ОБРАЗ ПРИРОДИ ТА ЛЮДИНИ В ПРАКТИЧНІЙ ФІЛОСОФІЇ ДЕКАРТА

А. M. Malivskyi; К. V. Soкоlоvа

doi:10.15802/ampr.v0i12.119147

Authors

А. M. Malivskyi Dnipropetrovsk National University of Railway Transport named after Academician V. Lazaryan, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6923-5145
К. V. Soкоlоvа Pridneprovskaya state academy of civil engineering and architecture, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3158-8957

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i12.119147

Keywords:

Descartes, practical philosophy, ethics, technomorphism, nature, man, nature in its broad sense

Abstract

Purpose. Modern philosophy is presented as practical and is based on the necessity to give a new meaning and interpretation to moral and ethical problems. Purpose of the paper is to comprehend specifics of modern perception of Cartesian interpretation of nature and man that implies consistent stages of technomorphic perception, critical analysis of its authenticity in research literature and understanding of rehabilitation tendency of Descartes' ethics as practical philosophy. Originality. The research is focused on the problem of technomorphism authenticity in the process of understanding and interpreting Descartes' practical philosophy. The authors are trying to defend rationale for phenomena interpretation concerning Descartes' technocratic orientation in terms of his ethical search. Critical interpretations of limited technomorphic perception of nature and man should be understood as some transition period towards ethics rehabilitation as practical philosophy. The study of Descartes on nature in its broad sense as metaphysical basis of his ethics has been revealed and analyzed. Conclusions. Technocratic interpretation of Descartes study is a superficial and distorted form of his practical philosophy interpretation. Until recently technomorphic perception of Descartes' study dominated in scientific literature, which has significantly determined limited perception of nature and man combined with superficial ethics perception. Critical rethinking of the developed Descartes' interpretations in recent scientific papers solves at the same time the tasks of theoretical denial of simplistic world perception and gives grounds for ethics rehabilitation as authentic form of its practical philosophy expression. One form of rehabilitation expression is increased attention to the concept of nature in its broad sense, which is a basis for its humanistic and ethical vision of philosophical tasks.

Author Biographies

А. M. Malivskyi, Dnipropetrovsk National University of Railway Transport named after Academician V. Lazaryan

Dnipropetrovsk National University of Railway Transport named after Academician V. Lazaryan (Dnipro),
e-mail telepat-57@ukr.net

К. V. Soкоlоvа, Pridneprovskaya state academy of civil engineering and architecture

Pridneprovskaya state academy of civil engineering and architecture(Dnipro), e-mail sokolova.katerina8@gmail.com

References

Bofre, Zh. (2009). Dialog s Khaydeggerom. Kn. 3. Priblizhenie k Khaydeggeru. Saint-Petersburg: Vladimir Dal. (In Russian)

Gaydenko, P. P. (1987). Evolyutsiya ponyatiya nauki XVII–XVIII vv. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian)

Gaydenko, P. P. (2003). Nauchnaya ratsionalnost i filosofskiy razum. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. (In Russian)

Gosle, V. (2003). Praktichna fіlosofіya v suchasnomu svіtі. Kyiv: Lіbra. (In Ukrainian)

Dekart, R. (2001). Mirkuvannia pro metod, shchob pravylno spriamuvaty svii rozum i vidshukovuvaty istynu v naukakh. Kyiv: Tandem. (In Ukrainian)

Dekart, R. (2014). Medytatsii pro pershu filosofiiu. In «Medytatsii» Dekarta u dzerkali suchasnykh tlumachen: Zhan-Mari Beisad, Zhan-Liuk Marion, Kim San On-Van-Kun (pp. 333–360). Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. (In Ukrainian)

Malivskiy, A. N. (2013). Antropologizatsiya bazovogo proekta Dekarta v sovremennoy istoriko-filosofskoy literature. Sententiaeyu, 28(1), 51–63. (In Russian)

Mamardashvili, M. K. (1984). Klassicheskiy i neklassicheskiy idealy ratsionalnosti. Metsniereba. (In Russian)

Khaydegger, M. (1986). Vopros o tekhnike. Novaya tekhnokraticheskaya volna na zapade. Moscow: Progress. (In Russian)

Khaydegger, M. (1986). Vremya kartiny mira. Novaya tekhnokraticheskaya volna na zapade. Moscow: Progress. (In Russian)

Khaydegger, M. (2007). Yevropeyskiy nigilizm. Saint-Petersburg: «Vladimir Dal». (In Russian)

Khesle, V. (1991). Genii filosofii Novogo vremeni. Moscow. (In Russian)

Khoma, O. (2014). Istoryko-filosofski stereotypy ta suchasne prochytannia Dekartovykh «Medytatsii». In «Medytatsii» Dekarta u dzerkali suchasnykh tlumachen: Zhan-Mari Beisad, Zhan-Liuk Marion, Kim San On-Van-Kun (pp. 333–360). Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. (In Ukrainian)

Shveytser, A. (1992). Blagogovenie peredzhiznyu. Progress. (In Russian)

Clarke, D. M. (2006). Descartes: A Biography. Cambridge University Press. (In English)

Cottingham, J. (1986). Descartes', Sixth Meditation: The External World,‘Nature’and Human Experience. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 20, 73–89. (In English)

Descartes, R. (1996). Œuvres complètes. Paris: Vrin, publiées par Ch. Adam et P. Tannery. (In French)

Gillespie, A. (2006). Descartes' demon: a dialogical analysis of meditations on first philosophy. Theory & psychology, 16(6), 761–781. (In English)

Hatfield, G. C. (2003). Descartes René. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Descartes and the Meditations. Psychology Press. (In French)

Kennington, R. (2017). Descartes and Mastery of Nature. Chapter Organism, Medicine, and Metaphysics, 7, 201–223. (In English)

Leiss, W. (1994). Domination of nature. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP. (In English)

Marion, J.-L. (2007). On the Ego and on the God. Further Cartesian Questions. New York. (In English)

Marion, J.-L. (1999). On Descartes Methaphysical Prism. The Constitution and the Limits of Onto-theo-logy in Cartesin Thought. University of Chicago Press. (In English)

Merrill, Th. W. (2008). «Masters and Possessors of Nature». The New Atlantis, 19, 91-107. (In English)

Verbeek, Th. (2000). The invention of nature: Descartes and Regius. In Gaukroger, S., Schuster, J., & Sutton, J. (Eds.), Descartes’ natural philosophy (pp. 149-167). (In English)

Skolimowski, H. (1984). «The dogma of antianthropocentrism». Environmental Ethics, 6(3), 283-288. (In English)

Watson, R. A. (1983). «A critique of anti-anthropocentric biocentrism». Environmental Ethics, 5(3), 245-256. (In English)