Descartes ve brentano: Ruhsal fenomenlerin tasnifi
Loading...
Date
2018-10-30
Authors
Kovanlıkaya, Aliye Karabük
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Uludağ Üniversitesi
Abstract
Descartes düşünme tarzlarını genel olarak idrak etme ve murat etme olmak üzere tasnif eder. Arzulama ve kaçınma ile hüküm vermeyi murat etme başlığı altına yerleştirir ve idrak etmeden kesin olarak ayırır. Brentano kendi çağdaşlarının Descartes’ın tasnifinden ilham alarak geliştirdikleri görüşleri reddetmeye çalışır ve tasnifi yanlış anladıklarını öne sürer. Descartes’ın metinlerinde konuyla ilgili olarak yer alan ifadeleri, hükmetme ile murat etme arasındaki bağlantıyı zayıflatacak şekilde yorumlar. Bunu yapmasının nedeni doğruyu da tıpkı yanlış gibi hükümde bulması, hükmetmenin iradenin fiili olmadığını öne sürerek, doğru ile yanlışın iradeye bağlı olmasının önüne geçmeye çalışmasıdır. Bu yazıda Brentano’nun, Descartes’ın idrak ile hükmetmeyi karşı çıkılamayacak açıklıkta ayıran ifadelerini bir yana bırakıp, kendi konumunu Descartes’a mümkün olduğunca yaklaştırmak için, hükmetme ile diğer iradi faaliyetler arasındaki farkı nasıl yorumlamaya çalıştığını ve kendi yönelimsel bilinç anlayışından kaynaklanan bu yorumun Descartes’a tamamen aykırı olduğunu göstermeye çalışacağız.
Descartes classifies the modes of thinking generally as understanding and willing. He considers desire, aversion and judgement under willing and as such he distinguishes them sharply from understanding. Brentano tries to refute some of his contemporaries’ views which have as basis Descartes’ classification. For this aim, he asserts that these views depend upon a misunderstanding of Descartes’ related texts. He interprets these texts in a way to loosen the relation between judging and willing. The reason behind this attempt is Brentano’s own conception of truth according to which truth, as well as falsehood, is in judgements. His aim in trying to establish his thesis that judging is not to be seen as an act of will is to prevent himself from falling a position which would relate truth and falsehood to will rather than understanding. In this paper, we aim to show that Brentano tries to disregard Descartes’ view which clearly distinguishes understanding and judging, and to explain how he interprets the distinction between judging and other acts of will in a way to make his own position closer to that of Descartes in so far as he can and how this interpretation which spring from his own intentional conception of consciousness is in complete opposition to that of Descartes.
Descartes classifies the modes of thinking generally as understanding and willing. He considers desire, aversion and judgement under willing and as such he distinguishes them sharply from understanding. Brentano tries to refute some of his contemporaries’ views which have as basis Descartes’ classification. For this aim, he asserts that these views depend upon a misunderstanding of Descartes’ related texts. He interprets these texts in a way to loosen the relation between judging and willing. The reason behind this attempt is Brentano’s own conception of truth according to which truth, as well as falsehood, is in judgements. His aim in trying to establish his thesis that judging is not to be seen as an act of will is to prevent himself from falling a position which would relate truth and falsehood to will rather than understanding. In this paper, we aim to show that Brentano tries to disregard Descartes’ view which clearly distinguishes understanding and judging, and to explain how he interprets the distinction between judging and other acts of will in a way to make his own position closer to that of Descartes in so far as he can and how this interpretation which spring from his own intentional conception of consciousness is in complete opposition to that of Descartes.
Description
Keywords
Descartes, Brentano, Bilinç, Hüküm, Doğruluk, Consciousness, Judgment, Truth
Citation
Kovanlıkaya, A. K. (2018). "Descartes ve brentano: Ruhsal fenomenlerin tasnifi". Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 31, 299-320.