...) радикалізацією функціонального аспекту свідомості й усуненням небезпеки субстантивації cogito, закладеної в структурі авто-референтності, остання видається відповіднішою вимогам трансцендентального мислення, оскільки передбачає збереження принципу відношення-відмінності, конститутивного для трансцендентальної думки – який в умовах авто-афекційності виявляється редукованим. (shrink)

Le « cogito, ergo sum » cartésien apparaît depuis quarante ans comme « inférence et performance » (J. Hintikka). Mais de quelle inférence s'agit-il précisément ? Pour le savoir, cet article poursuit deux objectifs : d'abord, montrer que la question pertinente à laquelle il s'agit de répondre ne concerne pas la relation logique interne qui lie le cogito au sum, et qui est une intuition, mais celle, externe, qui lie le « cogito, ergo sum » tout entier (...) au « quicquid cogitat, est ». Ensuite, montrer que cette dernière relation est tout à la fois une induction et une déduction. (shrink)

Cogito, as the first principle of Descartes’ metaphysical system, initiated the modern philosophy of consciousness, becoming both the source and subject of modern Western philosophical discourse. The philosophies of Maine de Biran, Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and others developed by answering the following questions? Is consciousness substantial or not? Does consciousness require the guarantee of a transcendental subject? Is Cogito epistemological or ontological? Am I a being-for-myself or a being-for-others? Outlining the developmental history of the idea of (...) Cogito from Descartes to Sartre is important for totally comprehending the evolution and development of Western philosophy. (shrink)

Cette étude entend rendre compte de la conception que propose George Berkeley de la connaissance de mon existence en tant qu’esprit. Il s’agit en particulier d’interpréter sa formulation du cogito : « Je sais ce que j’entends par les termes je et moi-même ». Cette question est liée aux problèmes intrinsèques de la doctrine controversée des « notions » et plus généralement de la sémantique berkeleyenne. On doit accorder une certaine attention aux différences d’accent entre des passages parallèles des (...) Principes de la connaissance humaine, des Trois dialogues et de l’Alciphron VII. Les principales interprétations XXe siècle, usuel dans le commentaire, est une source de simplification abusive. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Descartes' Cogito Augustine's “Si fallor, sum” Argument (If I Am Mistaken, I Exist).

How should we understand both the nature, and the epistemic potential, of Descartes’s Cogito? Peter Slezak’s interpretation of the Cogito’s nature sees it strictly as a selfreferential kind of denial: Descartes cannot doubt that he is doubting. And what epistemic implications flow from this interpretation of the Cogito? We find that there is a consequent lack of knowledge being described by Descartes: on Cartesian grounds, indubitability is incompatible with knowing. Even as the Cogito halts doubt, therefore, (...) it fails to be knowledge. (shrink)

Perhaps the most famous proposition in the history of philosophy is Descartes' cogito 'I think, therefore I am'. Husain Sarkar claims in this provocative interpretation of Descartes that the ancient tradition of reading the cogito as an argument is mistaken. It should, he says, be read as an intuition. Through this interpretative lens, the author reconsiders key Cartesian topics: the ideal inquirer, the role of clear and distinct ideas, the relation of these to the will, memory, the nature (...) of intuition and deduction, the nature, content and elusiveness of 'I', and the tenability of the doctrine of the creation of eternal truths. Finally, the book demonstrates how Descartes' attempt to prove the existence of God is foiled by a new Cartesian Circle. (shrink)

I argue that George Nakhnikian's analysis of the logic of cogito propositions (roughly, Descartes's 'cogito' and 'sum') is incomplete. The incompleteness is rectified by showing that disjunctions of cogito propositions with contingent, non-cogito propositions satisfy conditions of incorrigibility, self-certifyingness, and pragmatic consistency; hence, they belong to the class of propositions with whose help a complete characterization of cogito propositions is made possible.

Cette étude entend rendre compte de la conception que propose George Berkeley de la connaissance de mon existence en tant qu’esprit. Il s’agit en particulier d’interpréter sa formulation du cogito : « Je sais ce que j’entends par les termes je et moi-même ». Cette question est liée aux problèmes intrinsèques de la doctrine controversée des « notions » et plus généralement de la sémantique berkeleyenne. On doit accorder une certaine attention aux différences d’accent entre des passages parallèles des (...) Principes de la connaissance humaine, des Trois dialogues et de l’Alciphron VII. Les principales interprétations XXe siècle, usuel dans le commentaire, est une source de simplification abusive. (shrink)

In Descartes' Cogito, Saved from the Great Shipwreck, Husain Sarkar convincingly argues that the Cartesian cogito as it appears in Meditation Two cannot be an argument but must be understood as an intuition emerging from the process of ('extraordinary') doubt. Sarkar mentions in the Preface that only the negative part of his thesis in intended to be decisive (X). However, as the book unfolds it becomes evident that his "positive" effort, his interpretation of the cogito as an (...) intuition although not decisive, is no less important. Sarkar shows how his reading of the cogito can account for other aspects of Descartes' writings (memory, the will, the theory of deduction) and offers this as further proof for the correctness of his interpretation. (shrink)

The standard interpretation of Descartes's ethics maintains that virtue presupposes knowledge of metaphysics and the sciences. Lisa Shapiro, however, has argued that the meditator acquires the virtue of generosity in the Fourth Meditation, and that generosity contributes to her metaphysical achievements. Descartes's ethics and metaphsyics, then, must be intertwined. This view has been gaining traction in the recent literature. Omri Boehm, for example, has argued that generosity is foundational to the cogito. In this paper, I offer a close reading (...) of Cartesian generosity, arguing that the meditator cannot acquire generosity in the Second or Fourth Meditation. (shrink)

W. von Leyden; IV—Cogito, Ergo Sum, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 63, Issue 1, 1 June 1963, Pages 67–82, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/.

RESUMO O artigo analisa o modo como Malebranche apresenta o conhecimento que possuímos de nossa própria alma a partir da noção de sentimento interior. Para tanto, tomamos como ponto de partida a concepção malebrancheana do argumento do cogito, opondo-a à de Descartes, tomando-o como uma constatação imediata da existência de algo que sente, sem, no entanto, poder afirmar algo sobre sua essência. O conhecimento da alma torna-se assim algo puramente afetivo, sem nenhum conteúdo positivo, e por natureza distinto do (...) conhecimento propriamente dito. Buscamos desse modo mostrar como, na filosofia de Malebranche, cria-se um campo propriamente humano do sentimento cujo conteúdo é irredutível a qualquer ciência clara e distinta, ao mesmo tempo que é constatado pela experiência vivida.: The article aims to analyze the way by which Malebranche presents the knowledge that we possess of our own soul through the notion of inner sentiment. Therefore, we take as our starting point the Malebranchean notion of the cogito argument, contrasting it with that of Descartes, taking it to be the immediate ascertainment of the existence of something that feels without, however, being able to assert anything about its essence. The knowledge of the soul becomes therefore something purely affective, deprived of a positive content, and by its nature distinguished from knowledge properly understood. We aim thus to show how, in Malebranche's philosophy, a properly human domain of the feeling, irreducible to a clear and distinct science, but ascertained by experience, is created. (shrink)

L’histoire du Cogito ergo sum de Descartes montre la problématique de l’esprit moderne. Leibniz et Kant ont insisté sur le conditionnement empirique de la proposition. Fichte l’a défendue, en la rapportant au moi supra- individuel. Schelling et Hegel ont combattu le Cogito, qui a introduit le dualisme moderne entre l’esprit et la nature. La critique la plus pressante est celle de Schelling ; cependant Hegel et lui ont reconnu comme un grand événement historique la séparation, opérée par Descartes, (...) entre la philosophie et l’autorité. (shrink)

Our use of ‘I’, or something like it, is implicated in our self-regarding emotions, in the concern to survive, and so seems basic to ordinary human life. But why does that pattern of use require a referring term? Don't Lichtenberg's formulations show how we could have our ordinary pattern of use here without the first person? I argue that what explains our compulsion to regard the first person as a referring term is our ordinary causal thinking, which requires us to (...) find a persisting object as the mechanism that underpins the causal structure we naturally ascribe to the self. I thus argue against Peacocke's picture (2012), on which it's the cogito that explains one's knowledge of one's own existence. (shrink)

O presente artigo visa investigar se a afirmação eu sou, eu existo, presente no quarto parágrafo da Segunda Meditação, expressa única e exclusivamente uma existência, ou se é a expressão, também, do conhecimento sobre o que é o Eu que se descobre existente. Para tanto, além dos textos cartesianos, serão abordadas algumas linhas interpretativas que se ocupam desta questão sobretudo as teses de Alquié, Frankfurt e Marion. A partir da discussão realizada, pretende-se defender que o eu sou, eu existo expressa, (...) concomitantemente, o conhecimento da existência do Eu e o conhecimento de que o Eu existe como ser pensante. (shrink)

Borges’ The Circular Ruins tells the story of a magician who turns out to be a character in a dream. Leibowitz (2021) argues that this scenario undermines the rational indubitability of Descartes’ Cogito. The magician, he argues, is an unreal appearance and therefore does not exist. I argue that Borges drew a distinction between reality and existence and that he was right to do so. There are various senses of reality and the sense in which a dreamt character is (...) unreal poses no threat to their existence or to the indubitability of the Cogito. The magician is unreal because he is a mind-dependent, illusory and fake. Nonetheless, he can be certain that he thinks, therefore he is. (shrink)

The article studies the shift of Enlightment in the interpretation of enjoyment, which led to the construction of a particular ethos/nomos enjoyment and transformation in the model of be-ing/thinking. Thus, constituted the transition from the metaphysics of mind, grounded by Des-cartes, to physic of body, presented by Marquis de Sade. This shift or meta/physical gap is carried out at the intersection of two lines: the reason and enjoyment. Given line of reason, the article specifically actualized line of enjoyment, allowing to (...) explore the transformation of the identity of being and thinking which is fundamental to Western philosophy. It sets the place of enjoyment in Cartesian concept of the identity of being and thinking, and the distinc-tion of soul and body. Hence it formulates the maxim of the subject of cogito: it is in thinking that I enjoy being. Approach of Descartes is opposed by the materialistic definition of enjoy-ment and pleasure worked out by de Sade. This conceptualization of the enjoyment enables the transition to physics of body, which recognizes only bodily/physical being hypertrophi-cated by the imagination. Hence the Sadian subject imago constitutes the maxim: it is only by enjoying being that I think. (shrink)

Le Malin génie est absent du Discours de la méthode et des Principes de la philosophie. En différenciant les deux figures du Dieu trompeur et du Malin génie, ainsi que leurs fonctions respectives, on se donne les moyens de discerner la spécificité du cogito de la Seconde Méditation, dont l’un des enjeux majeurs est de renverser littéralement le pyrrhonisme conquis grâce à la fiction du Malin génie par l’affirmation d’une certitude première qui n’est autre que celle de mon existence (...) rétorquée à ce même Malin génie! Un tel renversement du pyrrhonisme dans le cogito fait de la première vérité, non le cogito qui n’est qu’une certitude première, mais la réfutation du scepticisme académique qui affirme l’incertitude de toutes choses et se rabat sur la probabilité. (shrink)

Le Cogito n’est pas un raisonnement, mais il est conditionné par la notion « pour penser, il faut être », qui n’est pas une majeure universelle. Cette notion préalable apporte au cogito le caractère des vérités d’entendement : la nécessité, qui ne saurait sortir d’un fait. Le fait du cogito apporte à cette notion une existence qui ne saurait sortir d’elle. Sans la nécessité, pas de critérium de toute vérité surtout mathématique. Sans l’existence, pas de valeur objective.

ABSTRACT E. M. Curley has said that Descartes’ cogito, ergo sum “is as obscure on examination as it is compelling at first glance.” Why should that be? Maybe because the cogito raises so many textual and interpretive questions. Is it an argument or an intuition? If it is an argument, does it require an additional premise? Is it best interpreted as a “performance?” Is it best seen as the discovery that any reason proposed for doubting its success entails (...) the meditator’s existence? And so on. But all these questions typically arise in the wake of worries about the cogency of the cogito when it is treated as an argument and worded in its canonical form, “I think, therefore I exist.” In this essay, I focus on what I take to be the most fundamental reason for questioning the cogito’s cogency when it is so treated—namely that the “I” in its premise is question-begging. I distinguish that reason from other reasons that are sometimes conflated with it, and I argue that it is not a good reason. I then comment on some of the questions mentioned above in light of my defense of the cogito seen in that traditional way. (shrink)

Il faut distinguer, chez Descartes, le passage du Cogito à Dieu du passage de Dieu à l’attribut de véracité. En passant du Cogito à Dieu, l’on ne sort pas du royaume de la pensée, et la réflexion cartésienne est jusque là parallèle à la réflexion hindoue identifiant Atman et Brahman. Mais en passant de l’existence de Dieu à cet attribut privilégié, qui fait Dieu source de toute lumière et incapable de nous tromper, il introduit une croyance : c’est (...) là qu’est le hiatus dans la pensée cartésienne. (shrink)

Rene Descartes is the philosophical architect of our modern world.

That there is an epistemological difference between the mental and the physical is well- known. Introspection readily generates knowledge of one’s own conscious experience, but fails to yield evidence for the existence of anything physical. Conversely, empirical investigation delivers knowledge of physical properties, but neither finds nor requires us to posit conscious experience. In recent decades, a series of neo-Cartesian arguments have emerged that rest on this epistemological difference and purport to demonstrate that mind-brain identity is false and that consciousness (...) is not even realized by or supervenient on physical properties. Where Descartes argued he could clearly and distinctly conceive mind and body as existing separately, contemporary anti-physicalists hold that the conceivability of worlds in which actual world correlations between physical and phenomenological properties fail shows that these correlations are contingent rather than logically or metaphysically necessary. Together with Descartes, they conclude from conceivability that identity, as well as strong supervenience, is false. 1 If the argument of this paper is correct, however, then there is an argument for dualism that arises from the epistemological distinction, is grounded in the Meditations, and is yet distinct from the " 1 " conceivability arguments pursued both by Descartes and contemporary anti-physicalists. Furthermore, the argument is immune to the standard objections to conceivability arguments: its conclusion follows even if there are a posteriori identities between physical and phenomenal properties. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Cogito, Ergo Sum: The Life of René DescartesDennis Des CheneRichard Watson. Cogito, Ergo Sum: The Life of René Descartes. Boston: David R. Godine, 2002. pp. viii + 375. Cloth, $35.00.Somewhere between hagiography and debunking lies truth. Or so we may think: the biographer's sources are almost always tipped one way or the other, and it is his or her job to establish, or divine, the way (...) of authentic fact and, if facts fall short, then of sturdy sober hypothesis. In general the debunker has more fun, especially when the weight of tradition favors the ennobling, if not the beatification, of its subject.Descartes is a case in point. Until a few years ago, there was in English no satisfactory biography. Now there are three: an "intellectual biography" by Stephen Gaukroger, the Descartes of Geneviève Rodis-Lewis, and Watson's. Gaukroger dwells on Descartes's natural philosophy, especially in the early years. Only after 300 pages does he reach the period of the Discourse, Descartes's first published work. Rodis-Lewis offers a more even-handed treatment, the fruits of a lifetime of study. Her Descartes resembles, not the modern scientist or professional philosopher, but the ancient sage for whom metaphysics is a once-in-a-lifetime affair, and even natural philosophy subordinate to wisdom. Watson's Descartes is an altogether more worldly type, born into a family of lawyers, well-connected, touchy [End Page 113] about his place in social and scientific circles, and not all that interested in what we think of now as philosophy. Nor, for that matter, is Watson: you will look in vain for an analysis of the Meditations, a discussion of method, or a definition of générosité. (Watson does conclude, I should note, with a discussion of Descartes's doctrine on the soul, whose title might well have been "The future of an illusion" if Freud had not used it already.)If you like your philosophy uncluttered by context, if you find it worthwhile to read or write about "Cartesian skepticism" or "Cartesian dualism" without troubling yourself to understand who the historical Descartes was, or what might have moved him to confront the skeptics and save the soul, then Watson is not for you. It is emphatically a Life, not a Life and Works. It is, moreover, a life in the manner of many modern biographers, in which the biographer, rather than conceal himself behind the curtains of scholarly convention, figures into the narrative, retracing the steps of Descartes's passage to Italy, examining the baptismal certificate of Descartes's illegitimate daughter Francine, and eating lunch at the Queen Kristina restaurant "next door to the house in which Descartes died" (303). The quality of a biography thus written depends in part on the personality of its author (and in the case of Cogito Ergo Sum, the author's wife, who intervenes more than once on the side of common sense during their peregrinations). Watson is, to my mind, an agreeable companion, dedicated to the search for biographical truth, impatient with hagiographic fog and time-hallowed error, down-to-earth in his assessment of Descartes's motives and circumstances.One example to show the differences among the three biographies. In November 1618 Descartes met the future Latin schoolmaster Isaac Beeckman in Breda. Beeckman records with enthusiasm their joint endeavors in physico-mathematics over the next few months (Gaukroger has the details). It seems clear that the impetus for studying the various problems mentioned in Beeckman's Journal came from Beeckman, who had been pondering physical questions since 1613 or before. Descartes's contribution, at least at first, was his immense mathematical skill. Their interests lay largely within the "mixed mathematics" of the period, especially hydrostatics and mechanics. They also discussed music, an aspect of the "new science" now often neglected (but see H. F. Cohen, Quantifying Music [Dordrecht, 1984]). On New Year's day 1619 Descartes presented Beeckman with his Compendium musicæ (Gaukroger 74, Rodis-Lewis 51/29). A decade later, Descartes, having heard that Beeckman had appropriated the Compendium to himself, became angry and eventually, late in 1630, dismissed Beeckman with a masterpiece of de haut... (shrink)

Della tesi caretsiana sul continuo pensare in atto viene esaminata l’argomentazione prodotta dal suo autore per sostenerla. Dapprima viene ripreso il ragio¬namento sulla continuità del pensare e del suo essere sempre in atto, e poi si ragiona sulle proposizioni portatrici di quella tesi. Si vedrà che l’enunciato sulla continuità del pensare va incontro a considerevoli difficoltà sia quando afferma che per effetto dell’emendatio ossia la fase in cui la mens si è liberata dalle opinioni dubbie o inganne¬voli le sostituisce con (...) altre migliori, sia per ef¬fetto della temporalità degli atti della mente. L’indagine riguarda dunque quelle formulazioni lessiacali in cui il filosofo ha scritto che la mente semper actu cogitat, e in cui ha impiegato le forme verbali cogito e sum cogitans. (shrink)

Quels sont les rapports entre l’éthique et la politique chez Paul Ricoeur? Le Cogito herméneutique est-il un sujet du droit? Chez Ricoeur, le passage de l ’éthique à la politique se révèle paradoxale. D’une part, le politique réalise la visée éthique d’une vie bonne : c ’est donc une partie de l ’éthique, un prolongement de celle-ci. De l’autre, le rapport de la politique au pouvoir bouleverse l’éthique : il existe une violence qui ne peut pas être réglée par (...) la morale. Le rapport entre l ’éthique et le politique se configure ainsi à la fois comme une identité et une différence. Ricoeur nous propose la voie d’un kantisme post-hégélien qui trouve sur le plan de la reconnaissance mutuelle et de la logique du don la médiation nécessaire entre éthique et politique. Ainsi, le paradoxe politique assume un nouveau sens créatif.What is the relationship between ethics and politics in Paul Ricoeur? Is the hermeneutic Cogito the subject of rights? In Ricoeur, the passage from ethics to politics is paradoxical. On the one hand, the politics achieves the ethical aim of a good life: it is therefore a part of ethics, an extension of it. On the other hand, the relationship between politics and power destroys ethics: there is a kind of violence that cannot be settled by moral rules. The relationship between ethics and politics is configured as both identity and difference. Ricoeur o ffers us the path of a post-Hegelian Kantianism which finds the necessary mediation between ethics and politics in mutual recognition and in the logic of giving. Thus, the political paradox takes on a new creative meaning. (shrink)

The article contrasts descartes's and aquinas's theories on truth, Tracing their basic difference to a divergent view concerning the act of judgment. Descartes's '"cogito"' is held to be internally inconsistent precisely because it strives to unite an aprioristic "intellectus" with a reasoning process. Such an attempt is made, It is claimed, Because, Artificially separating understanding and judgment, Descartes misreads the hidden presuppositions of the act of reasoning as a way to fuller understanding. This occurs because descartes, Unlike aquinas, Seeks (...) to ground human knowing upon a theory of pure essences. (shrink)

What are we to make of the cogito (cogito ergo sum) today, as the walls of Cartesian philosophy crumble around us? The enduring foundation of the cogito is consciousness. It is in virtue of a particular phenomenological structure that an experience is conscious rather than unconscious. Drawing on an analysis of that structure, the cogito is given a new explication that synthesizes phenomenological, epistemological, logical, and ontological elements. What, then, is the structure of conscious thinking on (...) which the cogito draws? What kind of certainty does the experience of thinking give one about one's thinking and about one's existence? What form of inference is the cogito, and what is the source of its validity and soundness? Does the cogito itself lead to an ontology of mind and body like Descartes's dualism? The discussion begins with Descartes's own careful formulations of some of these issues. Then the cogito is parsed into several different principles, the phenomenological principle emerging as basic. In due course the analysis sifts through Husserl's epistemology, Hintikka's logic (or pragmatics) of the cogito, and Kaplan's logic of demonstratives, as these bear specifically on the cogito. (shrink)

The present article represents an attempt to argue in the favor of the thesis that, in the First Meditation, in the fragment where the problem of madness is spoken of, Descartes’ view aims to exclude the possibility that the knowing subject, the Cogito, could be insane, and not only to avoid the problem of madness because of various reasons or to replace the madness-example with a dreaming-example. In other words, this research aims to expose and to argue for Michel (...) Foucault’s point of view regarding the Cartesian problem of madness, and also to argue against Jacques Derrida’s view on the same issue. More broadly speaking, beyond the highlight of a possible different approach to Descartes’ text or the analysis of the Derrida-Foucault controversy, the main aim of this article is to emphasize a problem maybe less discussed of the act of knowing: beyond the proper usage of a wrong method, the misusage of a correct method or the poor practice of some spiritual exercises, the errors in the act of knowledge could as well follow from a deficiency in the knowing subject itself. (shrink)

Arnold Cusmariu ABSTRACT: The Cogito formulation in Discourse on Method attributes properties to one conceptual category that belong to another. Correcting the error ends up defeating Descartes’ response to skepticism. His own creation, the Evil Genius, is to blame. Download PDF.

The Cogito and the Mexican Salamander.Philosophy and the Rest of Sciences in the late Merleau-Ponty The article examines Merleau-Ponty’s almost parallel reading – in his last courses at the Collège de France – of the Cartesian cogito and the development of the Axolotl, the salamander studied by American biologist Coghill. My hypothesis is that the metaphysics of the cogito and the biology of the Axolotl represented for Merleau-Ponty two ways of access to the same discovery. Descartes came (...) up against a phenomenon, the cogito, which required the reshaping of metaphysics as a sort of (impossible) psychology of the event or the absolute. Within the field of anatomy, Coghill came up against a phenomenon, the embryogenesis of the Axolotl, which similarly required a sort of conversion of anatomy into embryology. Therefore, bios and psyché, “embryonality” and the cogito, would be nothing but the denomination of the objects that psychology and biology meet along their borders, names for what we could refer to as “event,” “continuum,” “becoming” or, according to an old but still suitable definition, “absolute.” This has countless consequences on the relationship between the so-called human sciences and the so-called natural sciences, their eternally missed dialogue, their false complementarity and the illusion that the famous “two cultures” do actually exist.Il Cogito e la lucertola messicana.La filosofia e il resto delle scienze nell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty L’articolo prende in esame la lettura quasi parallela che Merleau-Ponty svolge, negli ultimi corsi di lezione al Collège de France, del cogito cartesiano e dello sviluppo dell’Axolotl, la lucertola studiata dal biologo americano Coghill. La nostra ipotesi è che la metafisica del cogito, e la biologia dell’Axolotl, rappresentino agli occhi di Merleau-Ponty due modi d’accesso a una stessa scoperta. Dall’interno della metafisica, Descartes si imbatte in un fenomeno, il cogito appunto, che esige che la metafisica si istituisca come una sorta di (impossibile) psicologia dell’eventoo dell’assoluto. Tutta la metafisica sarebbe psicologia, cioè indicazione del luogo assoluto nel quale è inscritto ogni luogo. Dall’interno dell’anatomia, Coghill siimbatte in un fenomeno, lo sviluppo dell’embrione dell’Axolotl, che esige analogamente che tutta l’anatomia si risolva in embriologia. Il vivente sarebbe allora in generale questa condizione di gemmazione e autoorganizzazione, e l’embriologia sarebbe la scienza (impossibile) di questo divenire perfettamenteanoggettuale. Bios e psyché, “embrionalità” e cogito non sarebbero che i nomi di ciò che la psicologia e la biologia incontrano al loro confine, nomi di ciò che infilosofia si chiama evento, continuum, divenire, o, con un vecchio e adattissimo termine, assoluto. Il che comporta innumerevoli conseguenze circa il rapporto trale cosiddette scienze umane e le cosiddette scienze naturali, sul loro dialogo eternamente mancato, sulla loro falsa complementarietà, sull’illusione che si diano davvero le celebri “due culture”. (shrink)

The Cogito and the Mexican Salamander.Philosophy and the Rest of Sciences in the late Merleau-Ponty The article examines Merleau-Ponty’s almost parallel reading – in his last courses at the Collège de France – of the Cartesian cogito and the development of the Axolotl, the salamander studied by American biologist Coghill. My hypothesis is that the metaphysics of the cogito and the biology of the Axolotl represented for Merleau-Ponty two ways of access to the same discovery. Descartes came (...) up against a phenomenon, the cogito, which required the reshaping of metaphysics as a sort of (impossible) psychology of the event or the absolute. Within the field of anatomy, Coghill came up against a phenomenon, the embryogenesis of the Axolotl, which similarly required a sort of conversion of anatomy into embryology. Therefore, bios and psyché, “embryonality” and the cogito, would be nothing but the denomination of the objects that psychology and biology meet along their borders, names for what we could refer to as “event,” “continuum,” “becoming” or, according to an old but still suitable definition, “absolute.” This has countless consequences on the relationship between the so-called human sciences and the so-called natural sciences, their eternally missed dialogue, their false complementarity and the illusion that the famous “two cultures” do actually exist.Il Cogito e la lucertola messicana.La filosofia e il resto delle scienze nell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty L’articolo prende in esame la lettura quasi parallela che Merleau-Ponty svolge, negli ultimi corsi di lezione al Collège de France, del cogito cartesiano e dello sviluppo dell’Axolotl, la lucertola studiata dal biologo americano Coghill. La nostra ipotesi è che la metafisica del cogito, e la biologia dell’Axolotl, rappresentino agli occhi di Merleau-Ponty due modi d’accesso a una stessa scoperta. Dall’interno della metafisica, Descartes si imbatte in un fenomeno, il cogito appunto, che esige che la metafisica si istituisca come una sorta di (impossibile) psicologia dell’eventoo dell’assoluto. Tutta la metafisica sarebbe psicologia, cioè indicazione del luogo assoluto nel quale è inscritto ogni luogo. Dall’interno dell’anatomia, Coghill siimbatte in un fenomeno, lo sviluppo dell’embrione dell’Axolotl, che esige analogamente che tutta l’anatomia si risolva in embriologia. Il vivente sarebbe allora in generale questa condizione di gemmazione e autoorganizzazione, e l’embriologia sarebbe la scienza (impossibile) di questo divenire perfettamenteanoggettuale. Bios e psyché, “embrionalità” e cogito non sarebbero che i nomi di ciò che la psicologia e la biologia incontrano al loro confine, nomi di ciò che infilosofia si chiama evento, continuum, divenire, o, con un vecchio e adattissimo termine, assoluto. Il che comporta innumerevoli conseguenze circa il rapporto trale cosiddette scienze umane e le cosiddette scienze naturali, sul loro dialogo eternamente mancato, sulla loro falsa complementarietà, sull’illusione che si diano davvero le celebri “due culture”. (shrink)

미셸 앙리는 1985년 출간한 『정신분석의 계보-잃어버린 기원』에서 프로이트가 데카르트의 계승자라는 놀라운 진술을 펼친다. 그를 따르면 무의식 개념은 의식 개념으로부터, 좀 더 정확히 말해 그 ‘일탈’로부터 나왔다. 의식 개념의 일탈에서 보면 그것은 무의식이지만, 데카르트가 확립한 최초의 의식 개념으로 회귀해 보면 그것은 의식과 다르지 않다. 이 같은 독해를 이해하려면 먼저 후설의 ‘순수 환원’에 반대하여 미셸 앙리가 요구한 ‘근본적 환원’의 의미를 파악해야 한다. 이 근본적 환원의 수행 속에서만 데카르트가 발견하고 후설이 놓친 코기토의 현상학적 의미가 모습을 드러낸다. 코기토에 대한 앙리의 독창적 해석은 하이데거식 해석에 (...) 반대하여 의식 개념이 내포하는 ‘자기성’의 의미를 새로운 관점에서 드러낸다. 그것은 표상의 자기성이 아니라 촉발의 자기성이다. 최초의 의식은 자기의 자기촉발(auto-affection de soi)이다. 여기서 표상은 철저히 배제된다. 표상의 저편에서, 좀 더 정확히 말해 표상작용 이전에 그 가능 조건으로서 도래하는 의식이 프로이트의 무의식이다. 무의식은 최초로 도래하는 것, 삶, 그와 같은 것으로 정서 이외 다른 아무것도 아니다. 이로써 무의식은 존재론적 해명을 얻고 무의식이기를 멈춘다. 정신분석에 대한 앙리의 이 같은 독해는 앙리 이후에도 계속 요구돼야 한다. 그 독해의 의의를 드러내기를 멈출 수 없는 이유이며, 이 논문이 작성된 이유이기도 하다. 무의식이 무엇인지 묻기 전에 먼저 의식이 무엇인지를 묻고자. 그런 다음에서야 무의식 개념이 왜 비결정적 개념으로 있을 수밖에 없었는지를 이해하게 된다. 이 논문은 앙리 독해를 중심으로 프로이트의 무의식이 어떻게 데카르트의 코기토를 만나게 되는지를 보여주고자 한다. (shrink)

THIS PAPER PROVIDES A READING OF DESCARTES' COGITO WHICH RESOLVES THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY THE OTHER PREVALENT ANALYSES OF HIS THOUGHT. I FIRST INDICATE THE WAYS IN WHICH THE INFERENTIAL AND PERFORMATIVE VIEWS FAIL TO ADEQUATELY EXPLICATE DESCARTES' OWN STATEMENTS REGARDING THE COGITO. I THEN SET OUT MY "GENERATIVE VIEW" AND SHOW THAT IT PROVIDES A FULLY CONSISTENT READING OF THESE SAME STATEMENTS. I CONCLUDE THAT THE GENERATIVE VIEW MORE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTS DESCARTES' INTENTIONS.

Entend dégager l'enjeu philosophique de la pensée augustinienne du cogito, dans " La cité de Dieu " et dans " La Trinité ", en situant la réflexion du saint dans le champ de la philosophie antique, et en rapprochant sa perspective de celles de Descartes et de Husserl.

W. von Leyden; IV—Cogito, Ergo Sum, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 63, Issue 1, 1 June 1963, Pages 67–82, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/.

In a letter to Mesland (1645), Descartes suggests that "a greater freedom" consists in a positive faculty to follow "the worse", although "we see the better". What does such freedom presuppose? A good illustration of this kind of excess of the will, as suggested by Beyssade, is Attila, the "black hero" in one of Corneille's tragedies. This article tries to relate the possibility of that freedom with the very nature of the cogito.

Why does Descartes give some propositions, most notably cogito, a privileged epistemic status? In the first part of the paper I consider, and reject, the standard account of the indubitability of cogito championed by, among others, Hintikka, Ayer, Slezak, and Frankfurt. After examining what I call the Cartesian regress, I invoke the fiction of a self-blind individual, close to the one originally introduced by Shoemaker, to give an alternative account of the indubitability of cogito. I argue that (...) Descartes initially needs to exempt the self-attribution of thought from the scope of Cartesian doubt, because an individual who is self-blind, and, so, cannot self-attribute thoughts, cannot treat propositions about the external world as dubitable. (shrink)

This volume looks at the first half of the proposition--cogito.

The key mutation of the schizophrenic psyche can be described as a disturbance of the first person-ness of the I-sense, i.e., of the sense of the "I" as personal subject of experience and of action. Under these circumstances, representations of things are not definitively experienced as "my" representations—with the self-evidence of belonging to me. This uncertainty of selfhood, specific to schizophrenia, cannot be reduced to a disability of intellect, logic, judgment, or memory. In the course of developing his argument, the (...) author criticizes philosopher Michel Henry's critique of Heidegger's (1961) interpretation of Descartes's cogito ergo sum. (shrink)

The Cogito formulation in Discourse on Method attributes properties to one conceptual category that belong to another. Correcting the error ends up defeating Descartes’ response to skepticism. His own creation, the Evil Genius, is to blame.

O termo “cogito” designa de modo genérico e impreciso um argumento que Descartes propõe em diversos momentos de sua obra. De um modo geral, os comentadores, tal como o fizeram os interlocutores contemporâneos ao autor, consideram que a expressão “penso, logo existo” (cogito ergo sum), ausente das Meditações Metafísicas, resume adequadamente este argumento único e procuram esclarecê-lo ou criticá-lo, nem sempre levando em consideração as diferentes formulações que recebe e os diferentes contextos em que ocorre. Meu objetivo neste (...) texto é simplesmente analisar o quarto parágrafo da Segunda Meditação (AT VII, 24-25; IX-1,19), no qual ele supostamente apresenta este mesmo argumento sem empregar a famosa expressão. Das muitas, diversas e relevantes questões filosóficas que este argumento suscita, gostaria de me concentrar em investigar se ele pode ser reconstruído sem que seja necessário introduzir – como uma premissa não justificada – a concepção do pensamento como sendo essencialmente consciência de si e, portanto, como envolvendo - por definição, a auto-referência imediata e incorrigível do sujeito a si mesmo. Gostaria de poder mostrar que o argumento não apenas independe dessa concepção como, além disso, conduz a essa concepção; todavia, somente o primeiro passo em direção a esta interpretação será dado neste artigo. Quanto à expressão “penso, logo existo”, minha hipótese é que, embora ausente do texto, ela, de fato, resume o sentido geral da posição cartesiana. Sua ausência explica-se pelo fato de que Descartes pretende apresentar nas Meditações a versão mais completa de seu argumento e a passagem que será aqui analisada constitui, na realidade, apenas uma primeira etapa dessa versão. A análise e a reconstrução que serão propostas supõe que o argumento apresentado no parágrafo 4 deva ser compreendido, como propõe H. G. Frankfurt, como composto de quatro etapas, cujo sentido depende do contexto argumentativo mais amplo no qual estão inseridas, como observou Jean-Claude Pariente, em seu artigo sobre o cogito nas Meditações Metafísicas. Nesse sentido, a estrutura do presente artigo seguirá essas etapas. (shrink)

Analytical philosophy opens new perspectives of studies in the history of philosophy. There are generalized history of analytical interpretations of Cartesian principle cogito ergo sum and analysis of Cartesianism through the prism of contemporary philosophy of action, with special attention to performativity of the mentioned principle. The importance of such research necessarily goes beyond "pure" history of philosophy: it also contributes to revision of traditional approaches to justification of knowledge, which still remain problematic. Attention to performativism of cogito (...) ergo sum thesis is the key to new convenient interpretation of knowledge justification problem, because it allows for justification as selfjustification in terms of accomplishment. Inevitable accomplishment, peculiar to evidfently performative knowledge, suggests that fundamentalist strategy of knowledge justification, in the perspective of philosophy of action, amounts to a preferable interpretation compared to traditional epistemological approach. (shrink)