this dude is either trolling me or spitting hella facts. either way, brother, you've destroyed my brain. kant and i will nae nae on you in due time; goodbye for now. ( )

For all his doubting, there seems to be a direct line connecting the Cartesian quest for certitude with that of Augustine (of Hippo); they almost appear to join hands across the centuries in their limitless craving for absolute certainty, without which they simply cannot exist. (Pun intended.) But not only in just that: In many and obvious ways, Descartes is still steeped in the medieval tradition, despite often being called the first modern philosopher – a distinction that more obviously belongs with Spinoza, who is the first to make a decisive break with religious tradition, as has been pointed out by Spinoza scholar H.A. Wolfson. Still, Descartes was an important influence for Spinoza (something he hardly would have appreciated, I reckon), as he was for many others. - If you first are going to read the Meditations, there are many good reasons to chose this Hackett edition, which includes the Objections and Replies (that were included in the first publication in 1641) and also an enlightening introduction by Roger Ariew, where he discusses how Descartes own thought developed as he responded to the different objections – and concludes that "All in all, Descartes’ bloc of certainty looks more like a sedimentary rock, a geological stratum with cracks and fissures, able to be read in historical terms." – However, if you maintain that you’ve had your fill with the Meditations alone, I can’t say I blame you – also, the additional material is not exactly an easy read and I freely confess to have simply skimmed through certain parts of it. I had already read the translation of Meditations by Donald Cress in another Hackett edition, and as I have not read in the original language, all I can say about it is that the translation flows well. For sure, the philosophical inconsistencies, whenever they occur, are Descartes’ own. At least as far as this particular work is concerned, I find Monsieur Descartes a rather presumptuous kind of fellow (and I suspect some of the authors of the Objections would be inclined to agree with that assessment.) I can respect a good argument even if I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion, but here Descartes seems simply sloppy at times. There’s no disputing his importance for Western philosophy and science though – it is in view of this fact that it’s worth the read – and thankfully, the Meditations is a short book.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. ( )

Conduzindo o leitor por argumentos ordenados de modo a obter o melhor resultado, através de exemplos, elocubrações e experimentos mentais, Descartes aos poucos tece suas noções e estabelece sua metafísica. Da dúvida à dúvida hiperbólica e o Gênio Maligno, até o cogito, exigindo então que Deus funde a possibilidade de conhecimento, debatendo os mistérios e explicando a dualidade corpo-mente, até o estabelecimento da trialidade com as paixões e emoções. Que tudo isso possa ser ultrapassado é o de menos... ( )

لعلّ أكثر أقوال الفلاسفة شهرة واقتباساً هو قول ديكارت «أنا أفكر، فأنا موجود». لكن ما هو حقيقةً مدى المعرفة به وبنظرياته خارج الأوساط الأكاديمية؟ محدود جداً، إن لم يكن معدوماً.
هنا يأتي دور ”تأملات في الفلسفة الأولى“ الذي يشرح المفاهيم الأساسية المحتواة في أشهر أعمال ديكارت الفلسفية، والتي بقراءتها يصبح الاقتباس السابق أكثر منطقية ووضوحاً.

يركّز ديكارت على عدم كفاية الحواس لفهم العالم، فهي كثيراً ما تخدعنا ولا يمكن من خلالها التماس اليقين في معظم الأحيان. العقل وحده يصل إلى ما تعجز عنه الحواس ويثبت اليقين الوحيد، الوجود. بحسب ديكارت، فإن جميع الأشياء في الكون "موجودة" في ثلاثة مستويات: المستوى الأعلى هو لما ندركه بالعقل وحده (كالرياضيات)، يليه ما يصلنا بالحواس ولا يد لنا به (كحرارة النار)، وآخرها هي المفاهيم التخيلية المخترعة التي لا وجود لها في الواقع.
يصل ديكارت إلى خلاصة مفادها أنه بما أننا نعطي الأشياء واقعيتها بتفكيرنا بها، وأنّ هذه القدرة المتأصلة على التفكير والتعقّل بالأمور نملكها منذ الولادة، فلا بد أن تكون قد أعطيت لنا من كائن على مستوى أعلى من الوجود. فلا شيء يمكنه أن يتسبب بشيء آخر بدون أن يكون موجوداً ويحمل نفس الصفة. على سبيل المثال، لاشيء بدون حرارة (كالنار) يمكنه مد شيء آخر بالحرارة. وهذا كان دليل ديكارت على وجود الإله. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، وبما أن العقل موجود على مستوى أعلى من أي شيء مادي، فالعقل والجسم مستقلان وجودياً عن بعضهما، وهكذا يستمر العقل أو "الروح" بالوجود بعد فناء الجسد.

طبعاً لا يمكن الحكم على فلسفة ديكارت إلا ضمن الإطار الزمني الذي نشأت خلاله، ورغم مآخذي الكثيرة عليها (وبالأخص حجته الواهية على وجود الإله) وجدت نفسي معجباً بفكره السابق لعصره. ( )

Reading this gave me a perception that Descartes argument for the existence of God, or really anything past Meditation Two, is paper-thin.

And to anyone who disagrees, know that this perception of mine was clear & distinct, so therefore it must be true. ( )