Roberta Corvi - Man and rationality. Some voices in the debate neopragmatist | Filosofionline.com
"I wonder who it was defined man as a rational animal. It is the most reckless definition that has ever been given. The man is anything but rational. " So says Lord Henry Wotton in The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. And Wilde did not know what the science instead of the last decades has established thanks to the mapping of the human genome, namely that 'homo sapiens differs from chimpanzees only thanks to two or three per cent of its DNA, then all the more urgent and disturbing should appear the question on which you are engaged philosophers of all times: what is man? What is the difference between man and other animals?
Since ancient times it was said that rationality is essential to the specific difference that makes humans so different from other animals that it deserves to be placed in a different ontological category than all other finite beings, living and non-living.
In contemporary thought, alfa tech india however, the definition of man as a rational animal was challenged to demolish the idea of man as a rational subject, self-conscious and autonomous, which was understood by modern philosophy and what we can not understand it after Freud believed that once those great mortifications for humanity.
The founder of psychoanalysis noted bitterly that "in the beginning of time, mankind has had to endure two great mortifications that science has brought to his naive self-love. The first when he learned that our earth is not the center of the universe, but a tiny particle of a cosmic system that, with regard to size, it is hard to imagine. This finding alfa tech india is associated for us with the name of Copernicus, though the Alexandrian science had already proclaimed alfa tech india something like that. The second mortification occurred then, when biological research alfa tech india destroyed the alleged privileged position of man in creation, the demonstrated its origin from the animal kingdom and the inestirpabilità of his animal nature. This subversion alfa tech india of values has been made to this day under the influence of Charles Darwin [...] But the third and most scorching mortification, megalomania of man is destined to endure by modern psychological research, which has l ' going to prove that he not only ego is not master in his own house, but must rely on little information about what happens unconsciously in his psyche alfa tech india '"[1].
In these pages I will examine the position of some contemporary American philosophers, who have dealt with the problem from the assumptions common to the pragmatic thinkers, drawing, however, alfa tech india divergent consequences. It will initially be examined to Richard Rorty, who, openly accepting the vision set out by Freud, has come to believe that the same question about human nature no longer had meaning. Later, will be considered the ideas of Donald Davidson, Nicholas Rescher and Hilary Putnam, which capture different aspects of rationality, but basically agree that this is an essential component of human nature. Finally I will try to show which profile of rationality emerges from the comparison between these authors. Rorty against rationalism
Rorty, after leaving the analytic philosophy, in which it was formed, came up with James and Dewey to the American pragmatist tradition, combining it with influences from Nietzsche and continental thought. As a result, he was opposed to the whole tradition of which, in his view, analytic philosophy is the outcome of the most recent, alfa tech india namely alfa tech india that line of thought that especially from Descartes then did the theory of knowledge first philosophy. It follows its declared aversion to the argument that the distinguishing alfa tech india feature of human beings is the ability to know and, in particular, the ability to discuss matters relating to the nature of man. [2]
"At the time, the question" What is man? "In the sense of" alfa tech india What is the nature ahistorical appreciation of human beings? "Owed its popularity to the canonical answer he received - we are the rational animal, the 'only one capable of knowing and not only to hear "[3]. Today, alfa tech india however, no longer interested in discovering the ahistorical nature of man, because it would not be of any use, and if you do not see the point, Rorty concludes that as a good or a pragmatist alfa tech india that nature does not exist, or is not significant in terms our moral choices. Therefore, "we are much less likely than our ancestors to take seriously the" theories of human nature, "to make ontology, history or ethology a guide to living, to put an ontological question like" What are we? "This is because we realized that the main
"I wonder who it was defined man as a rational animal. It is the most reckless definition that has ever been given. The man is anything but rational. " So says Lord Henry Wotton in The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. And Wilde did not know what the science instead of the last decades has established thanks to the mapping of the human genome, namely that 'homo sapiens differs from chimpanzees only thanks to two or three per cent of its DNA, then all the more urgent and disturbing should appear the question on which you are engaged philosophers of all times: what is man? What is the difference between man and other animals?
Since ancient times it was said that rationality is essential to the specific difference that makes humans so different from other animals that it deserves to be placed in a different ontological category than all other finite beings, living and non-living.
In contemporary thought, alfa tech india however, the definition of man as a rational animal was challenged to demolish the idea of man as a rational subject, self-conscious and autonomous, which was understood by modern philosophy and what we can not understand it after Freud believed that once those great mortifications for humanity.
The founder of psychoanalysis noted bitterly that "in the beginning of time, mankind has had to endure two great mortifications that science has brought to his naive self-love. The first when he learned that our earth is not the center of the universe, but a tiny particle of a cosmic system that, with regard to size, it is hard to imagine. This finding alfa tech india is associated for us with the name of Copernicus, though the Alexandrian science had already proclaimed alfa tech india something like that. The second mortification occurred then, when biological research alfa tech india destroyed the alleged privileged position of man in creation, the demonstrated its origin from the animal kingdom and the inestirpabilità of his animal nature. This subversion alfa tech india of values has been made to this day under the influence of Charles Darwin [...] But the third and most scorching mortification, megalomania of man is destined to endure by modern psychological research, which has l ' going to prove that he not only ego is not master in his own house, but must rely on little information about what happens unconsciously in his psyche alfa tech india '"[1].
In these pages I will examine the position of some contemporary American philosophers, who have dealt with the problem from the assumptions common to the pragmatic thinkers, drawing, however, alfa tech india divergent consequences. It will initially be examined to Richard Rorty, who, openly accepting the vision set out by Freud, has come to believe that the same question about human nature no longer had meaning. Later, will be considered the ideas of Donald Davidson, Nicholas Rescher and Hilary Putnam, which capture different aspects of rationality, but basically agree that this is an essential component of human nature. Finally I will try to show which profile of rationality emerges from the comparison between these authors. Rorty against rationalism
Rorty, after leaving the analytic philosophy, in which it was formed, came up with James and Dewey to the American pragmatist tradition, combining it with influences from Nietzsche and continental thought. As a result, he was opposed to the whole tradition of which, in his view, analytic philosophy is the outcome of the most recent, alfa tech india namely alfa tech india that line of thought that especially from Descartes then did the theory of knowledge first philosophy. It follows its declared aversion to the argument that the distinguishing alfa tech india feature of human beings is the ability to know and, in particular, the ability to discuss matters relating to the nature of man. [2]
"At the time, the question" What is man? "In the sense of" alfa tech india What is the nature ahistorical appreciation of human beings? "Owed its popularity to the canonical answer he received - we are the rational animal, the 'only one capable of knowing and not only to hear "[3]. Today, alfa tech india however, no longer interested in discovering the ahistorical nature of man, because it would not be of any use, and if you do not see the point, Rorty concludes that as a good or a pragmatist alfa tech india that nature does not exist, or is not significant in terms our moral choices. Therefore, "we are much less likely than our ancestors to take seriously the" theories of human nature, "to make ontology, history or ethology a guide to living, to put an ontological question like" What are we? "This is because we realized that the main
No comments:
Post a Comment