Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:28:17.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Connaissance de Dieu et conscience de soi chez Descartes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

Murray Miles
Murray Miles*
Affiliation:
Brock University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The analytic method by which Descartes established the first principle of his philosophy (cogito, ergo sum) is a unique cognitive process of direct insight and non-logical inference that differs markedly from the deductive model of noetic apprehension long associated with seventeenth-century rationalism. In this paper, it is shown that the same analytic process is at work in the Third Meditation proof of the innateness of the idea of God, where, however, there are serious doubts about its legitimacy.

RÉSUMÉ: La méthode analytique par laquelle Descartes établit le premier principe de sa philosophie (cogito, ergo sum) consiste en un procédé cognitif associant intuition directe et inférence non-logique qui diffère significativement du modèle déductif que l’on prête depuis toujours au rationalisme du dix-septième siècle. Cet article démontre que ce même processus analytique est à l’œuvre dans la preuve de l’innéité de l’idée de Dieu, où, pourtant, il y a des doutes majeurs concernant sa légitimité.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références bibliographiques

Aristotle, 1949 Prior and Posterior Analytics. A revised text with introduction and commentary by Ross, W.D.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Cité Post. An.)Google Scholar
Butler, R.J. 1972 Cartesian Studies. éd. Butler, R. J.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. 1982 Descartes’s Philosophy of Science. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, 1964–74 Oeuvres par C. Adam et P. Tannery, nouvelle présentation par B. Rochot et P. Costabel, Paris.Google Scholar
Descartes, 1963–73 Oeuvres philosophiques, éd. Alquié, F., 3 vol., Paris.Google Scholar
Descartes, 1981 L’Entretien avec Burman. Edition, traduction et annotation par Beyssade, Jean-Marie. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
George, R. 1981 «Kant’s Sensationism». Synthese 47: 229–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouhier, H. 1969 La pensée métaphysique de Descartes. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1977 Sein und Zeit. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann Verlag. (Gesamtausgabe v. 2)Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1994 Einführung in die Phänomenologische Forschung. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann Verlag. (Gesamtausgabe v. 17)Google Scholar
Hoenen, P. 1937 «Le Cogito ergo sum comme intuition et comme mouvement de la pensée». Dans Cartesio nel terzo Centenario del «Discorso del metodo». Milano: Società editrice «Vita e Pensiero».Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1967 A Treatise of Human Nature. Reprinted from the Original Edition in three volumes and edited with an Analytical index by Selby-Bigge, L.A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1992 An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Edited with an Introduction by Flew, Antony. Lasalle Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1944 Critique de la raison pure. tr. Tremesaygues, et Pacaud, . Presses Universitaires de France. (Citéd’après la première [A] et la seconde [B] edition).Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1875–90 Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Hrsg: von C.I. Gerhard. 7 vols. Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1965.Google Scholar
Marion, J.-L. 1989 Réduction et donation. Recherches sur Husserl, Heidegger et la phénoménologie. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
McRae, R. 1972 “Innate Ideas.” Dans Butler 1972: 32–54.Google Scholar
Miles, M. 1999 Insight and Inference. Descartes’s Founding Principle and Modern Philosophy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, J. 1985 An Elementary Christian Metaphysics. Houston: Centre for Thomistic Studies.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1945 A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1976 The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar