Kant Versus Descartes: The Paralogism of Substantiality

Fatih Özgökman

Makale detayları

Kant Versus Descartes: The Paralogism of Substantiality

Yazarlar:

Fatih Özgökman

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Felsefe

Dergi:

darulfunun ilahiyat Vol.34 Issue 2, pp.549-566

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001311314

pISSN:

2651-5083

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 When Descartes doubted the existence of everything sensible, he expressed the indisputability of his own existence as I think, therefore I am. He then questioned what he is and deduced that he is a thinking substance, namely a soul or mind. Meanwhile, Kant claimed to concluding that I am a thinking substance i.e., a soul from I think is a paralogism because, according to Kant, this inference starts from the substantiveness of intuitional objects used as subjects in judgment and deduces that I, namely the thinking thing, is also a substance due to being used as a subject in judgment. Therefore, according to Kant, the middle term is used with a double meaning in this inference. However, it is not observed how the middle term is used with a double meaning in Kants inference. Moreover, Descartes conclusion I am a spiritual substance is not based on any such reasoning that requires intuitive content. Because Descartes did not deduce his undoubted existence from the substantiveness of the objects of intuition he was doubting, on the contrary, he expressed it as a spiritual substance in order to distinguish between them.

 When Descartes doubted the existence of everything sensible, he expressed the indisputability of his own existence as I think, therefore I am. He then questioned what he is and deduced that he is a thinking substance, namely a soul or mind. Meanwhile, Kant claimed to concluding that I am a thinking substance i.e., a soul from I think is a paralogism because, according to Kant, this inference starts from the substantiveness of intuitional objects used as subjects in judgment and deduces that I, namely the thinking thing, is also a substance due to being used as a subject in judgment. Therefore, according to Kant, the middle term is used with a double meaning in this inference. However, it is not observed how the middle term is used with a double meaning in Kants inference. Moreover, Descartes conclusion I am a spiritual substance is not based on any such reasoning that requires intuitive content. Because Descartes did not deduce his undoubted existence from the substantiveness of the objects of intuition he was doubting, on the contrary, he expressed it as a spiritual substance in order to distinguish between them.

 When Descartes doubted the existence of everything sensible, he expressed the indisputability of his own existence as I think, therefore I am. He then questioned what he is and deduced that he is a thinking substance, namely a soul or mind. Meanwhile, Kant claimed to concluding that I am a thinking substance i.e., a soul from I think is a paralogism because, according to Kant, this inference starts from the substantiveness of intuitional objects used as subjects in judgment and deduces that I, namely the thinking thing, is also a substance due to being used as a subject in judgment. Therefore, according to Kant, the middle term is used with a double meaning in this inference. However, it is not observed how the middle term is used with a double meaning in Kants inference. Moreover, Descartes conclusion I am a spiritual substance is not based on any such reasoning that requires intuitive content. Because Descartes did not deduce his undoubted existence from the substantiveness of the objects of intuition he was doubting, on the contrary, he expressed it as a spiritual substance in order to distinguish between them.

 Descartes duyulur her şeyin varlığından şüphe ettiğinde kendi varlığının şüphe götürmezliğini Düşünüyorum o halde varım diye ifade eder. Daha sonra kendisinin ne olduğunu sorgular ve düşünen bir töz yani ruh veya zihin olduğu sonucunu çıkarır. Diğer taraftan Kant ise düşünüyorumdan benim düşünen bir töz yani bir ruh olduğum sonucuna ulaşılmasının mantıksal yanlış çıkarım olduğunu iddia eder. Çünkü Kanta göre bu çıkarım, yargıda özne olarak kullanılan sezgi nesnelerinin tözselliğinden hareketle, benim yani düşünen şeyin de yargıda özne olarak kullanıldığı için töz olduğu sonucunu çıkarsar. Dolayısıyla Kanta göre bu çıkarımda orta terim çift anlamlı olarak kullanılmıştır. Bununla birlikte Kantın verdiği çıkarımda orta terimin çift anlamlı olarak kullanıldığı gözlenmez. Dahası Descartesın benim ruhsal bir töz olduğum sonucu, sezgisel içerik gerektiren böyle bir akıl yürütmeye dayanmaz. Çünkü Descartes, şüphe edilmeyecek kendi varlığını, şüphe ettiği sezgi nesnelerinin tözselliğinden çıkarsamaz, aksine onlardan ayırt etmek için ruhsal bir töz olarak ifade eder.

Makale detayları

Kant Versus Descartes: The Paralogism of Substantiality

Yazarlar:

Fatih Özgökman

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Felsefe

Dergi:

darulfunun ilahiyat Vol.34 Issue 2, pp.549-566

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001311314

pISSN:

2651-5083

Rational Psychology

Substance

Soul

Consciousness

SophistryRasyonel Psikoloji

Töz

Ruh

Bilinç

Safsata

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Fatih Özgökman

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Felsefe

Dergi: darulfunun ilahiyat Vol.34 Issue 2, pp.549-566

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001311314

pISSN: 2651-5083

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Fatih Özgökman

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Felsefe

Dergi:

darulfunun ilahiyat Vol.34 Issue 2, pp.549-566

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001311314

pISSN:

2651-5083