این مجموعه ی مقالات نیز مورد بررسی قرار گرفت، و مقاله ی مربوط به دکارت(توسط LILLI ALANEN) با دقت مطالعه شد. اما چیزی در رابطه با خطای زبانی یا
مطلب خاصی در رد اصل شناخت شناسی دکارت نیافتم!
بخش هایی از آن مقاله که به نظر می رسید در این مورد بیان شده اند:
What Descartes has to prove, therefore, in order to show that the mind is really distinct from the body, is that
the knowledge of the mind is not acquired by way of abstraction and that the mind is consequently neither an accidental nor a permanent property
of the body to which it is united, but that it can on the contrary be known as a complete or self-subsisting thing in itself.
---------------------------------------
But how is it possible to infer, as he seems to
do, from what merely looks like a subjective state of certainty (expressed
in (iii», to the knowledge of the essential nature of the self or the mind
((iv) and (v»? For, as I have argued elsewhere, the clarity and distinctness
of the knowledge of the self or the mind and its nature acquired in the
Second Meditation, seem to consist of nothing more than the certainty
of the facts expressed in the propositions" I think" and" I exist" . 25 And
how can this knowledge justify any further conclusion about the objective
nature of self or the mind
--------------------------------------------
Descartes has not proved that the knowledge of his mind is adequate in
the sense assumed by Arnauld: it is not a knowledge embracing all the
properties of the thing known (cf. above, Section 5). Such knowledge,
Descartes stresses, is unattainable for the human mind, which is created
and finite, and it is therefore not required. An adequate knowledge
presupposes that one knows not only all the properties which are adequate-
for a thing, but also that one knows that God has not given the
thing in question other properties than those of which one has
knowledge. In other words, it is necessary to know that the knowledge
one has is adequate, which would require an infinite capacity of
knowledge (AT VII, 220; HR II, 97). Such knowledge, i.e., a knowledge
which is entirely adequate, is to be distinguished from a knowledge which
"has sufficient adequacy to let us see that we have not rendered it "inadequate-
by an intellectual abstraction
نوشته اصلی از سوی Transcendence
پاسخ با گفت‌آورد