Man Alan bayad beram kharid chon Farda Hame ja Tatile Rasmie Ta bargardam inha ro bekhon bebin be karet mikhoreh

1st Prolegomena

Descartes claimed of himself that he was "a man alone and in the darkness goes" 1 He must have become acutely aware of what danger could conjure up his philosophy: The danger to the final dismantling of metaphysical certainty.
Descartes was not interested in the dismantling of metaphysics, but in the reorganization of philosophy. With the application of precise methods, which he takes the math, he wants the philosophy from scratch built. Schelling puts it something dramatic out: "René Descartes, began, all associated with the former philosophy cancel about everything in this research was done before him, as with the sponge away, and this from scratch, just as if before he never has been a philosophy, rebuild. "2
Descartes wants to be with his kind of philosophy of scholasticism solve. This was after his speculative view to secure knowledge about the world. Cartesius' new beginning is also the beginning of modern philosophy, the reason, the principle of philosophical rises. The basis of this new reason is the liberal independently minded individual.
The basic themes, God and the soul of the Cartesian thinking show itself in its title, the main work: "Meditations on the first philosophy in Quibus existentia animae et corpore humanae a distinctio demonstratur (1641)" (Meditations on First Philosophy, what the Existence of God and the diversity of the human soul from her body is shown). This, of the theological faculty devoted Book Paris, is the following, from the viewpoint of the ontological proof of God, Descartes, to be closer.


2nd The Ontological Proof of God




The ontological proof of God was the first time by Anselm of Canterbury led around 1100. Anselm had tried, the existence of God on purely rational grounds, ie only on the basis of terms and by the use of reason. For Descartes must be based on objections from Carterus be assumed that he had no direct knowledge of the ontological proof of God by Anselm had hat.3
The rationalists, the Descartes one must add, the ontological argument used to be able to prove that thinking and reality Rules match. The rationalists were convinced "pure principles of thinking the building to recognize the reality" .4 However, this can only be the case if God as a common (for thinking and reality Rules) and real principle can be proved.




3rd The method of Descartes'


A small excursion into the basic understanding of Cartesian thinking at this point must be the main topic will be forwarded.




As already mentioned, borrowed from Descartes analytical methods of mathematics to philosophy to apply. These principles he lays down in the "Speeches de la méthode bien pour conduire sa raison et la Truth Chercher dans les sciences (1637)" (The correct method of Vernunftgebrauches) down.


Here he expresses that the only sciences from the realization of the mind there. This recognition would in any variety of items but one and the same, so it must be universal principles and methods based on the true realization us to lead. In following these instructions for proper use of reason be displayed:


a.) All this is true, what I regard as clearly (clare and distinct percipere) covers
b.) problems as far as possible to disassemble parts
c.) From the simplest to complicated ahead
d.) By listing the completeness of the system secure


With the help of this methodology Descartes wants to get the simple natures (deduction). Natures can be easy for him either out of the experience itself or by a light eingeborenes us intuitively grasp, ie they must be returned immediately evident. Based on such findings should folgerbare rates deduziert, ie Derived werden.

4th Reflections on the first philosophy

From the above method is also already the first step Descartes, the doubts: "I had already noticed several Jähren how much I am wrong in my youth was held to be true, and how doubtful Everything was what I had it built. ' "6 The doubts serves Cartesius, in contrast to the Skeptikern7 only as a starting point of his philosophy, ie it is a methodical doubt, the helping it to be the philosophical - Archimedean point to find no more bezweifelbar is So, in order to get to safety. The fall in doubt corrective, selective and systematic functions.
Descartes doubt sets in the sense deceptions On: "Truly, I must, over time, even the deceptively classified as what I learned from my senses" 8th When I look but about being the outside world, through Trugschlüsse not in the clear, so that remains for me but the certainty of their own lives in bodily existence. This shatters doubt on closer investigation, because "I never made circumstantial me the difference between awake and conscious dream state can be" 9th It would be theoretically possible, yes, we find ourselves in a diesel everlasting dream and our physical existence is just another deception. Even in this doubt remains Descartes certainty: rates of the form 2 +3 = 5 confirm the dream as well as in wakefulness, as it behaves itself with the remaining general terms, which I obviously can see. This is now the most radical step of the Cartesian doubt a. Descartes raises the question: "How would it be if the man fundamentally wrong, even in obvious things." 10 If this is the case, then God would have us enter into an untruth have created. Thus, it would no longer be the God of theology and philosophy, God as a source of truth, but God as cunning fraudsters and Deceiver, a "genius malignus."
This last stage of the doubt is merely questioned and not as an allegation. Descartes dare not the essence of God to circulate, but leads instead "a less wealthy creator« 11 into the field. Here you can ask to what extent Descartes doubt really is complete, and if he does not have the outcome of its investigations anticipates still coming. Conversely, this also owed to the church. Has been known to the sentencing Galilei 1633 Descartes already led his writing, "The World", destroy. It folgernd we should not be difficult, the most radical doubts about this point to think him not only as a mere question of thinking or other mißdeutig to interpret.
In summary, we can Descartes doubt in 3 stages as follows:


1st Doubts about the sensory perception
2nd Doubts about the cognitive state
3rd Doubts about the judgments of Pure Reason.


At the beginning of the second viewing (meditation) Descartes makes his doubts once again review to the "Archimedean point" to find that he's philosophizing as necessary investigated. This point he wins calculated from self-doubt: "Vertrackterweise however, I find that I had to be at least so I thought this illusion model could accept." 12 This means whenever I summarize a thought, I can state that I am, I exist . Moreover, I doubt at all that I instead, no doubt, that I am doubtful. Thus wins with his famous Descartes' cogito ergo sum "- thinking being, I'm his philosophical - Archimedean point that we as a recognition without prior knowledge consider können.13


This conclusion is important for philosophy, is the first time or were originally ultimate certainty in the subject, ie in ourselves, placed. The medieval philosophy has this original summarizes only certainty in God and sought to establish. From that moment on the subject is celebrating its triumph over the periods leading up to the present day, and encourages especially the crucial foundation for the modern philosophy. 14
I now this is nothing more than thinking about it. This thinking is Descartes also the area of consciousness added. The "I" is strictly by the real people in the real world to be separated, ie it will be separated into the subject and weltlose into mere objects.
Now it must succeed Descartes the connection between the outer and the things I create, otherwise I would in itself be caught.
For this purpose he serves the ideas. The ideas he shares in Aboriginal in from the outside and acquired the self-made ideas. An innate ideas or receive a special significance here because they are not by their origin can be resolved. These ideas are on the metaphysical principle "Causa aequat effectum" derived, which states "that a sufficient cause at least as much relevance (realitas) must be like in their effect. Similarly in the effect can not happen, not previously in force as the cause has been adopted. «15 Assuming we can conclude: It may take nothing less nutritious nutritious arise. This aspect should we continue to employ the following.
On the basis of Descartes we can with the idea of God as follows question: We are currently still in doubt, doubt this brings us to a lack days, otherwise we would not doubt it. The opposite is the lack of perfection, this idea of perfection but can not come out myself, because I am imperfect beings. Based on the metaphysical principle must be this idea that is contrary to the contents of tantamount importance facts emerge, a perfect situation. Thus we can and must assume a perfect beings. But this says: If God is perfect and there, then man is not in the untruth and God is not the "genius malignus" but the source of truth, because a perfect being necessarily the truth must be heard and thus are also our Denkinhalte (3rd stage of the doubt) as a true anzunehmen.16
Hence the question: If "... God never cheat me, I must relish the basic fraud and falsification examined elsewhere. «17 Descartes solves this problem, in which it is based on the approach to solving the problem of Theodizee18 zurückgreift. The way out of this misery can be briefly re-enter as follows: The brain barriers are set, which will not. The will allows me to affirm ideas and to deny the mistake will be from the improper use of this ability. But if we all just accept this as true, from what we Methode19 can recognize as true and everything else skeptical view, we are capable of thinking a proper picture of the world to win.
With the in the 3rd Evidence has guided meditation Descartes the existence of God only in the imagination demonstrated. Descartes goes there only by the idea of perfection and their corresponding sachhaltigen cause from. This is however not yet demonstrated that these imaginary real cause even necessarily exists. To reach this step, Descartes now in the 5th Meditation.
To achieve this, he presents the idea of a perfect system with the same ideas from the geometry.
We have countless ideas in us, which we ascribe no empirical reality. These ideas are not fancy formations, "because we consider this idea a steady entity and form attribute." 20 On examples of the triangle that would mean: I give my insight on the naturgesetzlichen peculiarities of the triangle and I would never have found it mathematically, a Triangle to recognize me when a "encounters". Cartesius It concludes: "Well, I have but the general perception blanket criterion, everything is so true, as I understand it clearly einsehe." 21 In other words that would mean if I make a presentation about one thing gather from my thinking, so this is the case even necessarily added. If we put this on the problem of the existence of God shall apply are as follows: "Not less clearly intelligiere I think this is perfect for nature education must include that everything must be vivid reality. Even if my errors at the current thinking about the right basic assumptions should be run, but must at least all this be true, what his thought after it emerged from einleuchtet "22 - I have the necessary existence of God thinking, since it is perfection, or the Concept like this one. The existence God needed to, because I clearly recognize.
Thus, the bridge between the subject and countless world of reality after Descartes beaten and the ontological proof of God led.
Finally, I thought the course Descartes summed up: On the basis of self-certainty and the truthfulness of the idea of God with her inliegenden perfection, resulting in the existence results, we can say that my innate ideas and their validity for the denkunabhängige reality. Accordingly, we are capable of objective knowledge about the reality to gain. That we are still wrong, the wrong lies in use, our ability to judgments.

5th Criticism of Descartes




The criticism of Descartes works offered him myself early on the opportunity to respond to objections and / or to clarify his views. Sun published the 1641 Descartes meditations on the fundamentals of philosophy, even with the objections and his replies in the appendix. I would just below the main objections are received.


The accusation of Circle Final




The most serious criticism of the ontological evidence Descartes is the accusation of the circle closing.
As proof of existence of God, in the 3rd Meditation, Descartes takes the metaphysical basic rule "Causa aequat effectum" as a basis for the derivation and proof of the idea of God as true. But how can this principle be accepted as true, when man still in the total reversal, ie in the world of "genius malignus", is the existence of God and I have not the correctness of my Denkinhalte guaranteed? This would mean that the attempt to build a new metaphysics, already in the beginning would be doomed to failure. Descartes tried (yes) a further proof of the necessary existence of God. But if only the second real evidence the existence of God proved, it is also a renewed methods infringement because the arguments again the correctness of our clear and sharp insights, as well as our ideas presupposes, in which he eg The idea of geometric figures continues to be true. This he can not accept, because we are up to this date still in circulation would be. The problem of proof is evidence that both mutually interdependent and thus creates the Zirkelschluß.23
The evidence of God to fail to satisfy the objective validity Prinzipien24 following:


1st the principle of "causa aequat effectum"
2nd the innate idea of a perfect system
3rd Everything I clearly and distinctly as belonging to seize thing, really belongs to her.


The ideas




Above all, Hobbes and Gassendi hold an acceptance of Aboriginal ideas for unjustly. Gassendis reasoning is shortened as follows: The ideas are the consequence of the perception of external things on the soul and therefore can not be indigenous. Only then, that man with the assistance of its external sense organs perceive things and can see, he is in a position to see themselves as thinking beings to understand, ie as beings with perceptions and sensory impressions. If the ideas of Hobbes pictures than the material things speaks, as he proposes in the same score as Gassendi. The idea of the substance can be Hobbesian not imagine at best perceptions of the matter as erschließen.25
The discussion about the importance of innate ideas is characterized by the contrast between rationalist and empirical positions in the Erkenntnistheorie.26


6th Outlook




If we ontological proof of God in Descartes also failed as a must see, but do so by Descartes impulses from the modern era have much mitgeprägt. Thus we can conclude that the method we Descartes as the basis of any scientific work. Likewise, he was the initiator of his subsequent philosophy. Spinoza, Leibniz and build their systems to its foundations. We must continue the Occasionalisten - Nicole Malebranche is one of its main representatives - to mention the ideas Descartes continues. Has been raised already, the new importance of the subject in the philosophy of the Enlightenment and in society begins to enforce. "Enlightenment is the exit of people from his self-inflicted nonage. Nonage is the inability, to his mind without another line to operate. "27, räsoniert Kant, Descartes and can boast to have been one of those who allowed this.


Bibliography


_ Heidegger, Martin, What is Metaphysics? Frankfurt on the Main: Klostermann 1993
_ Kunzmann, Burkhard, Wiedmann, dtv Atlas philosophy, Munich: German Paperback Publisher 1998
_ Prechtl, Peter, Descartes. Establishing, Hamburg: Junius 2000
_ Roed, Wolfgang, The God of Pure Reason. The dispute over the ontological proof of God by Anselm to Hegel, Munich: Beck 1992
_ Stoerig, Hans - Joachim, Small World History of Philosophy, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Paperback 1992
_ Weischedel, William, The philosophical rear staircase. The great philosophers in everyday life and thinking, Munich: German Paperback Publisher 1998
_ Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: Meditations on the Mystery of the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried: ars una 1994
_ Schelling: The recent history of philosophy, Digital library Volume 3: History of Philosophy
Descartes: Investigations on the basics of philosophy, Digital library Volume 2: Philosophy


1 Weischedel, William, The philosophical rear staircase. The great philosophers in everyday life and thinking, Munich 1998, p. 124


2 Schelling: The recent history of philosophy, p. 4 Digital Library Volume 3: History of Philosophy, p. 2348 (see Schelling-Gesch., P. 21)


3 See Roed, Wolfgang, The God of Pure Reason. The dispute over the ontological proof of God by Anselm to Hegel, Munich 1992, p. 76


4 Kunzmann, Burkhard, Wiedmann, dtv Atlas philosophy, Munich 1998, p. 103


5 See Kunzmann, Burkhard, Wiedmann, dtv Atlas philosophy, Munich 1998, S.105


6 Descartes: Investigations on the Foundations of Philosophy, p. 21 Digital Library Volume 2: Philosophy, p. 15787 (cf Descartes PW Div 2, p. 19)


7 The skeptics remained in doubt. They would therefore consistently say: Everything can be true and we are therefore not capable of a correct perception of the world to win.


8 Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: The Secret of the Meditations on the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried 1994, p.13


9 Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: The Secret of the Meditations on the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried 1994, p.14


10 See Weischedel, William, The philosophical rear staircase. The great philosophers in everyday life and thinking, Munich 1998, S.120


11 Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: The Secret of the Meditations on the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried 1994, p.16


12 Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: The Secret of the Meditations on the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried 1994, p.19


13 Stoerig, Hans - Joachim, Small World History of Philosophy, Frankfurt am Main, 1992, S.316


14 See Weischedel, William, The philosophical rear staircase. The great philosophers in everyday life and thinking, Munich 1998, S.121


15 Prechtl, Peter, Descartes. Establishing, Hamburg 2000, p.83


16 See Weischedel, William, The philosophical rear staircase. The great philosophers in everyday life and thinking, Munich 1998, S.123


17 Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: The Secret of the Meditations on the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried 1994, p. .49


18 Theodizee: The problem of justification for allgütigen in God because of the evil exists in the world: This problem has been solved, claimed that God has a perfect world to the people the freedom to have. This freedom is also the source of evil in which the wrong man makes use of it. (See Kunzmann, Burkhard, Wiedmann, dtv Atlas philosophy, Munich 1998, p.115)


19 See 3rd Chapter "The method Descartes'


20 Prechtl, Peter, Descartes. Establishing, Hamburg 2000, p.90


21 Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: The Secret of the Meditations on the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried 1994, p.61


22 Widmann, Joachim, existential categories: The Secret of the Meditations on the first philosophy of René Descartes, Neuried 1994, p.62


23 See Roed, Wolfgang, The God of Pure Reason. The dispute over the ontological proof of God by Anselm to Hegel, Munich 1992, p.69 The interdependence of God's evidence


24 See Prechtl, Peter, Descartes. Establishing, Hamburg 2000, p.92


25 See Prechtl, Peter, Descartes. Establishing, Hamburg 2000, p.137


26 The empiricist see the foundation of knowledge in the experience, while the rationalists the experience classified as too uncertain to build it to get true recognition. (See Kunzmann, Burkhard, Wiedmann, dtv Atlas philosophy, Munich 1998, S .103)


27 Kunzmann, Burkhard, Wiedmann, dtv Atlas philosophy, Munich 1998, p. 103