DOCSLIB.ORG

John Locke on the Naturalness of Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
John Locke on the Naturalness of Rights Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1992 John Locke on the naturalness of rights Peter C. Myers Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Myers, Peter C., "John Locke on the naturalness of rights" (1992). Dissertations. 3017. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/3017 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1992 Peter C. Myers JOHN LOCKE ON THE NATURALNESS OF RIGHTS By Peter c. Myers VOLUME II A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 1992 CHAPTER V NATURAL HISTORY AND THE STATE OF NATURE In the second section of chapter III above, we re­ ferred to Locke's apparent relegation of morality to the periphery of his concern in writing the Essay. Locke seems in effect to promise that however novel in other respects may be his empiricist account of natural science, that account leaves relatively inviolate the province of moral­ ity; he declares in closing that the study of nature is "wholly separate and distinct" (4.21.5) from the science of ethics or morality. We have noted too that Locke's asser­ tions of the possibility of a demonstrative, mixed-mode science of morality appear to entail an insistence on precisely such a strict separation of the respective sciences of morality and nature.1 In fact, however, there are significant ambiguities in Locke's presentation of this proposal. To say the least, it is by no means clear that he does insist upon the total or even decisive abstraction of morality from nature; indeed we may wonder whether his occasional qualifications of this proposal, taken together, serve ultimately to undermine in principle any attempt at such an abstraction. In the midst of his chapter "Of the lsee chapter III above, especially pp. 99-106. 218 219 Improvement of Our Knowledge, " for instance, Locke pro- fesses to "doubt not, but if a right method were taken," that not all, but only "a great part of Morality" might be demonstrated "to a considering Man" with a clarity equal to that of a mathematical demonstration (4.12.8). Similarly, in his discussion "Of the Extent of Humane Knowledge, " he claims that the central ideas of the proposition that human beings as "understanding, rational Beings" are God's Work- manship would, "if duly considered, and pursued, afford such Foundations of our Duty and Rules of Action, as might place" morality among the demonstrative sciences, "to any one that will apply himself with the same Indifferency and Attention" to morality that he devotes to mathematics ( 4. 3. 18) . Shortly thereafter, in explaining why attempts at demonstrations in ethics have hitherto caused greater difficulties than those in m~thematics, he makes the same point still more cautiously, maintaining that a search with "indifferency" would bring us only "nearer perfect Demon­ stration, than is commonly imagined" (4.3.20).2 Leaving aside for the moment the implications of the questionable likelihood of widespread "indifferency" on the part of individuals in their moral inquiries, we first 2Gibson is rare among Locke's commentators in noting the caution apparent in Locke's formulations concerning the possibility of a demonstrative science of morality, but he seems nonetheless to hold that Locke is at best dimly aware of the difficulties that such a pure science would entail (1896, 50,58). 220 wonder in the wake of these qualifications precisely how according to Locke an indifferent inquiry would fall short of strict demonstration, or what part of morality necessar- ily resists attempts at demonstration. We recall that though he acknowledges that moral discourses inevitably contain substance ideas as well as ideas of mixed modes and relations, he maintains that the presence of substance ideas need not disturb such discourses, because the adequacy of their definitions need not--indeed cannot--be self-evident or demonstrated, and so instead can and must be merely supposed ( 3. 11. 16) . As Grant explains, "With respect to subjection to the law, the question to be asked is not, Is this a Man? but Is this a corporeal rational Being?" (1987, 30). Locke suggests here that our inability to achieve any precise, finally adequate definition of a human being is inconsequential for morality, insofar as we can nonetheless frame an abstract idea comprising the qualities essential to moral beings. 3 The undemonstrative portion of ethical science would then appear to be the supposed or posited character of the subject of morality, of the "moral man" or person. 3This reasoning appears to underlie Locke's occasional references to the subject of law or morality as a "rational Creature" or a "free and intelligent Agent" (TT II .12, 57; also STCE 31). We hope to show in what follows, however, that for Locke such references to agency or personhood may provide greater analytical precision, but they do not imply the invalidity of ordinary references to human beings as the subjects of morality. 221 It is important to recognize, however, that this supposition lying at the basis of Lockean moral science does not represent a pure act of mental construction or creativity. Locke does not suggest that we ponder, in a spirit of indifference to whether such beings actually exist, what faculties one would have to possess in order to qualify as a moral being. Morality is our great concern, "the proper Science and Business of Mankind in general" (4.12.11); insofar as we do so with even minimal rational­ ity, therefore, we frame moral ideas, be they substances or mixed modes, with a view to their usefulness (2.22.6,10; 2.28.2; 3.5.7). In the context of his own account of the origin of our moral ideas, Locke's framing of the concept of a moral man or person makes sense only on the premise that such beings actually exist in the world. He proceeds not by simply positing an idea, but instead by collecting the morally basic or necessary qualities of the class of moral beings actually existing, of which we have actual experience. Once again, Locke appeals to what "Every one, I think, finds in himself" (2.21.7) in order to corroborate his account of our moral faculties.4 The complex idea of a corporeal rational creature is not then a pure creature of the mind, but is instead formed in an act of abstraction proper. It is abstracted from real experience. The premise of the present chapter is that throughout 4see chapter IV above, pp. 191-193. 222 the Essay Locke tends to exaggerate the methodological separation of moral from natural science, just as elsewhere he exaggerates the distinction between the abstract, norma- tive-theoretical principles of political science and the empirically, historically grounded prudential art of governing.5 In maintaining that "at best an Argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force" (TT II.103), Locke implies no more than that what is moral or just cannot be simply reduced to actual historical practice; he does not deny that historical inquiry is use- ful and indeed necessary for the development of a proper understanding of the nature and limits of our capacities as 5see again "Some Thoughts Concerning Reading and study for a Gentleman," in Axtell 1968, 400. I do not mean to argue that the distinctions in question are without any validity for Locke. I am suggesting only that the rules of morality, and by implication the principles of political justice, rest ultimately upon an empirically grounded conception of the nature of those to whom such rules and principles properly apply. Locke's exaggerations of these distinctions tend to obscure the extent to which his account of a constructivist moral science rests upon a natural ground. Focusing on other textual ambiguities, Strauss persuasively explains much of the reason for Locke's exaggeration by reference to the different form of caution proper to practical as opposed to theoretical writers (1953, 206-209; cf. Cox 1960, 11). I believe that in the Essay Locke indeed intends to attack scholastic morality, but to do so for the most part indirectly, through his critique of scholastic natural science; he seeks to clear a space of relative freedom to deliver his critique of scholastic natural science, by suggesting misleadingly that that critique will not implicate scholastic morality as well. 223 moral beings. 6 In keeping with the "Historical, plain Method" of the Essay as a whole (1.1.2), Locke employs the idea of "moral man" as an empirically grounded, testable hypothesis, even as a kind of thought-experiment. Let us suppose, Locke reasons in effect, that the beings in the world who possess the capacity or equipment for morality constitute a natural species; the following empirical questions then arise, as most immediately relevant to our purposes. In what relation does the class of moral beings stand to the class or classes of beings ordinarily denom- inated "human"? What if anything can we infer from the nature of this moral equipment concerning the specific content of the political morality most appropriate to the class of tho.se so equipped? What further common qualities can we discover that may be relevant to our construction of moral ideas? What natural needs, desires, interests, and passions do the members of this class share, in addition to the qualities constitutive of moral personhood, which may 6cf.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture 10: Psychology of Probability: Predictable Irrationality
    Lecture 10: Psychology of probability: predictable irrationality. David Aldous October 5, 2017 Here are two extreme views of human rationality. (1) There is much evidence that people are not rational, in the economist's sense [maximization of expected utility (MEU)]. Some would argue we need descriptive economics; I would argue that all should be taught about probability, utility and MEU and act accordingly [Dennis Lindley, Understanding Uncertainty.] (2) You mentioned research which revealed that shoppers often prefer \50% extra free" to a notionally more generous 33% reduction in price, and you cited this as evidence of irrationality or poor mathematical ability on the part of consumers. Since all value is subjective, if people value 50% extra free more highly than 33% off, then that is an end of the matter. Whether or not the resulting behaviour conforms to some autistic neoclassical idea of rationality is irrelevant. [Rory Sutherland, Ogilvy & Mather UK. Letter to The Economist July 21 2012.] The 2011 best-seller Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel Prize winning Kahneman gives a wide-ranging and very non-technical account of human rationality and irrationality. The key point is that we're not arbitrarily irrational but that our intuition is \predictably irrational" (title of popular 2008 Ariely book) in ways one can describe. The part of this field relevant to STAT 157 concerns \decisions under uncertainty", which necessarily involves issues of probability and utility. Psychology research gets real data from real people, but the data mostly consists of subjects' answers to hypothetical limited explicit relevant data exam-style questions involving uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Basis of Human Irrationality
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 119 041 CG 010 346 AUTHOR Ellis, Albert TITLE The Biological Basis of Human Irrationality. PUB DATE 31 Aug 75 NOTE 42p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (83rd, Chicago, Illinois, August 30-September 2, 1975) Reproduced from best copy available EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS *Behavioral Science Research; *Behavior Patterns; *Biological Influences; Individual Psychology; *Psychological Patterns; *Psychological Studies; Psychotherapy; Speeches IDENTIFIERS *Irrationality ABSTRACT If we define irrationality as thought, emotidn, or behavior that leads to self-defeating consequences or that significantly interferes with the survival and happiness of the organism, we find that literally hundreds of major irrationalities exist in all societies and in virtually all humans in those societies. These irrationalities persist despite people's conscious determination to change; many of them oppose almost all the teachings of the individuals who follow them; they persist among highly intelligent, educated, and relatively undisturbed individuals; when people give them up, they usually replace them with other, sometimes just as extreme, irrationalities; people who strongly oppose them in principle nonetheless perpetuate them in practice; sharp insight into them or their origin hardly removes them; many of them appear to stem from autistic invention; they often seem to flow from deepseated and almost ineradicable tendencies toward human fallibility, overgeneralization, wishful thinking, gullibility, prejudice, and short-range hedonism; and they appear at least in part tied up with physiological, hereditary, and constitutional processes. Although we can as yet make no certain or unqualified claim for the biological basis of human irrationality, such a claim now has enough evidence behind it to merit serious consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • C a R O L I N a Open-Space Bonds, P
    • Controversial Sex-Ed • Ruling Has Charters Pushed, P. 8 Smiling, P. 9 Group’s Left Heritage, P. 16 C A R O L I N A Open-Space Bonds, P. 17 Statewide Edition A Monthly Journal of News, Analysis, and Opinion from March 2008 • Vol. 17, No. 3 the John Locke Foundation www.CarolinaJournal.com JOURNAL www.JohnLocke.org Parton, Watson Had Plans for More Theaters at the news conference, Parton acknowl- Locations sought in edged that the theater concept was Watson’s idea. “Rick Watson saw this Illinois, Missouri, and dream before anybody else,” he said. Watson was the president and CEO of Bertie County, N.C. the state-funded Northeast Commis- sion, a regional economic development organization, whose headquarters are in By DON CARRINGTON Edenton. Records show Watson began Executive Editor working with Parton in August 2004 or RALEIGH before. In March 2006, Watson’s board andy Parton says that for three of directors terminated him over con- years he dedicated his life to mak- flict-of-interest issues that arose over his ing the Roanoke Rapids theater a business relationship with Parton. Rsuccess, but after he signed the contract with the city Parton also tried to launch theaters in Bertie County, Illinois, and Bertie County theater Missouri. One month after signing the the- “For nearly three years Deb and I Randy Parton (left) listens as Rick Watson speaks during a press conference on Feb. 8 at The Umstead hotel in Cary. (CJ photo by Don Carrington) ater contract with Roanoke Rapids, Par- worked with the city to get the Parton ton presented James C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irrationality of Rationality
    7 THE IRRATIONALITY OF RATIONALITY Traffic Jams on Those “Happy Trails” distribute or cDonaldization has swept across the social landscape because it offers increased efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control. MDespite these advantages, as the preceding chapters have shown, McDonaldization has some serious disadvantages. Rational systems inevitably spawn irrationalities that limit,post, eventually compromise, and perhaps even undermine their rationality. The irrationality of rationality is simply a label for many of the negative aspects of McDonaldization. Irrationality can be seen as the opposite of rationality. Most generally, McDonaldization can be viewed as leading to inefficiency, unpredict- ability, incalculability, and loss of control.1 More specifically, the wider range of irrationalitiescopy, discussed in this chapter includes inefficiency, excessively high cost, false friendliness, disenchantment, health and environmental hazards, homog- enization, and dehumanization. Also discussed are the problems associated with notthe McJobs spawned by the process of McDonaldization. As problematic as those jobs are, perhaps even more of a problem is their loss as a result of nonhuman technologies (i.e., automation, robotization) replacing them. Most of this chapter, Do like Chapters 3 and 4, focuses on the irrationalities that confront consumers in McDonaldized settings. However, as in Chapters 5 and 6, we will also deal with the workers in these settings and the irrationalities associated with their occupa- tions, especially their McJobs. Irrationality also means that rational systems are 167 Copyright ©2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 168 The McDonaldization of Society disenchanted; they have lost their magic and mystery.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irrationality of Religious Beliefs
    The Irrationality of Religious Beliefs Published in Think 15, 15-33. Bryan Frances Abstract: Many highly educated people think religious belief is irrational and unscientific. If you ask a philosopher, however, you’ll likely get two answers: most religious belief is rational in some respects and irrational in other respects. In my previous essay I explained why they think so many religious beliefs are rational. In this essay I explain why they think those same beliefs are irrational. The charge of irrationality applied to religious belief could come from any of several distinct groups: philosophy professors who have studied rationality and religious belief for many years; intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Zachary Myers, and Sam Harris who have serious intellectual training but virtually no serious study of rationality (which is a subset of epistemology); intelligent atheists with little intellectual training at all; or unintelligent atheists who foam at the mouth on blogs and in bars. Different groups bring significantly different charges under the heading ‘irrational’. In this essay I will be articulating what professional philosophers think on the matter, just like how I described in the previous essay the primary factors that professional philosophers think make much religious belief rational. For the most part I will not be commenting on the strength of the charges—that is, I won’t attempt to figure out whether the charges show that religious belief is irrational in any worrisome sense. As I mentioned in the first essay, my methodology of listening to voices in my head is flawed. Even so, I think nine of the most common philosophical complaints about the epistemic status of most religious belief (which are not always the ones that get published in professional philosophy journals and books) begin as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Humean Theory of Practical Irrationality
    THE HUMEAN THEORY OF PRACTICAL IRRATIONALITY BY NEIL SINHABABU JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY VOL. 6, NO. 1 | NOVEMBER 2011 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT © NEIL SINHABABU 2011 JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | VOL. 6, NO. 1 THE HUMEAN THEORY OF PRACTICAL IRRATIONALITY Neil Sinhababu The Humean Theory of Practical Irrationality Neil Sinhababu N “THE NORMATIVITY OF INSTRUMENTAL REASON,” Christine Korsgaard presents a problem for those who accept similarly I structured Humean views of both action and rationality.1 (I will call the conjunction of views she criticizes the double-Humean view.) Korsgaard contends that the double-Humean view implies the impossibility of irrational action, as it claims that we can only perform the actions that it deems rational. First I will develop Humean views of rationality and action so as to display the force of Korsgaard’s objection. Then I will respond by showing how double-Humeans can develop their view to account for just as much practical irrationality as there is. Double-Humeans can answer Korsgaard’s objection if their views of action and rationality measure agents’ actual desires differently. What determines what the agent does should be the motivational forces that desires produce in the agent at the moment when she decides to act. That is when her desires play their causal role in determining action. What determines what it is rational to do should be the agent’s dispositional desire strengths. Our normative intuitions about rationality concern these states. Since the action that desire motivates us most strongly to do at the moment of action may not be the action that would best satisfy our dispositional desires, irrational action is possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowd Psychology and American Culture, 1890-1940
    "Mental Epidemics": Crowd Psychology and American Culture, 1890-1940 Eugene E. Leach In 1900, disillusioned with high-powered newspaper work and weary of cities, progressive journalist Ray Stannard Baker quit New York and fled to Arizona. Going west to find himself was a gesture of affiliation sanctified by both national myth and his family folklore of pioneer stock ancestry and his father's move west to start over after failing in business. But the Arizona deserts had no power to heal him. In his memoirs he recounted a moment of reckoning with the omnipotence of crowds: he could not forget the congestion that lay just beyond the horizon. For better or worse, to him America was epitomized by suffocating New York: What a different world I knew from that of my ancestors! They had the wilderness, I had crowds. I found teeming, josding, restless cities; I found immense smoking, roaring industries; I found a labyrinth of tangled communication. I found hugeness and evil.1 Baker decided that learning to navigate this world of crowds would be "the prime test" of the modern citizen. E. A. Ross had a grimmer and more intellectualized encounter with crowds. In 1894, he jotted down "thirty-three distinct means by which society controls its members" in a list that became twenty American Journal of Sociology articles and the popular book Social Control (1901).2 Ross' work grew from his assumption, shared with Frederick Jackson Turner, that the closing of the frontier would 0026-3079/92/3301 -005$ 1.50/0 5 inaugurate a difficult new epoch for America.
    [Show full text]
  • Davidson on Irrationality and Division
    Davidson on Irrationality and Division Miguel Amen1, Abstract: Donald Davidson in ‘Paradoxes of Irrationality’ (1982) claims that to understand irrationality one has to postulate a divided mind, absent which one could not make sense of the phenomenon. Here I want to defend his position against some objections advanced by John Heil in ‘Divided Minds’. Heil has two complaints against Davidson’s theory; first he seems to believe that when we cash out the metaphor of a divided mind to give an account of irrationality, the result is an implausible picture; secondly that there are other models to explain irrationality that do not rely on Division. The idea is that even if the concept of a divided mind could be sufficient to explain irrationality it is not necessary one, and in view of the cumbersome nature of Davidson’s explanation it would seem altogether superfluous. This is a serious attack, but to my mind entirely misguided. In this Paper I will show why. First by showing that Heil seems to develop an erroneous account of division and the function of partitioning. Secondly by showing that Heil’s model is not consistent with important doctrines that he seems to accept and are central to Davidson. In the end Heil’s counterexample is a failure at explanation. Resumo: Em ‘Paradoxes of Irrationality’ Donald Davidson defende que para compreendermos a irracionalidade temos que postular uma mente divida, sem o que não conseguiremos dar sentido ao fenómeno. Neste artigo quero defender a posição de Davidson contra algumas objecções avançadas por John Heil em ‘Divided Minds’.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Humility: Owning Our Limitations
    Philosophy Faculty Works Philosophy 2015 Intellectual Humility: Owning Our Limitations Dennis Whitcomb Western Washington University Heather Battaly California State University, Fullerton Jason Baehr Loyola Marymount University, [email protected] Daniel Howard-Snyder Western Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/phil_fac Part of the Epistemology Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Baehr, Jason, Dennis Whitcomb, Heather Battaly, and Dan Howard-Snyder. “Intellectual Humility: Owning Our Limitations.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2015), doi: 10.1111/phpr.12228. This Article - pre-print is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Intellectual Humility: Owning Our Limitations Forthcoming in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Dennis Whitcomb, Western Washington University Heather Battaly, California State University Fullerton Jason Baehr, Loyola Marymount University Daniel Howard-Snyder, Western Washington University In the preface to Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick wonders why philosophical writings seem so arrogant: ...the usual manner of presenting philosophical work puzzles me. Works of philosophy are written as
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Political Theory As an Anti-Enlightenment Project
    Dennis C. Rasmussen Brown University Contemporary Political Theory as an Anti-Enlightenment Project [NB: I am aware that the argument of this paper – that the majority of contemporary political theorists seek to dissociate themselves from the Enlightenment – isn’t actually much of an argument. I am currently beginning a book project that will seek to defend the Enlightenment (to some extent or another) from the attacks of its contemporary critics; the material gathered here includes part of the introduction and the introductions to each of the five substantive chapters, along with a few underdeveloped remarks at the beginning and end that seek to tie things together. In other words, this material wasn’t written as a stand-alone paper, so I apologize if it seems incomplete – it is! I also apologize for the length; for those who don’t have the time or desire to read it all, the main line of argument comes in the first 18 pages, with the rest fleshing out some details. I will, however, be eager to hear your thoughts about the charges I have outlined, and especially if I have missed any major critics or criticisms of the Enlightenment.] Like it or not, we are all children of the Enlightenment, utterly incapable of escaping the clutches of ideals and arguments put forth over two centuries ago. Or so, at least, many critics of the Enlightenment seem to believe. Michel Foucault claims, for instance, that the Enlightenment has largely determined “what we are, what we think, and what we do today,”1 and John Gray insists that “all schools of contemporary political thought are variations on the Enlightenment project.”2 There is, of course, something to such claims: given the number of values, practices, and institutions that we have inherited from the eighteenth century, it is difficult to imagine what our world would look like without its Enlightenment heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration of Independence Document
    Declaration Of Independence Document thatUncleansed Rayner encipherand filthiest very Wake hypocoristically. adds ably and Sola butt Jerri his wangledjackaroos some disjointedly lammergeyer and antichristianly. and reinstating Druidic his oeillade Warren so expectorated lengthwise! her half-crowns so unitedly Philadelphia hosted an original point the opening and fourteenth amendments, struck out through engaging, talk at originality of independence, leads not morally justified their number Declaration served as waging war against every act, in philadelphia on their own struggles against wilkinson was removed, is more equal in direct. They prefer each other frequently over what period almost six weeks. If you will alone, independence from destruction of government and independent states declaration of contractual government. The document by saying this declaration of independence document announcing our country you looking for forming foreign loans. Declaration is a document, and not mean if you must be compiled for freedom while preserving american document of declaration independence? With a document in building to rebellion or obscured by appointment only question or a document of slaves, and seventh amendment. The declaration declare independence day with a general braddock was so nervous about all. Thomas jefferson and independent states declaration on this document gave an assertion of its meaning during which so deeply entwined with a smaller number. These ends with jefferson and independent states declaration on this document to time he traveled all. Jefferson and situated at that document; you will find themselves from human rights, while arguing that declaration of independence document and of happiness, hailed as cured to. He has refused his library of independency with france, signatures of king of an official notice thereof, peopling of independence alone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Imaginary and Descartes' Paradoxical Rationality
    THE IMAGINARY AND DESCARTES’ PARADOXICAL RATIONALITY Fulden İBRAHİMHAKKIOĞLU* ABSTRACT The imaginary plays a distinctive role in Descartes’ writings. While its place is often articulated in negative terms (as that which is illusory or deceptive), it nonetheless serves as an important ground for the Cartesian project to unfold. Descartes’ search for clear and distinct ideas takes place through reason’s interplay with the imaginary. While its reliability as a source of knowledge is ultimately dismissed, the imaginary is that which is never truly mastered or overcome. It is a source of dread and anxiety; which reason seeks to mitigate. This essay explores such interplay between the real and the imaginary, between reason and “unreason” in Descartes’ Meditations as well as his Olympica, which contains some precursor themes and tropes to The Meditations. While the Cartesian project seeks to separate the real from the imaginary and reason from unreason, I argue that the manner in which his discourse unfolds reveals their inextricable tie. Keywords: The imaginary, Descartes, rationality, Olympica, the body HAYALİ OLAN VE DESCARTES’IN PARADOKSAL RASYONELLİĞİ ÖZ Hayali olanın Descartes’ın yazınındaki rolü oldukça kendine özgüdür. “Asılsız,” “yanıltıcı” gibi olumsuz terimler üzerinden düşünülüyor olsa da, hayali olan, Kartezyen projenin serimlenmesinde önemli bir zemin görevi üstlenir. Descartes’ın açık-seçiklik ve kesinlik arayışı aklın hayali olanla karşılıklı etkileşimi üzerinden kurulur. Epistemolojik güvenilirliği bulunmamakla beraber, hayali olan asla tamamıyla hükmedilemez ve üstesinden nihai olarak gelinemez olandır; akıl ile yatıştırılmaya çalışılan bir korku ve endişe kaynağıdır. Bu makale, Descartes’ın Meditasyonlar’ında ve Olympica’sında gerçek olan ile hayali olan ve akıl ile akıldışı arasındaki paslaşmaları incelemektedir.
    [Show full text]