ANTHROPOLOGICAL PROJECT AS A BASIS OF CARTESIAN ETHICS

A. M. Malivskyi

doi:10.15802/ampr.v0i11.105495

Authors

A. M. Malivskyi Dnipropetrovs’k National University of Railway Transport named after Academician V. Lazaryan, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6923-5145

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i11.105495

Keywords:

Descartes, anthropological project, scientific revolution, ethics, human nature, anthropocentrism

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to determine and understand the conditions of the anthropological project development by Descartes. It implies the necessity to conceive its entrenched forms in scientific revolution, which leads to a) a human as an embodiment of some abstract mind, b) its transcendence, as well as the possibility to penetrate into a human nature in the course of ethics development. Originality. According to the author, the anthropological interpretation of Descartes is not profound, since a human is taken as embodiment of abstract mind, and ethics is a set of some simple rules. The impact of scientific revolution, which was not well perceived, leads to the domination of a restricted understanding of a human in research literature. The author insists on taking into account the fact that Descartes was beyond epistemology due to the topical issue concerning a proper mode of life. Conclusions. The incomprehensive interpretation of the attitude of Descartes to scientific revolution causes restricted understanding a human nature as abstract mind embodiment and ethics as a set of simple rules. Thorough analysis of the thinker's texts proves his profound interpretation of scientific revolution impact and integrated vision of a human nature, as well as significant development of ethical issues.

Author Biography

A. M. Malivskyi, Dnipropetrovs’k National University of Railway Transport named after Academician V. Lazaryan

A. M. Malivskyi

References

Bofre, Z. (2009). Dialog s Khaideggerom. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal.

Vozniak, T. (1998). Teksty ta pereklady. Kharkiv: Folio.

Guseinov, A. A. (2014). Philosophy as Ethical Project. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 5, 16-26.

Riker, P. (2001). Sam yak inshyi. Kyiv: Dukh i litera.

Biener, Z. (2008). The Unity of Science in Early-Modern Philosophy: Subalternation, Metaphysics and the Geometrical Manner in Scholasticism, Galileo and Descartes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Descartes, R. (1996). Oeuvres complètes in 11 vol. Paris: Vrin, publiées par Ch. Adam et P. Tannery.

Antoine-Mahut, D. (2017). Descartes’ Treatise on Man and its Reception. Berlin: Springer.

Hoffman, P. (2009). Essays on Descartes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaukroger, S. (2016). Enlightenment Criticisms of Descartes’ Anthropology. Descartes’ Treatise on Man and Its Reception, 43, 261-266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46989-8_16

Malivskyi, A. M. (2016). The Demand for a New Concept of Anthropology in the Early Modern Age: The Doctrine of Hume. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 10, 121-130. doi: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i10.87391

Marion, J.-L. (1999). On Descartes' Metaphysical Prism: The Constitution and the Limits of Onto-theo-logy in Cartesian Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Marion, J.-L. (2007). On the Ego and on God: Further Cartesian Questions. New York: Fordham University Press.

Ariew, R., Chene, D. D., Jesseph, D. M., Schmaltz, T. M., & Verbeek, T. (2015). Historical dictionary of Descartes and Cartesian philosophy. Langham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Verbeek, T. (2000). The invention of nature: Descartes and Regius. In Gaukroger, S., Schuster, J., & Sutton, J. (Eds.), Descartes’ natural philosophy. London: Routledge.

Wienand, I. (2006). Descartes’ Morals. South African Journal of Philosophy, 25(2), 177-188. doi: https://doi.org/10.4314/sajpem.v25i2.31444