ОСОБИСТІСНІ МОТИВИ ФІЛОСОФУВАННЯ: КАРТЕЗІЙ ТА К’ЄРКЕГОР

A. M. Malivskyi

doi:10.15802/ampr.v0i13.132558

Authors

A. M. Malivskyi Dnipropetrovsk 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.v0i13.132558

Keywords:

Descartes, Kierkegaard, anthropology, human nature, deрersonalization, рersonality, knowledge, belief, freedom

Abstract

Purрose of the рaрer is to emphasize affinity and succession in the aррroaches of Descartes and Kierkegaard to the interpretation of key factors of their philosophical search. It could be implemented through understanding such viewpoints of both thinkers as a) appropriate reasons for human existence; b) possible factors for human freedom as a condition of self-actualization; c) original approach to prove the existence of God. Theoretical basis. The use of phenomenology and hermeneutics enable us to comprehend the key philosopher’s ideas as the manifestation of their personalities. Originality. The author believes that it is quite right to refer to the philosophy of the early modern period as a form of its demand fulfillment for human development. An essential prerequisite for revealing the toрic of the article is a focus on the latest investigations of Descartes’ philosophy, which demonstrate the anthropological significance. Since Kierkegaard’s viewpoint was developed through depersonalized understanding of philosophy, related motives of their thoughts are expressed by emphasizing their personal motives of philosophizing. This affinity is reflected firstly, in distancing from depersonalized and dehumanized world view; secondly, in religion-oriented search and proof of God’s existence based on human nature. Conclusions. Due to the modern state of historical and philosophical science, it is possible to argue that Descartes and Kierkegaard had content-related philosophizing motives, which are close to current search. Interpreting Descartes’ anthropological project by Kierkegaard, the author states the accepted determining influence of Hegel’s philosophy interpretation in general and his interpretation of Descartes, in particular. This argument allows to understand Kierkegaard’s search as Hegel’s deconstruction, because further uncritical retention and reproduction of his viewpoints are evaluated as a threat to fulfill human spiritual calling. A common and important thing in the views of both thinkers is their strong interest in individual and personal aspects of human nature as a constituent factor of God’s existence.

Author Biography

A. 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),
Emai:l telepat-57@ukr.net

References

Ben-Yami, H. (2015). Descartes Philosophical Revolution: A Reassessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (in English)

Descartes, R. (2001). Mirkuvannia pro metod, shchob pravylno spriamovuvaty svii rozum i vidshukovuvaty istynu v naukakh. V. Andrushko, & S. Hatalska, Trans. from Ukr. Kyev: Tandem. (in Ukrainian)

Climacus, J. (1992). Or De omnibus dubitandum est. V. H. Hong, & E. H. Hong (Eds.), Trans. Princeton: Princeton University Pres. (in English)

Cottingham, J. (1993). A Descartes dictionary. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. (in English)

Gaukroger, S. (1995). Descartes: An Iintellectual Biography. London: Oxford University Press. (in English)

Gaukroger, S. (1996). Descartes R. Œuvres completes: In 11 Vol. Paris: Vrin, publiées par Ch. Adam et P. Tannery. (in French)

Grimsley, R. (1966). Kierkegaard and Descartes. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 4(1), 31-41. (in English)

Kerkegor, S. (2011). Ili-ili. Fragment iz zhizni: In 2 Vol. N. Isaeva, & S. Isaev, Trans. from Dan. Saint Petersburg: Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy: Amfora. (in Russian)

Kerkegor, S. (1994). Naslazhdenie i dolg. P. Ganzen, Trans. from Czech. Kyev: AirLand. (in Russian)

Kerkegor, S. (1993). Strakh i trepet. N. Isaeva, & S. Isaev, Trans. from Dan. Moscow: Respublika. (in Russian)

Kerkegor, S. (2005). Zaklyuchitelnoe nenauchnoe posleslovie k "Filosofskim krokham" (Mimicheski-Pateticheski-Dialekticheskaya Kompilyatsiya. Ekzistentsialnyy vklad Iokhannesa Klimakusa). Saint Petersburg: St Peterburg University. (in Russian)

Khoma, O. (2010). Ingenium and deductive method of Descartes. Sententiae, 22(1), 192-207. (in Ukrainian)

Khoma, O. (2014). Istoryko-filosofski stereotypy ta suchasne prochytannia Dekartovykh "Medytatsii". In Z.-M. Beisad, Z.-L. Marion, & K. S. On-Van-Kun, "Medytatsii" Dekarta u dzerkali suchasnykh tlumachen (pp. 333-360). Kyev: Dukh i Litera. (in Ukrainian)

Malivskyi, A. M. (2017). Anthropological project as a basis of cartesian ethics. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 11, 117-126. doi: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i11.105495 (in Ukrainian)

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 (in English)

Marrs, D. J. (2015). To become transfigured: Reconstructing søren kierkegaards christological anthropology (Doctoral dissertation). Baylor University, Waco. (in English)

Mortensen, F. K. (1994). Before Kierkegaard was "the Word". In A. Frishman (Ed.), The World of Kierkegaard. Russian and Danish Readings of Kierkegaards Works (pp. 75-81). Moscow: Ad Marginem. (in Russian)

Nadler, S. (2013). The Philosopher, the Priest, and the Painter: A Portrait of Descartes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (in English)