DOCSLIB.ORG

3. Some Consequences of Four Incapacities 3.1. Modern Philosophy and Scholasticism 3.2. the New Platform of Modern Science and L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3. Some Consequences of Four Incapacities 3.1. Modern Philosophy and Scholasticism 3.2. the New Platform of Modern Science and L 3. Some Consequences of Four Incapacities Our focus is on the following pages: EP1:28-33, 38-42, 51-55, 56-57 3.1. Modern Philosophy and Scholasticism The beginning of the essay contrasts four features of Cartesianism with Scholasticism. 1 Cartesianism begins with a methodological commitment to universal doubt, while scholasticism accepts certain beliefs as fundamental. 2 Cartesianism locates the ultimate test of the truth or falsity of a statement in individual consciousness, while scholasticism regards the testimony of the church and various prophets to be certain. 3 Cartesianism argues from foundational premises by deduction, while scholasticism allows for multiform argumentation. 4 Cartesianism renders a variety of facts absolutely inexplicable (except those that are determined by God), while scholasticism undertook to explain all created things while retaining certain mysterious elements of faith. In the previous essay, we saw that Peirce argued against two principal tenets of Cartesianism (no intuition of the private self, no introspection). In this essay Peirce argues for a new platform for philosophy. He writes that “modern science and modern logic require us to stand upon a very different platform” (W2:212; EP1:28). 3.2. The New Platform of Modern Science and Logic Peirce articulates four principal tenets of his new platform for philosophy. We’ll focus on three of these and try to draw out criticisms of Cartesianism and foundationalism more broadly. 1. Methodological Skepticism: We cannot begin with complete doubt. Classical foundationalism is thought to rest on infallible first premises. Descartes argues that we can only obtain these through methodological skepticism. Peirce gives two arguments against Descartes’s use of methodological doubt. What are they? Peirce’s maxim against Cartesian doubt is the following: “Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts” and that we “must begin with all of our prejudices” (EP1:28, 29). What do you think Peirce’s response would be to Descartes claim that it is possible for there to be an evil demon that causes us to err? Given Peirce’s rejection of the infallibility requirement for foundationalism, what does this mean for the epistemic status of foundational beliefs in academic beliefs? 2. Individual Judges. We cannot make individuals absolute judges of the truth. 1 Instead of making single individuals absolute judges of truth, what does Peirce suggest instead? How does this contrast with Descartes ‘s method? How plausible is this suggestion? 3. Deductive Method and Foundational Beliefs Consider the two starting points for Descartes and Peirce. Descartes and classical foundationalism claims that justified basic beliefs should be infallible and derived beliefs should be derived by a deductive method. How does Peirce’s suggestion for the starting point differ? How does his method for derivation differ? 4. We ought not to suppose that there are any truths that are absolutely inexplicable. The fourth tenet is that philosophy should not suppose any unanalyzable facts that are absolutely inexplicable. Peirce argues that to claim that there is anything inexplicable can only be known by reasoning from signs. However, any inference from signs is justified by whether the conclusions inferred from the facts explain those facts. For example, it is a fact that when I dropped this ball in front of me it fell to the floor, and this is to be explained by gravitational law, the attraction of mass, or the curvature of space-time. But, Peirce argues, to “suppose the fact absolutely inexplicable, is not to explain it, and hence this supposition is never allowable” (W2:213). That is, to suppose that the fact of the ball falling to the floor is ultimate or inexplicable is to reason from the sign of the ball falling to the conclusion that the falling ball admits of no explanation. This, Peirce claims, is self-defeating since to justify a reason from signs is to give an explanation, but to reason that there cannot be an explanation is not to reason from signs. 3.3 Final Remarks & Points of Contrast Peirce defines ‘the real’ in contrast to ‘unreal’ as that belief that would stand in the long run (see EP1:52). He writes that [T]he real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you. Thus, the very origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception essentially involves the notion of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits, and capable of an indefinite increase of knowledge. [...] [A] proposition whose falsity can never be discovered, and the error of which therefore is absolutely incognizable, contains, upon our principle, absolutely no error. (EP1:52) 2 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One Hundred Years of Thomism Aeterni Patris and Afterwards a Symposium
    One Hundred Years of Thomism Aeterni Patris and Afterwards A Symposium Edited By Victor B. Brezik, C.S.B, CENTER FOR THOMISTIC STUDIES University of St. Thomas Houston, Texas 77006 ~ NIHIL OBSTAT: ReverendJamesK. Contents Farge, C.S.B. Censor Deputatus INTRODUCTION . 1 IMPRIMATUR: LOOKING AT THE PAST . 5 Most Reverend John L. Morkovsky, S.T.D. A Remembrance Of Pope Leo XIII: The Encyclical Aeterni Patris, Leonard E. Boyle,O.P. 7 Bishop of Galveston-Houston Commentary, James A. Weisheipl, O.P. ..23 January 6, 1981 The Legacy Of Etienne Gilson, Armand A. Maurer,C.S.B . .28 The Legacy Of Jacques Maritain, Christian Philosopher, First Printing: April 1981 Donald A. Gallagher. .45 LOOKING AT THE PRESENT. .61 Copyright©1981 by The Center For Thomistic Studies Reflections On Christian Philosophy, All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or Ralph McInerny . .63 reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written Thomism And Today's Crisis In Moral Values, Michael permission, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in Bertram Crowe . .74 critical articles and reviews. For information, write to The Transcendental Thomism, A Critical Assessment, Center For Thomistic Studies, 3812 Montrose Boulevard, Robert J. Henle, S.J. 90 Houston, Texas 77006. LOOKING AT THE FUTURE. .117 Library of Congress catalog card number: 80-70377 Can St. Thomas Speak To The Modem World?, Leo Sweeney, S.J. .119 The Future Of Thomistic Metaphysics, ISBN 0-9605456-0-3 Joseph Owens, C.Ss.R. .142 EPILOGUE. .163 The New Center And The Intellectualism Of St. Thomas, Printed in the United States of America Vernon J.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysical Systems
    Table of Contents Volume I - The Distant Past On ‘being’: Cartesianism - Passive Observation Introduction: Metaphysical system number three #1: The Error of Zeno Resolving the problem of Abstraction #2: The Error of Aristotle Resolving the problem of Cartesianism #3: The Error of Boethius Resolving the problem of Free Will #4: The Error of Copernicus Resolving the problem of Centricism $5: The Error of Leibniz Resolving the problem of Theodicy #6: The Error of Kant Resolving the problem of Universal Ethics Volume II - The Recent Past On ‘being’ being: Non-Cartesianism - Active Observation Preface to Volume II #7: The Error of Hegel Resolving the problem of non-Cartesianism $8: The Error of Einstein Resolving the problem of ‘i’ #9: The Error of Russell Resolving the problem of Non-Members #10: The Error of Heidegger Resolving the problem of The Void of a Void #11: The Error of Philosophy Resolving the problem of Either/Or #12: The Error of ‘being’ being Resolving the problem of Nihilism Volume III - The Future On ‘being’ being ‘Being’: Cartesianism ‘within’ Non-Cartesianism: Active Observation within Passive Observation Preface to Volume III #13: Metaphysical System 28 Introducing the problem of Metaphysical Systems 7 & 9 #14: Principle Three Introducing the problem of Principles One and Two #15: Ockham’s Razor Introducing the problem of Reductionism #16: Wrong Again Introducing the problem of Being Right #17: The Beginning Introducing the problem of The End #18: Why Now? Introducing the problem of History’s Vector Conclusion: The Peer
    [Show full text]
  • Saint Bonaventure
    Saint Bonaventure and the Entrance of God Falque Into Theology Saint Bonaventure Saint Bonaventure by Emmanuel Falque and Saint Bonaventure and the Entrance of God Into Theology Into God of Entrance the and Bonaventure Saint translated from French by Brain Lapsa and Sarah Horton The Entrance of God Revised by William C. Hackett Into Theology Properly original, the new version of this essay intends both to nourish debate and differentiate points of view. In its new articulation, the book justifies work that has been carried out since. It justifies the sense of Franciscan rootedness that has never been denied and at the same time opens to the discovery of another reading of the Dominican Thomas Aquinas. The preface specially composed for this American edition, the opening debate with famous medievalist Etienne Gilson, and above all the afterword entitled “Saint Thomas Aquinas and the entrance of God into Philosophy” make it a radically new book. Emmanuel Falque, Professor and honorary dean of philosophy at the Institut Catholique de Paris (ICP), is a philosopher of religion whose research and writing focuses on patristic and medieval philosophy, phenomenology and philosophy of religion. A graduate of the University of Paris IV (Sorbonne), he received his license in Catholic theology summa cum laude from the Centre Sèvres, a university level Jesuit institution in Paris, in 1993, then returned to the Sorbonne to study with Jean-Luc Marion and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy summa cum laude in 1998 and the title of full Professor in 2006. He erved as the 2015 Tipton Visiting Professor in Catholic Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara and held the Gadamer Visiting Professorship Chair in 2016 (Boston College).
    [Show full text]
  • Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations Spring 2010 Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection Jason Skirry University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Skirry, Jason, "Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection" (2010). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 179. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/179 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/179 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection Abstract This dissertation presents a unified interpretation of Malebranche’s philosophical system that is based on his Augustinian theory of the mind’s perfection, which consists in maximizing the mind’s ability to successfully access, comprehend, and follow God’s Order through practices that purify and cognitively enhance the mind’s attention. I argue that the mind’s perfection figures centrally in Malebranche’s philosophy and is the main hub that connects and reconciles the three fundamental principles of his system, namely, his occasionalism, divine illumination, and freedom. To demonstrate this, I first present, in chapter one, Malebranche’s philosophy within the historical and intellectual context of his membership in the French Oratory, arguing that the Oratory’s particular brand of Augustinianism, initiated by Cardinal Bérulle and propagated by Oratorians such as Andre Martin, is at the core of his philosophy and informs his theory of perfection. Next, in chapter two, I explicate Augustine’s own theory of perfection in order to provide an outline, and a basis of comparison, for Malebranche’s own theory of perfection.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm Taryn Sweeney IDVSA
    Maine State Library Digital Maine Academic Research and Dissertations Maine State Library Special Collections 2018 Aesthesis Universalis: Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm Taryn Sweeney IDVSA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/academic Recommended Citation Sweeney, Taryn, "Aesthesis Universalis: Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm" (2018). Academic Research and Dissertations. 21. https://digitalmaine.com/academic/21 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Maine State Library Special Collections at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic Research and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AESTHESIS UNIVERSALIS: RECONCILING AESTHETIC PHILOSOPHY AND THE CARTESIAN PARADIGM Taryn M Sweeney Submitted to the faculty of The Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy November, 2018 ii Accepted by the faculty of the Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Committee Chair: Don Wehrs, Ph.D. Hargis Professor of English Literature Auburn University, Auburn Committee Member: Merle Williams, Ph.D. Personal Professor of English University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Committee Member: Kathe Hicks Albrecht, Ph.D. Independent Studies Director Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts, Portland iii © 2018 Taryn M Sweeney ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a profound gratitude to my advisor, Don Wehrs, for his tremendous patience, sympathy, and acceptance of my completely un-academic self as I approached this most ambitious and academic of undertakings.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtue of Feminist Rationality
    The Virtue of Feminist Rationality Continuum Studies in Philosophy Series Editor: James Fieser, University of Tennessee at Martin, USA Continuum Studies in Philosophy is a major monograph series from Continuum. The series features first-class scholarly research monographs across the whole field of philo- sophy. Each work makes a major contribution to the field of philosophical research. Aesthetic in Kant, James Kirwan Analytic Philosophy: The History of an Illusion, Aaron Preston Aquinas and the Ship of Theseus, Christopher Brown Augustine and Roman Virtue, Brian Harding The Challenge of Relativism, Patrick Phillips Demands of Taste in Kant’s Aesthetics, Brent Kalar Descartes and the Metaphysics of Human Nature, Justin Skirry Descartes’ Theory of Ideas, David Clemenson Dialectic of Romanticism, Peter Murphy and David Roberts Duns Scotus and the Problem of Universals, Todd Bates Hegel’s Philosophy of Language, Jim Vernon Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, David James Hegel’s Theory of Recognition, Sybol S.C. Anderson The History of Intentionality, Ryan Hickerson Kantian Deeds, Henrik Jøker Bjerre Kierkegaard, Metaphysics and Political Theory, Alison Assiter Kierkegaard’s Analysis of Radical Evil, David A. Roberts Leibniz Re-interpreted, Lloyd Strickland Metaphysics and the End of Philosophy, HO Mounce Nietzsche and the Greeks, Dale Wilkerson Origins of Analytic Philosophy, Delbert Reed Philosophy of Miracles, David Corner Platonism, Music and the Listener’s Share, Christopher Norris Popper’s Theory of Science, Carlos Garcia Postanalytic and Metacontinental, edited by James Williams, Jack Reynolds, James Chase and Ed Mares Rationality and Feminist Philosophy, Deborah K. Heikes Re-thinking the Cogito, Christopher Norris Role of God in Spinoza’s Metaphysics, Sherry Deveaux Rousseau and Radical Democracy, Kevin Inston Rousseau and the Ethics of Virtue, James Delaney Rousseau’s Theory of Freedom, Matthew Simpson Spinoza and the Stoics, Firmin DeBrabander Spinoza’s Radical Cartesian Mind, Tammy Nyden-Bullock St.
    [Show full text]
  • Pyrrhonism and Cartesianism – Episode: External World and Aliens
    Philosophy department, CEU Budapest, Hungary Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... Pyrrhonism and 2 List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 3 IntroductionCartesianism: ................................................................................................................................ external 4 1.Methodological and practical skepticism: theory and a way of life ........................................ 6 2.Hypothetical doubt,world practical concerns and and the existence aliens of the external world .................. 13 2.1. An explanation for Pyrrhonists not questioning the existence of the external world .... 18 In partial2.2. An analysisfulfillment of whether ofPyrrhonists the requirements could expand the scope for of theirthe skepticism to include the external world .................................................................................................... 21 3.Pyrrhonism, Cartesianism and degreesome epistemologically of Masters interesting of Artsquestions ..................... 27 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ by Tamara Rendulic 37 References ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Farewell to Descartes
    Out of Revolution AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF WESTERN MAN De Te Fabula Narratur Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy 1938 NEW YORK WILLIAM MORROW AND COMPANY CHAPTER EIGHTEEN Farewell to Descartes THE YEAR OF HARVARD’S TERCENTENARY, 1936- 1937, WAS ALSO the tercentenary of a great intellectual event. Three hundred years ago the rational foundations of modern science were established. It was then that the “ W eltanschauung” which lies at the root of our modern universities was first put into a book. Its author had intended to write some comprehensive volumes under the proud title, L e M o n d e . But that philosopher, René Descartes, was dissuaded by religious dangers from publishing them in full, and limited his task to the famous Discours de la M é t h o d e . In it the great idealistic postulate of the “ C o g i t o e r g o s u m ” was formulated, and therewith the programme of man’s scientific conquest of nature. Descartes’ “Cogito ergo s u m ” opened the way to three hundred years of incredible sci­ entific progress. When Descartes came forward with his “wondrous strange” Discourse, the scholastic type of university had long since been in decay. He replaced the principles by which mediæval thought had been guided ever since Anselm’s “ Credo ut intel- lig a m , ” with his “ Cogito ergo sum.” Among the possible start­ ing points for our powers of reason, scholasticism had singled out man’s faith in the revealing power of God: Descartes sec­ onded it with his no less paradoxical faith in the rational char­ acter of existence and nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86613-2 - Pierre Gassendi and the Birth of Early Modern Philosophy Antonia Lolordo Excerpt More information Introduction This book is bothaninterpretation of Gassendi’s central metaphysical, epistemological, and natural philosophical views and an advertisement for their philosophical and historical interest. Historians of seventeenth- century philosophy can usually tell you that Gassendi was an atomist, an empiricist,oramitigated skeptic, as well as an opponent of Aristotle and Descartes. They might add that he attempted to revive Epicureanism. However, few are likely to have any clear conception ofthe theses Gassendi articulates, the argumentsheoffers in their defense, or the systematic connections between them. This is an unfortunatesituation, and I aim to remedy it. There are at leasttwo reasons why those of us who are interested in early modern philosophy and natural philosophy need to know more about Gassendi. The first is widely recognized. Gassendi’s influence and the importance he was accorded by his peers and close contemporaries is unquestionable. Gassendi was a central figure in seventeenth-century philosophy and, as such, very importantfor the development of mod- ern philosophical thought. He knew and was known by such figures as Descartes and Hobbes and is importantfor understanding Leibniz, Locke, and Newton. Were one a seventeenth-century intellectual who found Cartesianism unacceptable, Gassendi’s philosophy was the obvi- ous alternative. Less well known, however, is the philosophical interest
    [Show full text]
  • Two Varieties of Skepticism
    1 2 3 4 Two Varieties of Skepticism 5 6 James Conant 7 8 This paper distinguishes two varieties of skepticism and the varieties of 9 philosophical response those skepticisms have engendered. The aim of 10 the exercise is to furnish a perspicuous overview of some of the dialec- 11 tical relations that obtain across some of the range of problems that phi- 12 losophers have called (and continue to call) “skeptical”. I will argue that 13 such an overview affords a number of forms of philosophical insight.1 14 15 16 I. Cartesian and Kantian Varieties of Skepticism – A First Pass 17 at the Distinction 18 19 I will call the two varieties of skepticism in question Cartesian skepticism 20 and Kantian skepticism respectively.2 (These labels are admittedly conten- 21 tious.3 Nothing of substance hangs on my employing these rather than 22 23 1 The taxonomy is meant to serve as a descriptive tool for distinguishing various 24 sorts of philosophical standpoint. It is constructed in as philosophically neutral a 25 fashion as possible. The distinctions presented below upon which it rests are 26 ones that can be deployed by philosophers of very different persuasions regard- 27 less of their collateral philosophical commitments. A philosopher could make use of these distinctions to argue for any of a number of very different conclu- 28 sions. Some of the more specific philosophical claims that I myself express sym- 29 pathy for in the latter part of this part (e.g., regarding how these varieties of 30 skepticism are related to one another) do, however, turn on collateral philo- 31 sophical commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Heresy and the Debates on Descartes's Philosophy
    Church History Church History and and Religious Culture 100 (2020) 172–186 Religious Culture brill.com/chrc The Concept of Heresy and the Debates on Descartes’s Philosophy Aza Goudriaan Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and ETF Leuven, Leuven, Belgium [email protected] Abstract This article explores connotations of ‘heresy’ in theological traditions before and dur- ing Descartes’s life. Lutheran and Reformed Protestants, themselves considered heretics by the Church of Rome, adopted the patristic heresiology while designat- ing sixteenth-century antitrinitarian and Anabaptist teachings as heresies. Francisco Suárez and Gisbertus Voetius knew the late medieval conceptuality (e.g., Council of Konstanz, 1418). Voetius possibly thought of Descartes when describing certain philo- sophical views as “smacking of heresy.” This was not, however, an outright charge of heresy. In fact, Descartes’s readiness to be corrected contradicted the traditional hereti- cal quality of “stubbornness.” Plempius’s expression “Cartesian heresy” seems to have been rare. For anti-Cartesians, the rich vocabulary of error made the complex term ‘heresy’ easily avoidable. Keywords heresy – René Descartes – confessions of faith – Francisco Suárez – Gisbertus Voetius – Vopiscus Fortunatus Plempius – Jacques Bénigne Bossuet 1 Introduction In modern historiography,the concept of heresy is occasionally being used with regard to representatives of the new philosophies of the early modern period. Steven Nadler, for example, published a study of Spinoza’s Heresy: Immortality and the Jewish Mind and, more recently, together with Ben Nadler he wrote a © aza goudriaan, 2020 | doi:10.1163/18712428-10002001 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NCDownloaded4.0 license.
    [Show full text]