Read Discurso do Método by René Descartes Online

discurso-do-mtodo

Obra exemplar pelo espírito que a anima, pela tensão interna e pela perfeita travação dos seus temas, o Discurso do Método mostra a modernidade in statu nascendi, isto é, no acto da sua emergência e constituição, com uma força inigualável....

Title : Discurso do Método
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789724415253
Format Type : Other Book
Number of Pages : 160 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Discurso do Método Reviews

  • Stephen
    2019-03-19 05:14

    3.0 to 3.5 stars (though as mentioned below, the first four sections get 4 to 5 stars). One of the most influential works in history of modern science/philosophy, the full name of the work is "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences." It is a work that deals with the ascertaining of knowledge from "first principals" and creates a method from which all research into scientific principals could be based. He begins by saying that because so many different (and contradictory) theories have been set forth by learned and great men that it is impossible to "trust" anything that you can not verify yourself based on your own observations. This skepticism of all that has come before was the cornerstone for modern scientific thinking and experimentation to prove results. Highlights of this very short work are as follows:THE METHOD: In Section II, Descartes defines the "Method" he will use to estblish knowledge of the world as the following four steps: (1) Be skeptical of everything and do not accept anything as "truth" until you can be certain of its correctness and completely free from doubt; (2) divide each problem into the smallest parts possible so that you can be looking at its component parts which will be the easiest to understand (3) start from most basic concept and add complexity slowly and in degrees so that you can be absolutely certain of each step along the way and (4) from your use of (1) through (3) create general rules applicable to the whole of the subject and that apply to the largest possible group. THE MORALS: In applying the Method, Descartes in Section III identifies 3 maxims (which ge calls morals) that he will adhere to in his studies: (1) obey the laws of his Country (2) be firm and resolute in the pursuit of knowledge and (3) conquer self rather than fortune (by which he means don't pursue truth based on your own material advantage lest you avoid a line of reasoning that may be true but would lead to a disadvantage for you. In other words, truth should be your only goal. APPLICATION OF THE METHOD: In Section IV, Descartes applies the Method and derives the basic truth of his existence by stating the famous line "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He also goes on to prove the existence of God. This last "proof" is the most controversial aspect of the work and is called the negotiable ontological proof of the existence of God. Up through the end of Section IV, I would have given this 4 or 5 stars as it was both a important work and written such that it could be easily understood. Section 5 and 6 (the last half of this very short work) seemed to me to be very "muddled" and uninteresting and dealt with the difference between man and animals and the working of the human circulatory system. The meat of the work in is the first 4 sections and that is what I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of scientific and philosophical thought. Definitely, an important work.

  • Darwin8u
    2019-02-28 01:11

    “...the perusal of all excellent books is, as it were, to interview with the noblest men of past ages, who have written them.” ― René Descartes, Discourse on MethodThere are certain books that are hugely influential and fantastic reads. This one was hugely influential. In many ways modern science (and philosophy) owes a great deal to some of the frameworks, methods, and rationalities posited by Descartes in this book. Hell, even the idea of starting off skeptical and building from there owes a large debt to Descartes. It isn't, however, a perfect book. Some of his "proofs" of God and the immortality of the spirit are a bit shaky (like his understanding of the functioning of the heart). But those are quibbles, minor imperfections, in a work that probably deserves to stand next to classics such as: Darwin's The Origin of Species for biology, Newton's The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy for science, and Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking for mainstreaming French cuisine. I cook, therefore I eat. When you reduce and clarify Descartes down, you are left with a lonely method of skimming off those things you can't prove, and a sticky relationship with God.Bon Appétit!Bon Pensées!

  • Luís C.
    2019-03-17 23:24

    Man, epicenter of nature and of the world, is a spirit endowed with a consciousness to "mater", unlike animals... By his faculty to think, to experiment, to order his thought, everyone has to doubt to seek his own "truth", whether scientific, spiritual or ideological. Descartes , a master of modern mathematics, of Cartesian thought, of empirical doubt, of methodical reasoning, revolutionized the scientific and philosophical thought of his time and of centuries to come. He is already distinguished from his contemporaries by writing his prose in the vulgar language, French, in a XVIIth century Latin, "vulgarizing" thus a discourse that he wants accessible to all.If I respect the scientific scope (the preliminary reflection, the non-precipitation, the observation, the experimentation) of the Discourse of the method of Descartes, I do not share its moral (philosophical or spiritual) scope. I am not alone in thinking that empiricism has no place in all the acts of our life, nor that prudence is necessarily the mother of wisdom or safety! We are not a spirit or differentiated body. The "I" makes us exist, it makes us real, but it is often others that open us to our own consciousness ... Without others, I am only a small thing.

  • Ioana
    2019-03-24 07:04

    I concede the point: my entire philosophical raison d'être orbits around the deconstruction of the false dualism unleashed upon the world by René. Though, albeit, alas, perhaps it is unfair to blame him entirely, seeing as the Greeks started it, and considering that R. was most likely just articulating an ethos since embodied by “Western” (European) civilization.Dualism: the idea of separation, articulation, and demarcation, specifically into a binary framework, is the essential construct grounding “Western” progressive thought (kind of like binary mathematics is the language of digital machines; the parallel is not coincidental). The essence of dualism lies in making a distinction, differentiating between two. Such distinctions seem at first, superficially, to occur naturally in lived experience: night and day, woman and man, left and right, cold and hot, future and present; historically these differentiations have been embedded in habitual actions and ideas about morality: good and bad, moral and immoral. Upon closer inspection, of course, experience is not dual in the least: sex is not binary, our perception of space is constituted of more than directionality, while our experience of time is bound up in the present and encompasses both history (past) and hope (future). Yet dual interpretations of experience have reigned in our imaginations for thousands of years.The Age of Reason. In its essence, dualistic thought makes distinctions; such distinctions constitute the mechanics of “Western” reason. Logical versus irrational thought, knowledge versus opinion, empirical fact versus experience: reason is born of and enabled by an intricate delineation of opposing forces, one of which is always considered superior: mind over body, logic over poetry, linear argument over cyclical interrogation. Thus at the core of dualism lies an inherent judgment, that one of the two is differentiated as inadequate, unnecessary, superfluous, or inferior. Knowledge wins over Meaning. Reason over Art. Mind over Body. Man over Woman. Analysis over Synthesis.The dualism which punctures Western reason has furthered an almost compulsive race for the “truth” (versus semblance, or illusion); the truth is pursued through the collection of distinguishable facts, labeled “knowledge,” which is to be empirically verified, quantitatively measured, objectively classified, and so forth. In the classrooms of today, for example, this belief manifests as standards centered on collections of knowledge to be mastered, as quantitative measures of student progress and teacher effectiveness, and as the glorification of “cognitive” tasks over social, emotional, or bodied experiences. Dualism reigns at every level of our social, cultural fabric and material realities – it’s not just a philosophical remnant of a time long past.Linear Time. Rational thought requires orderly linearity as it seeks to collect knowledge and use it to explain causes and effects; linearity implies that in following a course of action, one progresses towards a goal, end, or objective; as G. W. Hegel wrote, human history is constantly developing through conflict. This mode of temporal understanding is so embedded in our daily acts that it is difficult to imagine alternatives: we operate by the dictates of a 24 hour clock, 7 hour week, etc, we imagine career and educational “paths” which lead towards an ultimate goal, and we have come to see the course of life itself in a similar way.The World as Mechanism: Closed Under Physics.The scientific revolution enabled by the articulation of linear reason, by the assumptions of progress, and by metaphors of knowledge as a collection of facts to be conquered, led increasingly throughout the late Renaissance years to paradigm shifts away from beliefs in the predestination of religion and towards an understanding of the nature of the world as predetermined by physical laws. Revolutionaries of the era proposed that the laws of the natural world were “closed under physics,” or able to explain any and all past, present, and future phenomena through their application; according to classical conceptions of science born in this period, “all matter acts according to predetermined and knowable laws unending material progress, communicated by media and consumption based culture” (See CA Bowers, Revitalizing the Commons: Cultural and Educational Sites of Resistance and Affirmation).The End: The World is ConqueredOnly, of course it’s not, as phenomenologists, critical theorists, physicists, artists, etc etc have been attesting to in recent generations. YES dualism gave us technology, science, a way to shed religious fear in favor of scientific inquiry. BUT it also forgot so much along the way: the “other” (the body, the spirit, experience, art), an organic, non-mechanistic vision, purpose, meaning… And all this WHY?!? (ok, the Greeks, and European history, but also, THIS BOOK).At first, I began Discourse on Method in trepidation: for, after all, what if some of the ideas were indeed sound? What if I had spent my entire adult life attempting to correct and refute a construct that held up under scrutiny? But alas my fears were allayed within pages, when it became clear that Descartes is just about the least introspective person who ever lived.It goes like this: Descartes thought and thought, and couldn’t find the answers sitting at his dingy desk in his small dark room. So he went out into the world. He “traveled… frequented people of various humors and conditions, gathered varied experiences.” And alas, he still couldn’t write anything down, he was so caught up in all the experience. So he said, to hell with this, and went home. Where thought immediately came pouring in torrents. This flurry of cogitation led to the brilliant thesis that it’s not experience or the body or relationships with others, or any of the mushy-gushy sensuous stuff of life that makes the man – it’s his thought alone!Sigh. Just… sigh.[review 2016; originally read in 2008]

  • Το Άσχημο Ρύζι Καρολίνα
    2019-03-02 00:22

    Η πραγματεία αυτή, δημοσιευμένη στα 1637, στην καρδιά του Τριακονταετούς Πολέμου, από έναν άνθρωπο ασθενικό και φοβισμένο, αλλά και πεπεισμένο για την αλήθεια των συλλογισμών του (έχει τα πειράματά του πάνω από όλα και μια προπαρασκεύη από προηγούμενες μελέτες του επάνω στη φυσική επιστήμη) που υποφέρει καθώς η διάθεσή του για ησυχία και απομόνωση έρχεται σε κόντρα με την επιθυμία του να απελευθερώσει τον κόσμο από τον μεσαιωνικό σκοταδισμό και να τον παραδώσει ελεύθερο και λυτρωμένο από τα δεσμά του στο Φως της Επιστήμης. Ο τρόπος σκέψης του έρχεται σε ρήξη με την σχολαστική θεολογική παράδοση, κι όσο κι αν ορκίζεται στον Θεό του βασιλιά και της νταντάς του, στην πραγματικότητα, τον εκθρονίζει, για να θέσει τον Άνθρωπο, στο κέντρο του κόσμου. Κι αυτό. Αυτό συνιστά την ουσιώδη επανάσταση που άνθρωποι σαν τον Ντεκάρτ, έφεραν σε μια εποχή που η απόκλιση από τον κανόνα συνεπαγόταν με κάψιμο στην πυρά. Η πραγματεία χωρίζεται σε έξι μέρη και παρακάτω παραθέτω μια μικρή περίληψη του καθενός ξεχωριστά.Πρώτο μέρος:«Δεν αρκεί να έχει κανένας καλό μυαλό, το κυριότερο είναι να το χρησιμοποιεί καλά». Έτσι ξεκινάει την πραγματεία ο Ντεκάρτ. Αυτή είναι η έννοια της «ορθοφροσύνης» της «bon sens». Έτσι όλοι μας μοιραζόμαστε το λογικό, αλλά ανεξάρτητα από τις δυνατότητές μας, η αξία του συνίσταται στην καλή ή κακή χρήση που του κάνουμε. Το πνεύμα για την τελειοποίησή του ωστόσο χρειάζεται και άλλες ιδιότητες: φαντασία, μνήμη, ταχύτητα σκέψης. Αλλά το λογικό είναι ιδιότητα που αποδίδεται σε κάθε ανθρώπινο ον και αυτό ακριβώς μας διαχωρίζει από τα ζώα. Έτσι κάπως λοιπόν, επινόησε μια μέθοδο, συνισταμένη από ορισμένες «απόψεις» και «κανόνες», για την εύρεση της αλήθειας. Αυτήν την μέθοδο θέλει να την εκθέσει στην κρίση του αναγνωστικού του κοινού, για να βεβαιωθεί, αν όντως είναι ορθή γιατί όπως λέει και ο ίδιος «μπορεί να γελιέμαι κι ίσως να μην είναι παρά λίγος χαλκός και γυαλί αυτό που παίρνω για χρυσάφι και διαμάντια». Η αμφιβολία λοιπόν είναι η δεύτερη φύση κάθε φιλοσόφου, κάθε στοχαστή. Οι σπουδές του, ομολογεί πως δεν τον βοήθησαν ιδιαίτερα «δεν είχα κερδίσει τίποτα άλλο, εχτός που είχα ανακαλύψει ολοένα περισσότερο την αμάθειά μου». Και εκθέτει με πικρία την ιστορία του πνεύματός του, τις επιστήμες που συνάντησε στην πορεία του (γλώσσες, ιστορία, μυθολογία, ρητορική, ποίηση, θεολογία, φιλοσοφία, νομική, ιατρική, μαθηματικά) όλες τις σπούδασε (εκτός από τις απόκρυφες που θεωρεί πως πρόκειται για ψεύτικα τεχνάσματα) και τελικά κατέληξε απογοητευμένος από όλες. Μια επιστήμη λοιπόν. Αναζητεί μια επιστήμη που να ικανοποιεί το πνεύμα του «μια επιστήμη που θα μπορούσε να βρεθεί μέσα μου ή και μέσα στο μεγάλο βιβλίο του κόσμου». Γι’ αυτό ρίχτηκε στα ταξίδια. Θέλησε να μελετήσει τα «ήθη των ανθρώπων». Κι εκεί όμως συνάντησε πολλά ψέματα και τότε συνειδητοποίησε πως ίσως πολλές από τις πεποιθήσεις που προέρχονται από το δικό του πολιτισμικό περιβάλλον μπορεί να είναι εξίσου «εξωφρενικές και γελοίες». Όταν όμως έχουμε ασπαστεί κάτι, όταν δεν μας διέπει το κριτικό πνεύμα της αμφιβολίας, όλα τα δεχόμαστε ως αληθινά και δεδομένα. Και κάποια μέρα, αποφασίζει να μελετήσει τον ίδιο του τον εαυτό. Να γίνει ο ίδιος, το αντικείμενο της διερεύνησής του. Αυτή η στροφή του Ντεκάρτ είναι η απαρχή μιας ανθρωπολογίας προορισμένης μέσα στους αιώνες που θα ακολουθήσουν να φέρει στο φως τις ιδιότητες και τα χαρακτηριστικά της ανθρώπινης φύσης, εξορίζοντας τον Θεό και την θεολογία από το κέντρο του ανθρώπινου στοχασμού. Κι αυτή ακριβώς η μικρή στροφή, αποτελεί τομή, στην ιστορία της σκέψης της ανθρωπότητας.Δεύτερο μέρος:Έτσι κάποια χειμωνιάτικη μέρα, στις αρχές του Τριακονταετούς πολέμου, σε ένα δωμάτιο με μια θερμάστρα, σκέφτεται πως τα ξένα έργα είναι πολύ δύσκολο να τα κάνουμε δικό μας κτήμα και πως μόνο να τα μπαλώνουμε μπορούμε, σε αντίθεση με εκείνα που αποτελούν αποκλειστικά δικό μας δημιούργημα. Οι τωρινές επιστήμες είναι τελικά ένα συνονθύλευμα από θεωρίες, πάνω στις οποίες κάποιος έρχεται να προσθέσει και δεν μπορούν να πλησιάσουν την αλήθεια. Και ίσως θα ήταν καλό, αντί να επισκευάζεις ένα παλιό σπίτι, κάνοντας προσθήκες, να το γκρεμίσει συθέμελα και να το χτίσεις ολάκερο από την αρχή. Χωρίς τις ξένες γνώμες και παρεμβολές, μονάχα με την δύναμη του λογικού. Θέλει λοιπόν να τα γκρεμίσει όλα μέσα του και να χτίσει εκ νέου «με το αλφάδι του λογικού». Δεν θέλει ωστόσο να αλλάξει την κοινωνία, δεν πρόκειται να συγκρουστεί με την καθεστηκυία τάξη, με τους θεσμούς και τις παραδόσεις. «Ποτέ ο σκοπός μου δεν απλώθηκε πέρα από το να προσπαθήσω να μεταρρυθμίσω τις ατομικές μου σκέψεις και να χτίσω πάνω σε έδαφος ολότελα δικό μου». Κι από όλες τις γνώμες διαλέγει να αναζητήσει την δική του «να καθοδηγηθώ μοναχός μου». Αναζητά λοιπόν μια μέθοδο που να έχει τα θετικά από τρεις επιστήμες, τη λογική, την γεωμετρία και την άλγεβρα αλλά χωρίς να πάσχει από τις εγγενείς τους αδυναμίες. Από τα παραγγέλματα της λογικής κρατάει μόνο τέσσερα:• Να μη παραδέχομαι τίποτε άκριτα ως αληθινό.• Να διαιρώ τις δυσκολίες, τόσο όσο χρειάζεται ώστε να τις επιλύω ευκολότερα.• Να κατευθύνομαι βαθμηδόν από τα απλούστερα και ευκολότερα στα δυσκολότερα και συνθετότερα. • Να απαριθμώ τα πάντα, ώστε να μη μου διαφεύγει το παραμικρό. Από τα απλούστερα συνάγονται τα πολυπλοκότερα, και υπό την προϋπόθεση πως δεν θα παρεισφρήσει κάτι αναληθές στον συλλογισμό, θα μπορέσουμε να φτάσουμε στο τέλος στο ξεδίπλωμα κάθε αλήθειας όσο κρυμμένη ή απλησίαστη κι αν είναι αυτή. Ακριβώς όπως κάνουν και οι γεωμέτρες. Εξετάζουν σχέσεις και εντοπίζουν αναλογίες. Αυτό που όμως τον βοήθησε στα μαθηματικά, και του έδωσε τον τρόπο να λύνει με επιτυχία τα προβλήματα, τον τρόμαξε όταν πήγε να το εφαρμόσει στην φιλοσοφία. Γιατί εκεί τα πράγματα δεν είναι πάντα μετρήσιμα μεγέθη και υπολογίσιμα, γιατί εκεί όλα είναι περισσότερο συγκεχυμένα. Τρίτο μέρος: Έτσι μέχρι να αισθανθεί αρκετά ώριμος για το εγχείρημά του, αποφασίσει να επινοήσει μια «προσωρινή ηθική» για καθαρά «ατομική χρήση».• Να κρατώ τα έθιμα και τις παραδόσεις και την θρησκεία που γαλουχήθηκα και όλα τα υπόλοιπα να προτιμώ τις μετριοπαθέστερες γνώμες.• Να υποστηρίζω έμπρακτα τις επιλογές, σαν τον χαμένο μες στο δάσος που αντί να περιπλανιέται κάνοντας κύκλους προτιμότερο να κρατήσει μια ευθεία ρότα για να μπορέσει να φτάσει στο τέλος του δάσους. Κι όταν δεν ξέρω την σωστότερη γνώμη να διαλέγω την πιθανότερη. • Αφού τίποτα στον κόσμο δεν είναι στην εξουσία μου σε αυτόν τον κόσμο, πέρα από τις σκέψεις μου συνεπώς όσα είναι έξω από την σφαίρα των δυνατοτήτων μου πρέπει να είναι πέρα από τη σφαίρα των επιθυμιών μου. (σσ: Εδώ υπάρχει ένα απόσπασμα που έχω κυκλώσει από μια παλιότερη ανάγνωσή μου, δεν θα έπρεπε να ήμουν παραπάνω από 21 ετών: «Και πως την ανάγκη φιλοτιμία ποιούμενοι, καθώς λένε, δεν θα επιθυμούμε να είμαστε γεροί, όταν είμαστε άρρωστοι ή ελεύθεροι, όταν βρισκόμαστε στη φυλακή, περισσότερο από όσο επιθυμούμε τώρα να έχουμε κορμιά από ύλη άφθαρτη όσο τα διαμάντια ή φτερά για να πετούμε σαν τα πουλιά». Κι έξω από τον κύκλο έχω σημειώσει με μολύβι: «Τί βλακείες». Σήμερα -100 περίπου χρόνια μετά- καθώς ξαναδιαβάζω την φράση αυτή του Ντεκάρτ, συνεχίζω να οργίζομαι γιατί υποχρεώνομαι να ζω σε έναν κόσμο όπου, ως ουδέν μονιμότερον, η προσωρινή Καρτεσιανή ηθική μοιάζει να έχει γίνει καθεστώς). • Να βρω την ιδανική ενασχόληση, δηλαδή την καλλιέργεια του λογικού και την αναζήτηση της αλήθειας. Γιατί είναι δυνατό έτσι, οι επιθυμίες μου να στραφούν γύρω από πράγματα εφικτά, αφού υπόκεινται αποκλειστικά στο δικό μου χέρι, όπως η απόκτηση των αγαθών που προκύπτουν από την απόκτηση της αρετής. Αυτές είναι σκέψεις που κάνει ο Ντεκάρτ μέσα στην θαλπωρή της θερμάστρας του. Κι έπειτα δυναμωμένος από αυτές αποφασίζει να ταξιδέψει στον κόσμο. Και ταξιδεύει για εννιά ολάκερα χρόνια, στην Ιταλία, στη Γαλλία, στη Γερμανία, στην Ιταλία και επιδίδεται στο να αποβάλλει τις πλάνες και να διατηρεί μόνο όσα αποδεδειγμένα είναι αληθινά και ορθά. Και στο τέλος καταλήγει στην Ολλανδία και εκεί αποφασίσει να καταγράψει και να συνθέσει το φιλοσοφικό του σύστημα που απέκτησε μέσα από τις εμπειρίες του και όχι μέσα από την ανάγνωση των βιβλίων. (Αυτό από μόνο του μπορεί να ακούγεται παράξενο ή αστείο, αλλά ένας περιοδεύων «θεατής» μέσα στην Ευρώπη του 17ου αιώνα, όπου έζησε ο Ντεκάρτ σίγουρα θα είχε να δει πολλά παράξενα και αλλόκοτα και απαράδεχτα και εντελώς αντίθετα προς τη λογική, να επικρατούν ως θέσφατα, ως κανόνες και ως παραδόσεις. Πόσο μάλλον σε περίοδο πολέμου. Ο Ντεκάρτ άλλωστε δεν σκοπεύει βάσει της προσωρινής ηθικής του να αλλάξει τον κόσμο, αλλά τον εαυτό του, συνεπώς σωπαίνει και στοχάζεται).Τέταρτο μέρος:Ξεκινάει με την υπόθεση πως έστω ότι τίποτα από όσα υπάρχουν στο νου δεν είναι περισσότερο αληθινά από εκείνα υπάρχουν στην φαντασία των ονείρων μας. Επειδή όμως κάτι πρέπει να είναι αληθινό συμπεραίνει πως σίγουρα ο εαυτός του υπάρχει, εφόσον ο εαυτός του παράγει όλες τις σκέψεις. Συνεπώς αναφέρει πως η πιο ακλόνητη αλήθεια υπάρχει στο «σκέφτομαι άρα υπάρχω». Κι αυτή η αλήθεια δεν σηκώνει την παραμικρή αμφιβολία. Κι από εκεί εξαρτά την ύπαρξη από την σκέψη, και προχωρεί σε έναν διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στην ψυχή και το σώμα: «κι αν ακόμα το σώμα δεν υπήρχε διόλου, πάλι η ψυχή δεν θα έπαυε να είναι ό,τι είναι». Και κάπως έτσι οι πιο ξεκάθαρες ευδιάκριτες σκέψεις δεν μπορούν παρά να είναι οι αληθέστερες. Για παράδειγμα η ύπαρξη του Θεού. Το να σκέφτομαι περί ενός όντος τελειότερου από εμένα, σημαίνει αυτομάτως πως το ον αυτό είναι αληθινό. Η ιδέα της τελειότητας δεν πηγάζει από τον ίδιο. Ο ίδιος δεν είναι τέλειος. Συνεπώς κάποιο τέλειο Ον υπάρχει και είναι αυτό που του υποβάλλει την ιδέα της τελειότητας. Ο Ντεκάρτ επιμένει στον διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στην αίσθηση και στη νόηση. Θεωρεί την πρώτη ατελέστερη και τη δεύτερη πως υπερβαίνει τα πεπερασμένα όρια της φαντασίας, θεωρεί πως είναι εκείνη που οδηγεί σε συλλήψεις πέρα και έξω από τον υλικό κόσμο. Με τη νόηση μπορούμε να στοχαστούμε περί του Θεού και περί της ψυχής κι ας μην μπορούμε να αντιληφθούμε τον Θεό και την ψυχή με τις αισθήσεις. Και καταλήγει πως «ούτε η φαντασία, ούτε οι αισθήσεις μας μπορούν ποτέ να μας βεβαιώσουν για τίποτα αν δεν μεσολαβήσει η νόησή μας». Η ατέλειά μας είναι η αιτία που δεν σκεφτόμαστε ξεκάθαρα. Η τελειότητα του Θεού είναι η πηγή των ξεκάθαρων και διακριτών σκέψεων. Χωρίς αυτήν την τελειότητα, η πραγματικότητα δεν διαφέρει από το όνειρο. Και για να αποφύγει τις συγχίσεις καταλήγει πως «είτε είμαστε ξυπνητοί, είτε κοιμισμένοι, πρέπει να πειθόμαστε μονάχα με την προφάνεια του λογικού μας», αν και στο ξύπνιο μας το λογικό δεσπόζει περισσότερο από όσο στα όνειρά μας. Κι έτσι μπορεί κάποιος με μεγαλύτερη ασφάλεια να διαχωρίσει την φαντασία από την πραγματικότητα.Πέμπτο μέρος:Με πολύ φόβο και αυτολογοκρινόμενος προκειμένου να μην εξοργίσει τους Ιησουίτες και τους απανταχού καθολικούς, αναφέρει πως με τη μέθοδό του μπόρεσε να εξηγήσει και να κατανοήσει διάφορα κοσμολογικά φαινόμενα (κίνηση της γης, του ήλιου, των πλανητών) χωρίς να απαρνηθεί την ύψιστη αρχή της τελειότητας του Θεού και των νόμων που αναμφίβολα ο ίδιος έχει θέσει, θέτοντας σε κίνηση τον κόσμο που δημιούργησε. Και όλα αυτά τα κατέγραψε σε μια πραγματεία. (στο σημείο αυτό με εντυπωσίασε ιδιαίτερα ο φόβος τον Ντεκάρτ για την εκκλησία και τον βαθμό που αυτή κυριαρχούσε επάνω στη σκέψη των ανθρώπων, σαν μια αέναη απειλή). Ο Θεός αυτός λοιπόν που έφτιαξε τον υλικό κόσμο, έφτιαξε από τα ίδια υλικά μέρη και τον άνθρωπο. Κι ως προς αυτό ο άνθρωπος δεν διαφέρει από τα υπόλοιπα δημιουργήματα. Αλλά ο Θεός πέρα από την υλική ψυχή, τον εμψύχωσε και με μία άλλη, μοναδική στον κόσμο μια «ψυχή λογική» που δεν παράγεται από την δύναμη της ύλης. Προχωρεί στην αναφορά της λειτουργίας του ανθρώπινου σώματος και στην μηχανική που διέπει την κυκλοφορία του αίματος. (αρτηρίες, φλέβες, κίνηση της καρδιάς, λειτουργία των πνευμόνων και στομαχιού, μυϊκό σύστημα κτλ). Και τελικά καταλήγει στον εγκέφαλο, ο οποίος σχηματίζει ιδέες που δημιουργούνται από τις αισθήσεις, τις οποίες τις παραλαμβάνει έπειτα η μνήμη και η φαντασία για να τις ανασυνθέσει. Η ικανότητα της ομιλίας διαχωρίζει τον άνθρωπο από τα ζώα και συνιστά μια προωθημένη μορφή έκφρασης της έλλογης σκέψης, όπου υπερβαίνει και στέκει επάνω από τους νόμους της μηχανικής, από όλα τα υπόλοιπα υλικά δημιουργήματα. Κι αφού η λογική ψυχή υπάρχει ξέχωρα και ανεξάρτητα από το σώμα συμπεραίνει πως δεν υπόκειται στο νόμο της φθοράς και πως είναι αθάνατη.Έκτο μέρος:Ενώ λοιπόν είχε έτοιμη την πραγματεία του να την δημοσιεύσει μαθαίνει την καταδίκη ενός άλλου (σσ. Εννοεί του Γαλιλαίου από την Ιερά Εξέταση) και σπεύδει να ακυρώσει το εγχείρημά του. Ωστόσο υπάρχει κάτι, ένα αίσθημα ευθύνης απέναντι στην διάδοση μιας γνώσης, την οποία περιγράφει ως «πρακτική φιλοσοφία» ικανής να κατασκευάζει μηχανές για το όφελος του ανθρώπου και να διασφαλίζει την ανθρώπινη υγεία (σσ. Κι όλα αυτά για να καταλήξουμε σήμερα στην Monsanto – Bayer; Αναρωτιέμαι, τί θα είχε να πει γι’ αυτό ο Καρτέσιος, αλλά φαίνεται πως η κάθε εποχή έχει τη δική της Ιερά Εξέταση τελικά). Κι αυτή η έγνοια του τον κάνει να αρθρώσει μια έκκληση: «Να καλέσω τα άξια πνεύματα να προχωρήσουν παραπέρα, συμβάλλοντας, ο καθένας κατά την κλίση και τη δύναμή του, στα πειράματα που θα έπρεπε να γίνουν, και μεταδίνοντας επίσης στο κοινό όλα όσα μάθαιναν. Σε τρόπο που, αρχίζοντας οι τελευταίοι αποκεί που θα έχουν τελειώσει οι προηγούμενοι, κι ενώνοντας έτσι τις ζωές και τις εργασίες πολλών, να τραβήξουμε όλοι μαζί πολύ μακρύτερα απ’ όσο θα μπορούσε να προχωρήσει ο καθένας χωριστά». Στη συνέχεια απολογείται επί μακρόν για την απόφασή του, παρ’ όλα αυτά να μη δημοσιεύσει την πραγματεία του, κάνει λόγο για την φιλοσοφία που διέπει τα πειράματά του και τις όποιες αντιδράσεις συνάντησε. Και την απόφασή του να συνοδεύει τούτον εδώ τον «Λόγο περί της Μεθόδου» με τρεις μικρές πραγματείες οι οποίες ελπίζει πως δεν θα προκαλέσουν προβλήματα «περί Διοπτρικής, Μετεώρων και Γεωμετρίας» πάνω στις οποίες εφαρμόζει την επιστημονική του μέθοδο. Και καταλήγει στα περί γλώσσας:«Κι αν γράφω γαλλικά, που είναι η γλώσσα του τόπου μου, κι όχι λατινικά, που είναι η γλώσσα των δασκάλων μου, το κάνω επειδή ελπίζω πως όσοι χρησιμοποιούν αποκλειστικά το φυσικό λογικό τους εντελώς άδολο, θα κρίνουν τις γνώμες μου καλύτερα από εκείνους που πιστεύουν μονάχα στα αρχαία βιβλία». Και κλείνει λέγοντας για άλλη μια φορά, πως πάνω από όλα επιθυμεί να τον αφήσουν στην ησυχία του την οποία δεν την ανταλλάσσει ούτε με τη δόξα ολάκερου του κόσμου. Αυτό το έργο ήταν τόσο ωραίο, και εκτός των άλλων αποδεικνύει πόσο χρήσιμες υπήρξαν οι θερμάστρες για την εξέλιξη της ανθρώπινης νόησης (με αφορμή το χιόνι που ρίχνει απόψε χαχαχα).

  • Rowland Pasaribu
    2019-03-09 04:59

    The Discourse on the Method is a fascinating book, both as a work of philosophy and as a historical document. Descartes lived and worked in a period that Thomas Kuhn would call a "paradigm shift": one way of thinking, one worldview, was slowly being replaced by another. Descartes's work, while part of the new paradigm, still has one leg in the old mode of thought.The old, waning worldview was scholastic Aristotelianism. The Aristotelian paradigm had a conception of the mind, of knowledge, and of science that may seem very alien to us today, but this conception held sway over Western thought for about two thousand years.According to the Aristotelian tradition, the mind proper—what is exclusively "inside the head"—is limited to reason and understanding. Sensory perception, imagination, will, and so on, make reference to things outside the mind and so are not purely mental. Rather, they are the link that connects us to the outside world. According to Aristotle, there is no distinction between what I perceive and what is "out there." Thus, sensory experience gives us direct and immediate knowledge of objects in the world.Science, in this worldview, is a matter of taking the immediate evidence of sensory experience and deducing certain conclusions from it. The sensory experience is indubitable, and the deductions are logical, so all scientific knowledge is based on absolute certainty.One of Descartes's most significant contributions to the scientific revolution is his conception of sensory experience, imagination, and will as being just as much subjective mental phenomena as reason and understanding. His systematic doubting questions how it is that we can be certain about what we perceive. Descartes draws a sharp distinction between what our senses report to us and what is "out there."This re-conception of the mind shakes the foundations of Aristotelian scholasticism. If sensory experience is no longer self-evident, then we can no longer deduce certain scientific truths from these observations. Essentially, Descartes makes us sharply aware of what goes into a scientific observation. It is not a purely neutral and objective act of seeing the world as it is; it is an interpretive act that must be undertaken with great care and circumspection.The scientific paradigm that we have today owes a great deal to Descartes. Today, we have taken Descartes's method one step further. Now, we conclude that we can never have absolute certainty in the sciences. All we can hope for are sound theories that are supported by careful observations.Descartes himself does not reach this conclusion. To a large extent, he is still set on finding certainty. His search for certainty, beginning with the famous line "I am thinking, therefore I exist," has largely defined the course of a great deal of philosophy since his time. We can debate whether Descartes is right in having found certainty in this claim, and we can debate what kind of knowledge this is, but it seems clear that it is not a kind of knowledge that is applicable to science as a whole. In finding this certainty, Descartes hopes to rebuild science in the Aristotelian method of deduction from certain first principles. In hindsight, this effort may seem a bit misguided.Though his philosophy of science may be a bit askew, the philosophical method Descartes uses in part four of the Discourse has proven extremely valuable. His method of skeptical doubt has raised important philosophical questions concerning how we can be certain of, or even know, anything at all. His re-conception of what the mind is has largely defined the shape of Western psychology and philosophy ever since. His assertion that he is essentially a thinking thing and that his mind is distinct from his body has also raised a number of important philosophical questions: what is my relationship with my mind? What is my relationship with my body? If they are distinct, what is the causal connection between the two? And so on. Effectively, Descartes frames the questions that have preoccupied what we now call "modern philosophy."The turning point in Descartes's intellectual development occurred on November 10, 1619. He had attended the coronation of Ferdinand II in Frankfurt, and was returning to serve in the army of Maximilian of Bavaria. Due to the onset of winter, he holed himself up for a day, alone in a stove-heated room. With nothing else to occupy him, he set about thinking.He first mused that accomplishments of single individuals are usually more perfect than group efforts. Cities and buildings are more beautiful when they are made according to a single plan than when they are patched together piecemeal. Similarly, laws are better when they come from a single mind than when they evolve gradually over time. Descartes cites God's law as an instance of this perfection. These musings suggest to him that a person is best served by following the guidance of his reason alone, and not letting his judgments be clouded by his appetites and by the opinions of others.While it would be impossible to resolve the imperfections of a state or a body of sciences by tearing it all down and starting again from scratch, Descartes suggests that such a method is not quite as unreasonable on the individual level. He decided to let go of all his former opinions at once, and re-build them anew according the exacting standards of his own reason.Descartes is very careful, first of all, to point out that this method is meant only on an individual level, and he strongly opposes those who would try to topple a public institution and rebuild it from the ground up. Second, he reminds us that he only wants to discuss his method with us; he is not telling us to imitate him. In particular, he notes that there are two types of people for whom this method would be unsuited: those who think they know more than they do and who lack the patience for such careful work, and those who are modest enough to think that they are more capable of finding out the truth if they follow a teacher. Descartes would count himself among this second group if he hadn't had such a number of teachers and embarked on so many travels as to realize that the opinions of even learned men vary greatly.Before abandoning his former opinions entirely, Descartes formulates four laws that will direct his inquiry: First, not to accept anything as true unless it is evident; this will prevent hasty conclusions. Second, to divide any given problem into the greatest possible number of parts to make for a simpler analysis. Third, to start with the simplest of objects and to slowly progress toward increasingly difficult objects of study. Fourth, to be circumspect and constantly review the progress made in order to be sure that nothing has been left out.An obvious starting place was in the mathematical sciences, where a great deal of progress and certain knowledge had been achieved by means of demonstration. Descartes found his work made considerably easier if, on the one hand, he considered every quantity as a line, and, on the other hand, developed a system of symbols that could express these quantities as concisely as possible. Taking the best elements of algebra and geometry, he had tremendous success in both these fields.Before applying this method to the other sciences, Descartes thought it well to find some philosophical foundations for his method.If we were to identify a starting point for modern philosophy, November 10, 1619 would be as good a date as any. We might pinpoint precisely the moment that Descartes resolved to cast all his former opinions into doubt. This process of methodological doubt is central to Descartes, and indeed to most of modern philosophy. The results Descartes achieves by employing this method of doubt are discussed in Part Four of theDiscourse, so we will comment on his method in greater detail there.It is important, of course, that Descartes does not simply scrap everything he knows, or else he would have no guidance in rebuilding his knowledge. The four rules he lays out are meant as guidelines, so that he will be able to rely on them, and not on unnoticed prejudices. Descartes had initially collected twenty-one rules entitled Rules for the Direction of Our Native Intelligence in 1628, but left the manuscript unpublished. The four rules we find here can be read as a major abbreviation of that effort. Essentially, they demand that an inquiry proceed slowly and carefully, starting with basic, simple, self-evident truths, building toward more complex and less evident propositions.Descartes assumes a certain kind of theory of knowledge that was pretty much unquestioned in his day. In modern philosophical language, we call this a foundationalist epistemology. It sees knowledge as built up from simple, self-evident propositions, to higher and more complex knowledge. The theory states that if we were to analyze any complex proposition, we could break it down into increasingly smaller, simpler pieces until we were left with simple, non-analyzable propositions. These basic propositions would be either self-evidently true or self-evidently false. If they were all true, then we would know that the original complex proposition was also true. Of course, there are different variations of foundationalist epistemology; for example, the epistemology will shift depending on how the analysis is supposed to take place or on what the basic propositions are supposed to look like. But the general idea can be applied to Descartes easily. Knowledge is built up like a skyscraper, with the higher, complex knowledge built on simple, sturdy foundations.This is just one of a number of theories of knowledge that are batted about these days. Another theory that will come into play later in the Discourse is a coherentist epistemology, one that states that knowledge is more like a circle than a skyscraper. According to this theory, there is no foundational knowledge that is more basic than other knowledge. All knowledge fits together in such a way that it is internally coherent, but there is no fundamental self-evident proposition that is itself beyond doubt and that justifies all the other propositions. A statement is true because it is consistent with everything else we know to be true, not because it can be analyzed into simple parts.The reason that a foundationalist epistemology seems natural to Descartes at this point is that this is the epistemology that philosophy had inherited from Aristotle. As we have noted already in other sections of this SparkNote, Aristotelian scientific method works according to a system of syllogism and demonstration, where complex truths are logically deduced from simpler ones. This method implies a theory of knowledge according to which complex truths are built upon simpler ones that serve as an unquestioned bedrock of knowledge.It is significant that Descartes should choose mathematics to study according to this method. Mathematics has had far more success than any other field (except logic) with deductive reasoning. Math is built upon simple, self-evident axioms that are then used, along with some rules of inference, to derive proofs of more complex propositions.Descartes is not only one of the greatest philosophers of the modern world, he is also one of its greatest mathematicians. His discussion of algebra and geometry alludes to his discovery of analytic geometry that brought those two fields together. Until Descartes, algebra and geometry were two totally separate fields of study. He invented the Cartesian co-ordinate system that every math student knows and loves. That's the co-ordinate system with the x-axis and the y-axis that allows you to plot lines and curves and whatever other shapes you please. Geometrical figures could be plotted onto the co-ordinate grid, and since every line and curve on the grid corresponds to an equation, geometrical figures can be expressed as equations. Geometrical figures become algebraic equations, and algebraic equations can be graphed as geometrical figures. This all seems pretty commonplace to us today, but if you try to imagine solving math problems without graphing anything you'll begin to understand the colossal contribution Descartes made to mathematics.

  • Seval Yılmaz Koşar
    2019-03-05 02:18

    Descartes'ı hepimiz hayatımızın bir döneminde duymuşuzdur. Rasyonalizmin ve kartezyenciliğin kurucusu, modern batı felsefesinin babası olarak kabul edilen Descartes, başyapıtı olarak kabul edilen Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma'yı 1637 yılında yayımlamış. Gallilei'in başına gelenleri duyan Descartes, muhtemelen eserini bir miktar elden geçirip sansürlemiş. O ünlü "düşünüyorum öyleyse varım" (cogito ergo sum) önermesinin de bulunduğu bu kitapta kendi hayatından da özyaşamöyküsel bir kesit sunuyor kitabın başında ve kitabın sonunda da kalp/dolaşım sistemi ile ilgili bilimsel (tıbbi) bilgilere yer veriyor Descartes. İnsanı beden ve zihin olarak iki ayrı varlık olarak (kartezyen düalizm) ele alan Descartes, aklın varlığının baki olduğunu, bilimsel gerçeklere (ve Tanrı'nın varlığına da) akıl yoluyla ulaşılabileceğini ve şüphe edilen şeylerin gerçek kabul edilemeyeceğini savunuyor. Descartes, kitabında gerçek/şüphesiz bilgiye nasıl ulaşılabileceğini ve aşamalarını açıklıyor ve bunu "yöntem" olarak nitelendiriyor. Aslında Descartes, "tümevarım" yöntemini (basitten karmaşığa, küçükten büyüğe doğru vb.) savunuyor. Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma'yı İhsan Oktay Anar'ın Puslu Kıtalar Atlası'nda külhanbeyi ağzıyla "Zagon Üzerine Öttürme" adıyla görüp merak etmiştim ve o zaman bu kitabı okumak aklıma düşmüştü ancak okumak şimdi nasip oldu. Descartes'ın fikirlerini merak ediyorsanız ve felsefeyle ilgileniyorsanız bu kitabı tavsiye edebilirim. Ben, Latinceden çevrilip diğer birkaç dildeki çevirisiyle karşılaştırılmış Alfa Yayınları baskısını okudum ve çevirisi oldukça anlaşılırdı ancak diğer yayınevlerinden yayımlanan baskıların çevirileri hakkında bilgim yok. Keyifli okumalar.

  • M.
    2019-03-25 03:04

    "Dahası bana göre şu önerme, yani Düşünüyorum, öyleyse varım ya da mevcudum önermesinin doğruluğu o kadar kesin ve o kadar açıktı ki..." (s.70)Düşünüyorum öyleyse varım sözüyle meşhur olan filozof Descartes'in başyapıtı olarak kabul edilen Yöntem Üzerine Konuşma yazarın iki temel görüşü üzerine kurulu. Bunlardan ilki, kişinin her şeyden şüphe edebileceği lakin düşünen benliğinden şüphe edemeyeceği:"Sonra dikkatle kim olduğuma baktım ve gördüm ki, bir bedenim olmadığını ve içinde bulunduğum bir dünya ya da bir yer olmadığını hayal edebildiğim halde, ben hiçbir şekilde kendimin varolmadığını hayal edemiyordum." (s.71)İkinci temel görüş ise yöntemin önemi; kitaba da adını bu vermiş zaten:"Fikir ayrılıklarımızın nedeni, bazılarımızın bazılarına göre daha üstün bir akılla donatılmış olması değil, yalnızca farklı yöntemlerle düşünmemiz ve dikkatimizi aynı şeylere yöneltmememiz. Sonuçta sadece deha sahibi olmak yetmez, önemli olan onu doğru şekilde kullanmaktır." (s.28)Galileo'nun başına gelenlerden çok etkilenen filozofun kitabını bu minvalde nispeten sansüre uğratarak yazdığını düşünüyorum. Zaten Dünya adlı eserini de bu sebeple basmadığını kendisi de kitabın son bölümünde itiraf ediyor. İnsançocuğunun fikri olarak emekleme döneminden yürüme dönemine geçtiği bir zaman diliminin önemli isimlerinden olan Descartes felsefe okumalarında mutlaka uğranılması gereken bir durak. M.B.

  • Abdulla Awachi
    2019-03-20 22:56

    مراجعة كتاب “ حديث الطريقة “ للفيلسوف الفرنسي رينيه ديكارتهذا الكتاب هو أول كتاب أقرأه لديكارت ، بعد أن قرأت عنه كثيراً هنا و هناك ، و لكني كنت قد آليت على نفسي ألا أقرأ للفلاسفة إلا من كتبهم و أتجنب أي سرد أو تلخيص أو شرح لفكرهم و نتاجهم و ذلك بعد سماع نصيحة شوبنهاور، و إني لأعتقد أن هذه النصيحة قد فادتني كثيراً في نظرتي للكثير من الأمور ، فنحن كثيراً ما نسمع عن مذهب فكري معين و ديانة معينة و نحكم عليها قبل أن نرجع لنتاجات أصحابها و نتأملها جيداً و من ثم نحكم عليها.و لم يكن كتاب ديكارت بمنأى عن هذه القاعدة ، فلطالما سمعت عنه أقوالاً لم تكن كثيراً منها دقيقة.و في هذا الكتاب الذي يسميه ديكارت “ حديث الطريقة” يقدمه على أنه طريقته الخاصة به في تأمل الأمور و في فلسفتها و أن هذا العمل ليس موجهاً ليكون مثالاً للآخرين في كيف يجب أن تكون طرائقهم الخاصة ، إلا اللهم من باب مشاركة الآخرين بهذه الطريقة التي سار عليها ديكارت نفسه.و لأجل هذا التأمل انعزل ديكارت الخلق و مارس تأملاته الفريدة التي بدأها في نسف جميع المُسَلَمات و القواعد و البراهين : دينية كانت أم فلسفية أو هندسية رياضية ، ليبدأ بعدها - كما يقول- بناء بيتٍ جديدٍ بعد هدم البيت الفكري القائم ، فيشك في كل شيء ، و عندما لا يبقى شيئاً يشكُ فيه ، يصل لنفسه التي شكَّت و فكرت فيستدل أن لديه نفساً و ذاتاً موجودة هي التي قامت بعملية الشك و التفكير فيعتبر وجود الذات هو أول فكرة يسلَّم بها في فلسفته و منها ينطلق لبقية المسائل.و من خلال وجود فكرة الكمال داخل ذهنه يستدل على وجود إله خالق قادر عليم كامل أودع في أذهاننا فكرة الكمال و لو لا وجود هذا الاله لما كانت هذه الفكرة موجودة. و يعرج على انتقاد الثقة المطلقة بالحواس ضارباً عدة أمثلة من حقيقة أحجام الأجرام السماوية و بين ما نراها عليه من حجم تصوره لنا حواسنا، فاتحاً المجال للثقة أكثر بالميتافيزيقيا التي ينتقد من لا يؤمنون بها : كيف لهم أن يفرقوا بين حقيقة الأفكار التي تأتيهم وقت اليقظة و تلك التي تأتيهم إبان النوم أيهما أشد وثوقاً من الأخرى.ينتقل بعد ذلك لوصف بيولوجي دقيق لجسم الانسان و بالتحديد القلب و كيفية تشريحه و كيفية عمله و الشرايين التي يحتوي عليها و الأوردة المنظمة لعمله ، مستعرضاً التعقيدات العديدة في أجهزة الانسان و كيف أن القلب بما فيه من حرارة هو مصدر الحياة الأول الذي يمد كامل الجسم بما يحتاجه.و من القلب ينتقل للاستنتاج على تجرد النفس و استقلاليتها عن الجسد و على بقاءها بعد الموت و على العالم الاخر.و اللطيف في فقرة من فقرات الكتاب أنه يطير بتصوره للآلة التي يمكن أن تتحدث و تصيح و تعمل وفقاً للبرمجة البشرية، مما يجعلك تنتبه إلى أنه يصف الروبوت في تحليق للخيال سابق للزمن.بعد ذلك يدعو عوضاً عن الاكتفاء بالفلسفة النظرية لإيجاد فلسفة أخرى يسميها “فلسفة عملية” تساعد الانسان على تسخير عوامل الطبيعة بحيث يكون الانسان سيد الطبيعة و يسخر ذلك الاستغلال لزيادة راحته و صفاء مزاجه.يخصص القسم الأخير للتحدث عن نشر كتابه و عن سبب اختياره للغة الفرنسية -العامية آنذاك - لكتابته عوضاً عن اللاتيتية الرسمية و ذلك لكي يصل إلى أكبر عدد من الجمهور و لا ينحصر في طبقة المثقفين فقط.كتاب رائع جداً و أنصح به.Αωαςhι٢٥ آذار ٢٠١٦

  • Ahmed Oraby
    2019-03-14 01:57

    ما رأيي بالكتاب؟ هل أنت مهتم؟ اقرأ معي إذًا:يا إخوتي، هأنذا، بعد عمري كله، وبعد ما عايشته. وخبرته، وعلمت من التجارب، والشواهد، والأدلة، ما يؤكد كلامي ورأيي، وأؤكد لكم، بل وأكاد أتيقن، وأجزم، وأقطع، أن رأيي، الذي أقول به، وأعتقده، لهو صحيح، وكل هذا، لا يرجع، فقط، لكوني عايشته، وخبرته، ولكن لكوني متأكدًا، من داخلي، بأن لي رأيًا، تدعمه الشواهد والأدلة القاطعة، والتي لا شك فيها ولا مراء، بأن الله موجود، وبأني موجود وبأن الله حق، وبأنه عادل، وليس بشرير، وليس بمخادع، وليس بأحمق ولا ظالم ولا مهووس، وكل ذلك، بالطبع، يرجع، لعدة أدلة، قد بينتها من قبل، ولا أحب أن أعيد فيهاوكلامي مجددًا، ولكنها أدلة قوية، ويقينية، ولا يشكك فيها غير جاهل، أو متجن، أو أحمق، أو مدع للعلم، وكل هذه الأدلة، هي أدل حلوة، وكويسة، وجميلة، وبأن الله موجود، والنور موجود، والعالم، بالطبع موجود، ونفسي موجودة، وزين الدين زيدان، موجود، وإن لم يتسع الكلام الآن، للحديث عن ذلك باستطراد، وبعرض تام للأدلة، ولكنها، على كل حال، أدلة يقينية، لا يشكك فيها إلا الجهال، والمتجنين، ومدعي المعرفة الكذبة، ولكن أنا على حق، وقد رأيت من الشواهد نواهد، ولكني، مكسّل، وبصراحة، أن أوردها في أي من كتبي، لكنها موجودة، وسوف أعرضها في الفصل القادم من كتابي، ولكنها موجودة، لكني أنأى بنفسي عن كتابتها، لما قد يؤول لي من بعد وفاتي من تحريف لكلماتي، أو تحريف لأفكاري، أو تقوّل عليّ، ولما قد يحدث لي من اضطهاد أثناء حياتي، لذا، قد قررت، أن أتحدث كثيرًا، على مدى أربعمئة صفحة، دون أن أضع أيًا منهم، لكن مع الحديث عن كونهم موجودين، وعن المربع، والمثلث، والمستطيل، وبالطبع، الهندسة، دون أن أوضح غرضي، حقيقة، من ذكرهم، ولكن لإعطائكم نبذة فلسفتي الرياضية، والتي تؤكد أن الله موجود، لكني، مع ذلك، لن أقول، كيف، ولم، وعلام، وإلام أرمي. وليس هذا راجعًا لكوني منافق أو جبان، لكن لأني، وبصراحة، مليش مزاج، لإن العوام أنعام، لا يعقلون، ولأني لا أريد أن أخرجهم من عاميتهموالسلام. هذا هو عين ما فعله ديكارت. هل فهمت شيئًا؟ لا. بالظبط. هذا هو ما فعله، مقدمات، ونتائج، ومغالطات، واستنباطات، لا تدري صدقًا علاقتها ببعضها البعض. رحمه الله على كل حال، دخل في مستنقع الميتافيزيقا، بقارب مثلوم، لكن بذراعين قويتين، وظن أنهما كفيلتين (أو كفيلتان) بأن ينجياه، لكنه وجد نفسه يسبح بجسده ويبتلع كل القاذورات، دون أن تنجيه قوته.سيئ على كل حال

  • Mehdi
    2019-03-02 07:03

    حالا ما که هیچی نیستیم در عرصه فلسفه ولی به نظرم کتابش چیز خاصی نداشت و اساسا مسیر واحدی هم نداشت؛ از تشریح عملکرد قلب تا اثبات خدا از طریق عقلکتاب کوچکی است اما واقعا خواندنش سخت است؛ چون هیچ انسجامی و اساسا محتوای ویژه ای ندارد

  • bugen
    2019-02-27 05:03

    Summary of my notes on the Discourse, by part:I. The premise is introduced that reason is naturally equal in all, and truth is to be found by conducting it correctly. Descartes attempts to show how he himself has attempted this, not to dictate how everyone should.II. The method. Descartes wished to rebuild the very foundations upon which his opinions and views were formed. He decided to do this by systematic doubt. The key point is to never accept as true anything that is not known to be evidently so.III. Descartes outlines his provisional moral code that he used during his search, saying that if one wishes to rebuild their house, they must have alternate accommodation while doing so.IV. From his first unquestionable principle, 'I think, therefore I am', Descartes moves on to his proof for the existence of God.V. Largely a description of a treatise he never published, and discussion of the difference between human and animals souls. This part is generally of less interest, not written with such clarity and wit.VI. Here, he describes why that treatise was never published, his thoughts on experimentation, and his plans for future publications. This suffers from the same issues as part five. The real meat of the Discourse is to be found in parts one through four.

  • Susana
    2019-02-25 00:08

    Mais uma leitura obrigatória, desta vez no 11º ano.Talvez um dia cá volte...

  • Foad
    2019-03-22 02:06

    دکارت، در بیست و دو سه سالگی، بیشتر مابعد الطبیعه ی خودش رو پی ریزی کرد که البته، خیلی هم مابعد الطبیعه نبود. بلکه فقط مقدمه ی مختصری بود تا از شک رها بشه و بتونه به علوم دیگه بپردازه. چرا که به قول خودش، مابعدالطبیعه مثل تنه ی درخته و علوم دیگه، مثل شاخه. تا این تنه در جای درستی ریشه نداشته باشه، شاخه ها بار نمی دن.این رساله، شرح همون مابعدالطبیعه ای هستش که یک شب زمستانی، خمیده در کنار شومینه ساخته.

  • Francisco H. González
    2019-03-19 03:21

    La literatura como alimento para el espíritu. Así entiendo este libro del padre de la filosofía moderna. Una lectura primordial. Su brevedad ayuda además a vencer ciertas reticencias que se puedan oponer a su lectura.

  • Timothy Matias
    2019-03-20 07:09

    Rene’ Descartes’ “Discourse on the Method” is one of the most difficult books for me to review, in that it is half inspiring to me, and half disappointing; what starts out as a brilliant doubting methodology, eliminating whatever can be doubted until there is nothing left than can be by any conjecture or hypothesis be reasonably doubted- arrive at a basic, fundamental truth, providing a firm rational foundation from other truths can be derived. Unfortunately, once Descartes discovers this truth, (“I think, therefore I am”), he abandons his doubting methodology almost entirely, the remainder of the book being devoted to religion, morality, the intellectual superiority of men, Aristotelian thought, a lengthy explanation of his understanding of the human heart, and finally, a defense of his views and his reasons for promulgating them. The latter sections, when accounted together with the general apologetic tone of this work, suggests that a more fitting title would have been “Discourse on and Defense of the Method”, with the latter being the most disappointing aspect of his work.The first half of the book, divided into the first three sections, is comprised of Descartes’ intellectual background and the origins of his method, as well as the range of his education and experiences abroad. In these sections, he stresses the importance of a search for truth being elegant, providing several analogies for this, including: the aesthetic superiority of newer buildings built by one architect, over older buildings which have been maintained, remodeled, and “improved” by many different architects progressively less familiar with the original architect’s purpose;how while it more convenient to take the long winding path of a mountain, which is smooth and well-traveled, the most certain path to “truth” must necessarily be straight, though it is comparably untraveled, rocky, and passing through arduous heights and perilous precipitices; the importance of one who is lost in the forest, to stay to one side of a forest, as it is better to come out of the forest on the wrong end, than to perpetually wander in indecision, never coming out of the forest. Accordingly, he endeavors to, once he discovers the method by which to derive truths immune to doubt (dubbed by modern philosophy as the “doubting methodology”), be resolved in its application to the improvement of himself, and the acquisition of new knowledge. This may also explain his authoritative (though paradoxically humble) approach in the deriving of “truths” from his foundational axiom that his ability to think therefore he exists. (I’ll explain some of the negative impacts this had on the accuracy of his works, later on in the review).To doubt all that could be doubted, he first created a hypothetical conjecture by which everything that he knew would become uncertain, which is known today as the “dreaming conjecture”: If the waking world was really just a dream, then everything he saw could be a deception, much in the same way everything we see while dreaming is not happening in reality. It is here that he establishes that even if he were dreaming, and was thus compelled to doubt the truth of everything he saw, felt, imagined, or thought in reality, he still could not deny the fact that his doubts constituted thought, and as there needed to be a doubter to doubt something, his thoughts thereby confirmed his existence. This is the most brilliant part of “Discourse on the Method”, but unfortunately this is also where the brilliance ends.After determining that his thoughts confirm his existence (which would make him, at that point, effectively a solipsist, since the only knowledge he held with certainty was the existence of his own mind), Descartes confidently draws upon much of the knowledge that he had previously already doubted, including such axioms as the existence of perfection, the verification of ideas by virtue of being clearly known (basically, the perceived reliability of intuition), the notion that perfection and imperfection cannot coexist, the certainty that something cannot come from nothing, nor a lesser perfection come from a greater perfection. Building on these assumptions, which Descartes supposedly derived from his certainty of existence, he “proves” the absolute existence of God, that the attributes Descartes believed him to possess, were doubtlessly possessed by God, and the ones which Descartes was certain were contrary to God, he did not possess. This dramatic shift from rigid skepticism to a religiously and philosophically biased authoritarianism, greatly undermines the validity of Descarte’s “Discourse on the Method”.The ludicrousness of his “logic” can be plainly summarized as follows:1. To find the truth, we must doubt everything that can be doubted, until we find a truth so pure that it is immune to skepticism.2. To doubt everything that can be doubted, the notion that reality might well be a dream, is introduced. Everything we know could thus be a figment of our imagination, the deception created by mental delusion.3. We confirm that even if we doubt all else, the fact we can doubt confirms that we can think, which further confirms that there is a thinker, proving that even for a complete cynic, existence is undeniable, and furthermore, is confirmed by attempts to doubt it.(So far so good, but Descartes’ adherence to reason ends here)4. Everything I clearly know to be true is true indeed5. I know that perfection must exist, because how could the thought have been impressed upon me unless there were a greater perfection beyond myself6. This imperfection could not have come from nothing (that would be absurd), and neither could I be more perfect from that whence I came (which would be more absurd)7. Since I must have necessarily come from this greater perfection, my existence (which I have confirmed already) must have come from God8. Thus God existsDescartes then proceeds to determine whether God has deceived his senses to make reality different from what it is, and determines that:1. Since God is perfect, he cannot contain anything that is imperfect2. Thus anything imperfect, including deception, cannot come from GodAccordingly, Descartes can confidently and reliably determine what is real, and what is not, and what is good, and what is bad, by measuring them against God- that is, what Descartes deemed to be imperfect, comes from chaos, and what is perfect, must necessarily have its origin on God.To agree with Descartes’ conclusions, I would argue that one must completely disregard the very method the first half of this discourse is about, and assume all of his axioms as somehow, his plethora of axioms are supported by his confirmation that thought proves existence. If anyone can connect the dots for me on this, I would love to hear their thoughts, but so far as I can tell, Descartes inadvertently let his religious beliefs, and (later on, which I’ll get to) his philosophical background, interfere with objectivity of thought, these biases preventing him from accurately applying the central axiom upon which his entire doubting methodology was founded. This kind of backwards thinking, the primary weakness of not only Descartes’ thought, but of the rationalism movement as a whole, took the rest of his “Discourse on the Method” on an intellectual tangent, producing what is rationally a vastly inferior second half as a sequel to the first.After proving God’s existence, that reality is what it appears to be, and (apparently, though such a proof is not even mentioned!) confirming the existence of the human soul, Descartes demonstrates how his knowledge of God both confirms and clarifies his knowledge of geometry and the sciences, what he perceives with the senses, and a plethora of other “truths” which he said remained yet unpublished, so as to prevent controversy from interfering with his work. He further ventured that, even if other realities were to be created by God, that all of them would be just as true, and follow the same laws of natures, since they all have their origin in God. It’s clear at this point that Descartes had abandoned his method entirely in favor of religious dogma and metaphysical presumptions that he artificially made to conform to his “method”, despite any actual reasoning or evidence to support such an association.Here “the method” is removed from discourse entirely, as the humble Descartes boasts at length about his new-found “knowledge” and the results of his experiments (most of which are already disproven through modern scientific discoveries, and little more than an application of the “science” of Aristotle, Descartes’ primary philosophical influence, and the basis for most of the second half of this discourse). He describes his discoveries of the interactions of the four elements which, in Descarte’s time, were believed to compose everything: earth, fire, air, water) and the fifth element aether, which is implied in his analyses of light and the soul.The tangent continues even farther from the method with his exposition of animal organs, how they are similar to human organs, but that whereas humans also have vegetative and sensitive souls, they also possess that which no brute (animal/non-human, and quite possibly including Africans, whom Descartes implied in the beginning of the treatise are brutes) could possess- the rational soul, which enables humans to reason, and to communicate intelligibly through language, and adapt themselves to understand and be understood, and which even the most intellectually mediocre of humans can surpass the most intelligent of animals in proficiency. Of course, modern empirical science would have disproved Descarte’s claims in this regard too. If only to further demonstrate his own ignorance, he continued on to note that no machine, whether organic or mechanical, could replicate human intelligence convincingly, which of course is handily debunked by the ever-innovative modern scientific field of artificial intelligence.Descartes has thus made a great many assumptions, a far leap from doubting everything besides his ability to think, and by virtue of that, his own existence. Contrary to the original intent, Descartes has made his way to the edge of the forest, or to draw upon Plato’s allegory, to the mouth of the cave, only to dive back inside in search of deeper “truth” than he could find in the mere assurance of his own existence. And contrary to his maxim of striving for elegance, even at the cost of intellectual hardship and existential peril, he abandoned his “Occam’s Razor” and created theories building upon a myriad of assumptions, abandoning the necessity of undoubtable axioms, in favor of religion, intuition, Aristotelian thought, and personal bias. So much for objectivity!After this point, he gives a long winding explanation of the interworkings of the heart and the flow of blood, through the lens of the aforementioned 5-element medieval conception of nature and biology. Basically, his explanations are sound, but insufficiently vague to establish his credibility as a master of anatomy, and unacceptably tainted by simplistic and distorted understandings of chemistry and elemental structure. He then skims over how he theorizes the senses manifest perception, how our body induces the sleeping and waking states, etc. With each page of Descartes’ “discourse”, the once humble Descartes transforms himself into a deluded, authoritative know-it-all, and this treatise became more difficult to read with every paragraph, as the originally meaningful discourse discards the central focus in favor of fashioning itself a medieval textbook, only stretched over every single topic of the sciences, and without much relation between them. “In fine”, [the term used in the English translation to mean 'in summary'], the second half of this treatise successfully warps it into a collection of tangential philosophical speculations misrepresented as demonstrated facts.The final section has little to be said about, except that it is half-apologetic, and half self-promotion. This sort of thing is ordinarily found in the preface or the introduction to a work, or some other sort of author’s note, but Descartes ended up placing it at the end of the book, for God knows what reason. He explains how he didn’t want to release the treatises (mainly, the other ones, which are continually aluded to in this one), but felt compelled to so as to not be thought ill of for refraining from doing so. He explains how even though he wishes to have his work undisturbed, and his repose uninterrupted, that he felt the need to release the work first to preserve his reputation (which had grown despite his efforts to the contrary), and second to ensure that a greater understanding and application of his work could be achieved than if it were published post-mortem. He then goes on to promote the importance of his work being studied and analyzed properly, and of people replying to the discourse via his publisher so as to improve it. All of these things, while perhaps essential for an author to convey to his readership, are hardly the kind of thing to be devoted a section to, but at this point I’ve already given up on finding any logic to Descartes’ “Discourse on the Method”, which disappeared soon after the third section of this treatise was completed.Regardless of my misgivings regarding the logic of this discourse, and the due-noted unfaithfulness to the axioms and maxims his work was founded on, Descarte’s authoritative approach to “truth”, and the scientific and mathematical discoveries he derived from it, have indeed benefited mankind, so ultimately, his purpose in writing this work, and the concerning treatises, was fulfilled. On one hand, I consider him the Aristotle of the 17th century, creating a philosophical movement that would impede the progress of the fields of philosophy and science for decades, even centuries. On the other hand, his somewhat extremist, biased, authoritative approach to philosophy and the sciences led him to conceive of knowledge far beyond the scope of the sciences of the time. Both perspectives are reminiscent of Sigmund Freud, the physicist-philosopher who imagined a whole system of psychoanalysis and built the foundations of modern psychology, but is now widely criticized for the many speculative ideas he promoted as fact (now mostly disproven by modern psychology and psychiatry), particularly regarding human motivation and sexuality, and child development. In the same way, Descartes’ ideas, while many (or most, I might venture) were factually wrong, and often the opposite of the truth, helped create a scientific and philosophical revolution, contributing greatly to the present knowledge of these respective fields. In light of these contributions, it’s no wonder he is widely considered the founder of modern philosophy, despite his rational shortcomings.

  • Ahmed Abdelazim
    2019-03-13 03:01

    لابد لنا من الوقوف هنا لننظر متأملين الى احدى مكتسبات الانسانيه هنا مرحلة انعطاف هامه في تاريخ الهوموسابيانز والعلوم الانسانيه المكتسبه تماما حالها كحال منازعة كوبرينيكوس لافكار بطليموس القائله بمركزية الارض والتي روّج لها جاليلو لاحقا، وماديّة نيوتن، وتطوّر داروين، ونسبية اينشتين، وووو - رضي الله عنهم أجمعين -يوم أن صُودر الكثير من العظمة المزعومة للانسان البدائي الذي كان يرى نفسه وكوكبه مركزا للأجرام السماويه حيث يدورون خضوعا له بينما هو يبقى ثابتا !! حتى بدى لنا أننا مجرد أجرام صغيره حقيره لاحقاالكوجيتو الديكارتي المشهور " أنا أفكر إذن إنا موجود " حيث أنك جوهرٌ كلّ ماهيته أو طبيعته ليس إلا أن يفكر بالإضافة الى عرض موجز لتجربة الانسان الروحية والحديث عن مذهبه الشكي الذي كانت له أصداء أفلاطونيه سابقا، وكذا آمن به الشيخ الأكبر محيي الدين، حتى صاغه ديكارت بإحكام، فانطلق منه طه حسين أدبيا في مصنف " الشعر الجاهلي " - على سبيل المثال عربيا -

  • Nemo
    2019-02-24 05:24

    An Interview with DescartesN: Cartesius, ever since I read your treatise "Meditations on First Philosophy: In which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated", I've wished to meet you in person and discuss the subjects in detail.C: Is that why you imagined this conversation with me?N: Unfortunately, I have no power of imagination, with which you are abundantly gifted.C: Nemo, you're gifted with the faculty of reason, which all men have, and by which you can distinguish truth from error.N: Speaking of the faculty of reason, you write in the Discourse on the Method that it is by nature equal in all men. But how can this be? It seems obvious that you yourself possess a far greater share of reason than most men.C: The difference does not lie in the faculty of reason itself, but in the way we apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it. For myself, I have never fancied my mind to be in any respect more perfect than those of the generality.N: When you say "greatest minds", aren't you implying there is a difference in the share of reason?C: The difference of greater and less holds only among the accidents, and not among the forms or natures of individuals of the same species. Man possesses the faculty of reason as the essence of his species, which is complete in each individual, but there are differences among individuals arising from the differences in the ways they apply reason and the subjects to which they apply it.N: If I understand you correctly, you believe that if all men apply their reason rightly, they'll inevitably arrive at the same conclusion regarding the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.C: That is correct.N: Why is it that many rational and intelligent men do not believe in them at all?C: They have not applied their rational faculties, keen as they may be in other subjects, in carefully pondering these most important questions. Many learned men in my time objected to my arguments, and you've read their objections and my replies, have any of them provided any legitimate refutations?N: None whatsoever, but still it didn't prevent people from voicing their opinions. Some even conjectured that you didn't believe in the existence of God yourself, but only wrote the treatise to pacify the religious authority of your time, and forestall the fate that had befallen Galileo who had been condemned by the Inquisition.C: You've soundly refuted them yourself, Nemo. Your good will towards me is manifest in the manner you read my writings, expound my arguments and defend them against objectors.N: If I may say so, Cartesius, I think freedom is something you hold dear. If it is within your power, you'd rather devote your time to your thoughts and the search of truth in the sciences than defending your belief against unreasonable adversaries and authorities.C: Archimedes, in whose writings I discovered the methods of conducting geometry, used his knowledge of the sciences to defend the city of Syracuse against the Romans. So I found it necessary to defend our belief with the power of reason, and demonstrate that the right use of reason is beneficial to all men.N: I must confess I have become a big fan of yours, being both enthralled by the brilliance of your mind and saddened by your premature death. How much more you could have contributed to science and philosophy had you lived longer!C: There is no reason to be sad. Since I'm now free to think without any hindrance of the body, I can now comprehend and see the truth more clearly and distinctly than I ever did in the body.N: You say "see" the truth. Can you "see" without the eye or any other sensory organs?C: We do not see with the senses. The images in our mind are not generated by the sensory organs, but by the brain itself, which is also what happens to us in dreams. The mind make its own judgments of the senses it receives, and form opinions and ideas independently of the senses. A geometer can deduce the attributes of a triangle without looking at a triangle. In the same way, the whole corporeal universe can be "seen" with the rational faculty, because all bodies are quantifiable and can be accurately described by mathematics. The image of the world thus formed by the mind is far more clear and distinct than the image that is retrieved from the senses.N: As a mathematician and philosopher, you're accustomed to abstract thinking, and not only that, but you have purposefully trained yourself to think independently of the senses. Few men can do that, and I'm not one of them, I'm afraid.C: This conversation would not happen if you're incapable of abstract thinking.N: (laughing) Touche.(Read full interview at Books On Trial)

  • Raúl
    2019-03-06 05:01

    ''La diversidad de nuestras opiniones no procede de que unos sean más racionales que otros, sino tan solo de que dirigimos nuestros pensamientos por caminos distintos y no consideramos las mismas cosas. No basta, ciertamente, tener un buen entendimiento: lo principal es aplicarlo bien''.Se suele hablar de la revolución de 1600 en referencia al triunfo del helicocentrismo copernicano y al nacimiento de la ciencia moderna, pero estas cosas funcionan a su ritmo, y no hay que olvidar que en aquella época el pensamiento predominante en las universidades seguía siendo el medieval, en particular la escolástica tomista. El Renacimiento había fijado la vista en la antigüedad, intentando rescatar el perfecto latín de Cicerón, la Academia de Platón o incluso la sabiduría de Epicuro; los humanistas habían dado más importancia al hombre de la que había tenido durante siglos, y hubo a este respecto pasos de gigante, así como genios para todo de la talla de Leonardo da Vinci. Pero esta acumulación de saberes y aportaciones, unidos a la crisis religiosa que vivía el viejo continente, acabaron avivando una postura escéptica, por un lado, y un afán de buscar la unidad del conocimiento humano, por otro. Tenemos que contextualizar a Descartes en este segundo grupo de pensadores, al igual que Francis Bacon en Inglaterra: a éste último lo consideramos el padre del empirismo moderno, mientras que Descartes fue el padre del racionalismo moderno, o incluso el padre de la filosofía moderna, según la convención historiográfica tradicional. Publicado en francés, y no en latín, para que pudiera ser leído por un grupo mayor de personas, el 'Discurso del método' (1637) era en realidad la introducción de una serie de tratados publicados conjuntamente en la misma obra: 'Dióptrica', 'Meteoros' y 'Geometría'. Descartes hubiera querido publicar más material que había preparado, pero su providencial prudencia le contuvo, asustado por la reciente condena impuesta a Galileo, en la que la Inquisición le obligó a retractarse de sus tesis. De hecho, Descartes había escrito, años atrás, su tratado 'Le monde', que no llegó a la imprenta por esta misma razón. Dedica bastante espacio en el 'Discurso del método' a resarcirse de ello resumiendo algunos de los puntos que había tratado en su libro auto-censurado, sin mencionar, por supuesto, los aspectos más problemáticos. Siempre prudente, Descartes se cura en salud dejando claro desde el comienzo que su obra no pretende criticar las instituciones universitarias, y mucho menos pretender una reforma social, sino tan solo hablar de su propio caso, su evolución intelectual y su método. En más de una ocasión hay que leer entre líneas, más allá de la prudencia, para ver que sus críticas y las consecuencias de sus tesis llevarían inevitablemente a una reforma, a pesar de encontrarnos con fragmentos como éste, que dejan claro su miedo a ser interpretado en clave política:''Por esta razón no puedo en modo alguno aprobar la conducta de esos hombres de carácter inquieto y atropellado que, sin ser llamados por su nacimiento ni por su fortuna al manejo de los negocios públicos, no dejan de hacer siempre, en su mente, alguna nueva reforma. Me pesaría mucho que se publicase este escrito si creyera que hay en él la menor cosa que pudiera hacerme sospechoso de semejante insensatez''.Sin embargo, más allá de la falsa modestia, Descartes era muy consciente de su aportación y consideraba a su trabajo rompedor en mucha estima. Su interés real eran las ciencias, y ambicionaba realizar grandes contribuciones en el futuro, quizás sobre todo en el terreno de la medicina. Aunque no ha pasado a la historia precisamente por esto, en la quinta parte del 'Discurso' hay un pasaje muy interesante en la que ataca partes de la teoría de William Harvey sobre la circulación de la sangre y, más allá de que Descartes se equivocara rotundamente en lo que respecta al mecanismo del corazón, es una gozada poder leer sus razones, basadas en su propio método, y meter un poco el hocico en los debates que se gestaban entonces sobre el tema, pura historia de la medicina. Pero volvamos al principio: ¿por qué fue importante el 'Discurso del método'? Desde luego, no por la concepción cartesiana de la física y la fisiología, sino por la propia búsqueda del método en sí, inspirado en primer lugar por el método geométrico, tan certero. Este es un raro caso en el que la introducción de una obra, que llegaría a ser la obra de toda una vida, se acabó convirtiendo en el aspecto esencial. Dentro de las aportaciones de Descartes, debemos relativizar un poco el famoso axioma 'cogito, ergo sum', pues aunque la historia se lo ha otorgado como propio, Descartes no fue original al concebirlo; no hace falta acudir al lejano Agustín a Hipona, ya que fue Gómez Pereira, un médico y filósofo español del siglo XVI, injustamente olvidado, el que llegó antes a esas reflexiones, y se hicieron tan famosas que seguramente habrían llegado a oídos de Descartes, que no acostumbraba a citar a nadie. La originalidad del francés, lo que de verdad lo hizo único, fue tanto su intuición de la necesidad de fundamentación de todas las ciencias, que consideraba en unidad, bajo un solo método básico, racional y sencillo - elegante, que dirían los matemáticos -, como situar el 'cogito' de primer pilar de todo el conocimiento humano. El criterio de verdad abandonaba para siempre el argumento de autoridad y, en Descartes, se establecía en la 'evidencia', los juicios claros y distintos de los que tanto se debatiría posteriormente con posiciones encontradas: defensas acaloradas del cartesianismo y también fuertes oposiciones, sobre todo de parte del empirismo inglés. Seguramente no lo pretendió así de antemano pero, a partir de Descartes, la filosofía moderna se centró en la epistemología, y este protagonismo llegaría hasta Kant.Así pues, este clásico es absolutamente recomendable para todo interesado en la historia de la filosofía. Si nos atenemos a la filosofía de Descartes, hay aquí partes más trabajadas que otras; por ejemplo, la duda metódica está apenas esbozada - seguramente por prudencia, ya que este libro se publicó en francés, como decíamos - y aparecerá mucho mejor expuesta en las 'Meditaciones metafísicas' (1631), así como las pruebas de la existencia de Dios. Pero la evolución intelectual del autor, la necesidad del método y la concepción mecanicista del mundo físico están aquí muy bien expuestas. Por no hablar de la moral, en la tercera parte, que es el único texto publicado por Descartes en el que trata el tema, ofreciéndonos su propia visión personal al modo de una moral provisional, prudente como él mismo, pero clara y realista, y en la que se mantendría con coherencia el resto de su vida.''En una palabra, si hay en el mundo una obra que nadie puede concluir tan bien como el mismo que la empezó es aquella en que trabajo''.

  • Mel Vincent
    2019-02-25 01:09

    Rene Descartes is not only a pure optimist and a wide thinker but he too is very eloquent, charismatic, simple and very brilliant in how he fuses his ideas and arguments to that of different sciences such as anatomy and to an extent, psychology itself.While reading this it is as if you are not reading a highly charged philosophy book but instead it makes you think that it is in fact a travel novel, which is amazing. Rene Descartes articulately draws his own opinions on the environs, perceptions, thoughts, epiphanies and the arguments that go about him while changing scenes, places and meeting other people as well.It talks how the soul, whether that of a human or of a creature is distinct from either one and that the soul is not a part of the body and is therefore not subjected to the mortalities of the flesh, hence the immortality of the soul. He then states that dreams and conscious thoughts are not as distinct as previously thought the only this is that these are partly of truths for one could not have arrived at that thought if that did not exist in the first place and lastly, he talks about and proves the existence of God which is phenomenal and how he connects it with the other arguments of this book.And lastly, the thing that I love about this book is that it gives off a calming effect while you read it and I've come to realize and empathize that Rene Descartes is truly humble and I admire a great person who keeps his feet on the ground even if the world constantly tells hims of his genius and greatness.

  • Tina Nazari
    2019-03-10 04:14

    1.روش دکارت برای درست راه بردن عقل این است که همه آن چه آموخته رها کند و از نو شروع کند به ساخت نظام فکری خود به این صورت که از بدیهی ترین حقایق آغاز کند و حقایق دیگر را با استدلال منطقی از آن مقدمات نتیجه بگیرد. اولین اصل بدیهی هم که در می یابد و می خواهد باقی حقایق را از آن به دست آورد، جمله معروف اوست: " من فکر می کنم پس هستم." پس از آن سعی می کند وجود خدا را با روشی تقریبن هستی شناسانه اثبات کند به این شکل که چون من به کمال فکر می کنم و منشا این اندیشه خودم نیستم چرا که من کامل نیستم پس باید موجود کاملی باشد که منشا این اندیشه کمال است. (فکر کنم ساده اش همین باشد!)2.هر چند در اثبات وجود خود بسیار هوشمندانه عمل کرده است اما در اثبات وجود خدا از روشی که در آغاز کتاب سخن گفته، فاصله گرفته است. حتی به زحمت می شود گفت اصلن وجود خدا را اثبات کرده باشد. بهتر است بگوییم وجود خدا را بدیهی فرض کرده! شاید به سبب احتیاطی که داشته و نمی خواسته اهالی کلیسا را خشمگین کند. یا شاید ناخواسته چنین خطایی کرده است.3. دکارت در فضایی به شدت بسته و بنابراین بسیار محتاطانه سخن گفته است. سعی کرده حرفی خلاف مسیحیت و فلاسفه اسکولاستیک نزند یا اگر می زند طوری توجیهش کند که انگار خودش هم قائل به آن نیست. البته بخشی از احتیاطش هم به این دلیل بوده که دوست نداشته از لاک آرامش خود بیرون بیاید و با خیالی آسوده به تفکر بپردازد.

  • TrumanCoyote
    2019-03-07 00:56

    Hard for me to take seriously someone who talks about perfection like it's a trait--when really it's more of a relationship between traits, or an aesthetic response to them. A master of taking 500 words to say something obvious (like Proust); and the relentless latinate style grew tiresome quickly. Also full of ridiculous insincerities: on the one hand he's leaving notes to posterity, then saying nobody cares about a schmucky little goober like himself. And with the last sentence he seems to be trying to bum a living (or a retirement) off of me; the whole thing was just so...French. On the plus side: in places he achieves a jagged informality that's very intimate (especially for 1637); and the architecture of his sentences is at times impressive. Sounded more like 18th century (English anyway) than early 17th.

  • Ben Loory
    2019-03-19 06:23

    HOW AWESOME I AM AND HOW I GOT TO BE THIS WAYthe first part's great, where he's talking about re-educating himself from the ground up and throwing away all the nonsensical crap that got poured into him by other people as he was growing up. but then once he gets started again from first principles or whatever, he immediately wanders off into some pretty shaky god stuff and then it just turns into a description of how the innards of the body work which hey, might be right, but ain't so interesting to read.

  • Maud Bayat
    2019-03-16 00:23

    p= 59... que d'employer toute ma vie à cultiver ma raison, et m'avancer, autant que je pouvais, en la connaissance de la vérité, suivant la méthode que je m'étais prescrite. ص=۵۹... برای پرورش ذهنم از منطق خودم استفاده کنم٬ و خودم پیش برم٬ همون قدر که می تونم٬ با شناخت حقیقت٬ بر اساس شیوه ای که خودم تجویز کردم.p=144... je suis ce que je suis... ص= ۱۴۴... من چیزی هستم که هستم ...

  • Ali
    2019-03-04 07:05

    این کتاب درون کتاب سیر حکمت در اروپای فروغی پس از فصل دکارت به عنوان پایان جلد اول آورده شده است.بدون شک برای فهم فلسفه باید دکارت را خواند و برای فهم دکارت هم باید گفتار در روش را خواند

  • Efe Karabulat
    2019-03-04 01:55

    Kafamda uzun zamandır bir soru: Tefekkür/meditasyon nasıl gerçekleştirilir?Bugünün dünyası size aşağı yukarı şöyle söyler: Bilginin sınırı yoktur. Bilinmesi mümkün o kadar çok bilgi vardır ki bunların tümünü öğrenmeye insan ömrünün ve aklının kafi gelmesine imkan yoktur. Öyle ki gelmiş geçmiş bütün insanlar düşünmüş, çalışıp çabalamış, eserler meydana getirmiş ve ancak bugün bildiklerimizi ortaya koyabilmiştir. Bildiklerimiz ise bilmediklerimizin yanında bir hiçtir. İnsan eğer her şeyi bilebileceğini iddia edemiyorsa belli bir alanda uzmanlaşmalı, çalışmalarını o konuya yoğunlaştırmalıdır. Bunun içinse uzun ve yoğun bir eğitim programına ihtiyaç vardır. Bu uzmanlık eğitimi vasıtasıyla insanlar, üzerlerine düşen vazifeleri yerine getirebilmek için gerekli donanımla teçhiz olunacaklar ve topluma faydalı bir fert haline gelebileceklerdir.Akla yatkın görünüyor, değil mi? Kesinlikle! Yalnız bir sorun var: Düşünmek bu planın neresinde?Bilgi o kadar çok ki hayatımız eğitimlerle -ve meslek içi eğitimlerle- sona eriyor. Bilgiyi bir türlü tüketemediğimiz için özgün fikirler üretmeye ve evren üzerine düşünmeye fırsat bulamıyoruz, teşvik de edilmiyoruz. Dolayısıyla toplumun en yüksek zeka düzeyine sahip kesiminde bile hep öğrenen ve hiç düşünmeyen bir insan modeli ortaya çıkıyor. Oysa ki düşünmek, her ciddi doktrinde kabul edildiği üzere, insanın en önemli değeri ve vazifesidir.O halde yazının başına dönelim: Nasıl derin düşünürüz? Tefekkürü nasıl gerçekleştiririz?Descartes, Metot Üzerine Konuşma'da tefekkürü öğretiyor. Bu anlamda çoktandır aradığım yolu gösterdi denilebilir. Eğer bir bilim adamıysanız ya da hayatınızın geri kalanında dünya üzerine düşünmek niyetindeyseniz, size de bir yol gösterici olabilir. Eğer derin düşünmeye niyetiniz yoksa, bu kitaba pek de ihtiyacınız olacağını sanmam. Birkaç cümle de çeviri için: Daha sunuş yazısını okuduğumda çok iyi bir çevirmenle karşı karşıya olduğumu anlamıştım. Çeviri enfes. Biraz eski kelimeler kullanılıyor ama bunları bilmek, bilmesek de öğrenmek zaten boynumuzun borcu olmalı. Çünkü, yeterince okuyan insanlar bunu zaten fark etmiştir, 2000li yılların dili idrak dünyamızı ifade etmeye yetmiyor. Liseyi yeni bitirmiş gençlerin bile az bir çabayla eserin diline hakim olabileceği kanaatindeyim. Tabii eserin kendisine muhtemelen hakim olamayacaklardır, o başka konu.Keyifli okumalar.

  • Hatem Mohy El-Dien
    2019-03-09 00:16

    تجاوزت آخر قسمين بشيء من السرعة لعدم اهتمامي بدرجة كبيرة بهما. تقييم الكتاب ككتاب خارج عن دائرة شهرته جيدة للغاية، خصوصًا أول قسمين اثناء تحدث ديكارت عن نفسه وتعامله مع فترة الشك، والقواعد التي وضعها لتجاوز مرحلة الشك،. وربما يكون حديثه شجعني بدرجة كبيرة لاستكمال القراءة بعد فترة توقف أما بداية من الفصل الذي يثبت فيه وجوده نفسه ومنها وجود الله، تبدأ الازمة النقدية الحقيقية.. كلام أقرب إلى السطحية والبيان النهائي لرأيه، وكأنه يتخذ أهميته من عمليات النقد الواسعة التي دارت في محور، وهذا كلام يختص بالحقبة الزمنية التي تُكتب فيها هذه المراجعة. التعليقات اللي وضعها الخضيري في الهامش قيمة للغاية في تفنيد النقد التي تم توجيهه للحجة الأنطولوجية التي اقرها ديكارت.

  • Erick
    2019-03-09 01:05

    I have some amount of ambivalence toward skeptical philosophy in general. It's a tradition that engendered enlightenment errors and, later, influenced atheistic materialism. Descartes wasn't an atheist or a materialist as such, but his system of skeptical doubt is still incredibly silly in my opinion. First of all, a system of doubt is a contradiction in terms; a system must be based on positive and actual constituents; doubt is a negative, not a positive, so it cannot be a foundation for any genuine philosophy. For skeptical doubt to have any constructive role, it must be based on positive and actual veritable knowledge. The only reason I would doubt anything is that the thing that is up for scrutiny does not line up with what I hold positively to be true. Beginning with the idea that I must "doubt everything" and then find a positive in that futile endeavor is incredibly ludicrous. One cannot start with a negative and ever hope to gain a positive. The maxim "I cannot doubt that I am doubting" is drunk talk in my opinion. It's just twaddle. I think it means next to nothing. Knowledge always reaches the point where no more deduction can be done. Once that point is reached, you are in the realm of intuition. Intuitive knowledge is self-evident knowledge. It cannot be broken down any further; it is at it's most basic components. To doubt that 2 plus 3 is 5 is stupid. I have no reason to doubt that such is true. It is basic intuitive knowledge. To doubt it for doubt's sake is simply to engage in schizoid dialectic that has absolutely no positive and constructive function. Once one doubts all foundation for knowledge, one no longer has a foundation to even doubt. Beginning with doubt, one must always end with doubt because it is a negative and in the end everything could be doubted if one denies that intuitive self-evident truth is real; and one would have to deny it in order to doubt everything. While Descartes does variously claim that his system is not just endless nullity, he often contradicts this in the things he says. I give this book three stars instead of a lower number because there are some interesting ideas here and there. In the sections where he deals with questions regarding the existence of God, you have some worthwhile notions. Much of that has a precedent in scholastic theology from the medieval period though; so he isn't really breaking new ground there in my opinion.

  • Yann
    2019-03-18 07:10

    C'est agréable de se replonger dans ce classique des étudiants de terminale. Les trois premiers chapitres sont exemplaires. Descartes sert ici plus une autobiographie et une justification de son parcours intellectuel, qui consiste principalement en une remise à plat de ses connaissances suite à l'insatisfaction qu'il a ressentie des fruits qu'il a tiré de ses études, principalement Aristote. Il est clair que pour l'étude de la nature, on peut facilement trouver à reprendre les anciens. La méthode de Descartes embrasse le grand mouvement d'appropriation de la nature qui va connaitre une si grande accélération. La pratique d'une science, qui demande des efforts longs et difficiles, habitue l'esprit à la prudence, et le rend plus exigent. Pourtant, il peine a réaliser la grande unification qu'il cherche à atteindre, en joignant la morale, et sa métaphysique ennuie et agace. Il n'en reste pas moins que la détermination qui l'a conduit à forger ce texte en ces temps si troublés force l'admiration, que sa franchise attire la sympathie, et qu'on passe un bon moment en sa compagnie.

  • Anton D.
    2019-03-18 00:14

    Самая главная ошибка, которую совершают те, кто готовит рис — снимают крышку раньше времени. Или мешают его во время варки. Не нужно этого делать. Бросил рис в кипящую воду, поставил медленный огонь, накрыл кастрюлю крышкой и оставил на 5-8 минут. Всё. Не открываешь его до прошествия времени, ни мешаешь, ничего не делаешь. Рису нужно время наедине с собой. И у многих почему-то вот это и не выходит сделать. Кипишат, волнуются, смотрят, как он там, мешают ложкой.И да, может быть, ты перелил воды или купил рис плохой, и по прошествии восьми минут ты поднимаешь-таки эту крышку и там будет не рассыпчатый белый вкуснейший рис, а каша рисовая или даже рисовый пирог. Всякое бывает. Придётся рискнуть. В кулинарии нужна смелость, в конце концов.Загубить даже хороший рис можно по-разному. Но приготовить хороший рис можно только одним способом.Уверен, у Декарта всегда получался рассыпчатый и белый рис.