La fe de Descartes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2025.1.46579Palabras clave:
Fe, Metafilosofía, Religión, EscepticismoResumen
Una opinión extremadamente popular entre las personas sin fe es que las personas de fe no son oponentes filosóficos legítimos. Al fin y al cabo, alguien sería así si y solo si respetase la condición fuerte: evitando apelar a las emociones y a las Escrituras, suspendiendo el juicio o buscando convencer a los demás sin utilizar proposiciones de fe y respetando los parámetros epistémicos pirronianos. El artículo problematiza esta condición; Defiende una condición débil según la cual alguien es un oponente filosófico legítimo si y solo si esa persona reconoce sus dificultades para distinguir emociones y razones al tomar una proposición como verdadera, es consciente de algunas de sus proposiciones de fe y reconoce sus límites argumentativos. Al criticar la condición fuerte y defender la débil, el artículo aborda dos personajes filosóficos: el infiel Descartes que defiende, pero no respeta la condición fuerte; y Descartes con Fe, que ilustra a una persona de fe que satisface la condición débil. Este no es un artículo exegético sobre Descartes. Por lo tanto, aunque se basan en sus obras, los personajes antes mencionados no son exactamente idénticos a la propia perspectiva de Descartes.
Descargas
Citas
ALMOG, J. What am I? Descartes and the Mind-Body Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195146468.001.0001
BISHOP, J. Can there be alternative concepts of God? Noûs, v. 32, n. 2, p. 174-188, June 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00095
BISHOP, J. Faith. In: ZALTA, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclope2dia of Philosophy. [S. l.: s. n.], Winter 2016. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/faith/. Access: February 25, 2025.
BUENO, O. Disagreeing with the Pyrrhonist. In: MACHUCA, D. Disagreement and Skepticism. New York: Routledge, 2013.
CARNAP, R. Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology. In: MEANING and Necessity: A Study of Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1956. p. 205-221.
CARNAP, R. Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Meiner Felix Verlag GmbH, 2004.
CARNAP, R. The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Illinois: Open Court, 2003.
CARRIERO, J. Between Two Worlds: A Reading of Descartes’s Meditations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400833191
CURLEY, E. The Cogito and the Foundations of Knowledge. In: GAUKROGER, S. The Blackwell Guide to Descartes’ Meditations. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. p. 30-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776476.ch3
DAWKINS, R. Viruses of the Mind. In: DAHLBOM, B. Dennett and his Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Press, 1993.
DENNETT, D. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.
DESCARTES, R. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes Vol. 1 and 2. Trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818998
DESCARTES, R. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes Vol. 3: The Correspondence. Trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch and A. Kenny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340824
DESCARTES, R. CEuvres de Descartes Vol 1-12. Ed. C. Adam and P. Tannery. Paris: Vrin/CNRS, 1964-1976.
EMPIRICUS, S. Outlines of Skepticism. Ed. J. Annas and J. Barnes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
FRANK, M. The Philosophical Foundations of Early German Romanticism. Albany, New York: Suny, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/book4754
FRANKFURT, H. Demons, Dreamers, and Madmen: The Defense of Reason in Descartes’s Meditations. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828180
FREUD, S. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: Indiebooks, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv19fvzzk.47
GAUKROGER, S. Descartes: An intellectual Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
GUEROULT, M. Descartes selon l'ordre des raisons, T. 1: L'Âme et Dieu et T. 2: L'Âme et le corps. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1953.
HEBREWS 11:1. In: Bible (New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition). National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 2021. Available: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011%3A1&version=NRSVUE. Access: February 25, 2025.
HEGEL, G. W. F. The Science of Logic. Ed. and trans. G. Di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
HINTIKKA, J. Cogito, Ergo Sum: Inference or Performance? The Philosophical Review, v. 71, n. 1, p. 3-32, Jan. 1962. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183678
HUME, D. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/owc/9780199549900.001.0001
JOHN 8:1-11. In: Bible (New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition). National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 2021. Available: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208%3A1%E2%80%9311&version=NRSVUE. Access: February 25, 2025.
KLEIN, P. Is Infinitism the Solution to the Epistemic Regress Problem? In: STEUP, M.; TURRI, J.; SOSA, E. Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. 2. ed. Malden MA: Willey-Blackwell, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260744.ch11
LAERTIUS, D. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Ed. J. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
LARMORE, C. Descartes and Skepticism. In: GAUKROGER, S. The Blackwell Guide to Descartes’ Meditations. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. p. 17-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776476.ch2
LEWIS, D. On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1986.
MARX, K. Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’. Trans. A. Jolin and J. O’Malley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
MOREIRA, F. G. A. The Politics of Metaphysics. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12346-7
NEWMAN, L. Descartes’ Epistemology. In: ZALTA, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [S. l.: s. n.], Spring 2019. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/descartes-epistemology. Access: February 25, 2025.
NIETZSCHE, F. Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. J. Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812033
PAUL, E. S. Cartesian Intuition. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, v. 31, n. 4, p. 693-723, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2022.2142197
PORCHAT, O. Rumo ao Ceticismo. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2007
QUINE, W. V. O. From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1953.
REINHOLD, K. L. Essay on a New Theory of the Human Capacity for Representation. Trans. T. Mehigan and B. Empson. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.
RORTY, R. Philosophy and Social Hope. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.
RYLE, G. The Concept of Mind. London: Routledge, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875858
SELLARS, W. Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
SMITH, P.J. Uma Visão Cética do Mundo: Porchat e a Filosofia. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2017.
SPINOZA, B. Theological-Political Treatise.. Trans. M. Silverthorne and J. Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
WILLIAMS, B. Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. London: Routledge, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203002612
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Veritas (Porto Alegre)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
