I investigate the issue of whether or not one's holding a moral belief is sufficient to motivate one to act as that belief prescribes. I argue that rational persons who hold a moral belief that is also a 'self-referential belief' will form a desire to act as that belief prescribes and thereby be motivated to act on the moral belief. I argue for this claim by, firstly, showing that the demand that moral judgements must be intrinsically motivating, Internalism, should only apply to rational persons, that is, the link between moral judgement and motivation can be broken in cases of irrationality. Secondly, I argue against the Humean claim that one cannot rationally form a desire simply because one believes that one ought to have that desire. This claim requires an investigation into a variety of views of Practical Reason and an argument concluding that Practical Reason is broader in scope than the Instrumentalist or Humean allows. I undertake this task in chapter 2. Thirdly, I argue that believing that I ought to perform a certain action will give me an internal commitment to perform that action, insofar as I am rational. I argue that an internal commitment is a form of desire. Once I recognise that I have a moral belief and an internal commitment, I will be motivated to act as that belief and commitment prescribe. / KMBT_363 / Adobe Acrobat 9.54 Paper Capture Plug-in

Although many historians assert the unity of the Enlightenment, their histories essentially belie this notion. Consequently, Enlightenment history is confused and meaningless, urging the reader to believe that diversity is similarity and faction is unity. Fundamental among the common denominators of these various interpretations, however, are the scientific method and empirical observation, as introduced by Newton. These, historians acclaim as the turning point when mankind escaped the ignorance of superstition and the oppression of the church, and embarked upon the modern secular age. The Enlightenment, however, founders immediately upon its own standards of empiricism and demonstrable philosophical tenets, with the exception of David Hume. As the most consistent and fearless empiricist of the era, Hume's is by far the most "legitimate" philosophy of the Enlightenment, but it starkly contrasts the rhetoric and ideology of the philosophe community, and, therefore, defies attempts by historians to incorporate it into the traditional Enlightenment picture. Hume, then, exposes the Enlightenment dilemma: either the Enlightenment is not empirical, but rather the new Age of Faith Carl Becker proclaimed it, or Enlightenment philosophy is that of Hume. This study presents the historical characterization of major Enlightenment themes, such as method, reason, religion, morality, and politics, then juxtaposes this picture with the particulars (data) that contradict or seriously qualify it. As a result, much superficial analysis, wishful thinking, even proselytizing is demonstrated in the traditional Enlightenment characterization, especially with regard to the widely heralded liberal and progressive legacy of the era. In contrast, Hume's conclusions, based on the method of Newton-the essence of "enlightened" philosophy, are presented, revealing the authoritarian character (and legacy) of the Enlightenment as well as the utility and relevance of its method when honestly and rigorously applied. Through David Hume, the twentieth century can truly acquire what the Enlightenment promised—an understanding of human nature and a genuinely secular society.

Resumo não disponível

Resumo não disponível

O presente trabalho procura mostrar que para Hume poder fazer as distinções que ele pretende fazer no início do Tratado da Natureza Humana, entre impressões e idéias e entre idéias da imaginação e idéias da memória, Hume precisa ter recurso a elementos que não são dados empiricamente, como a crença em um mundo externo, atitudes em relação a percepções (crença) e propensões da mente. No entanto, argumentamos que estes não são nem pressupostos irrefletidos de Hume, nem medidas de contenção usadas quando problemas começam a aparecer, mas que constituem elementos imprescindíveis de sua filosofia, amplamente trabalhados por ele, e sem os quais a compreensão de sua filosofia ficaria severamente prejudicada. / The present work tries to show that, for Hume to be able to make the distinctions he intends to make at the beginning of A Treatise of Human Nature, between impressions and ideas, and between ideas of imagination and ideas of memory, Hume needs to make use of elements which are not given empirically, such as belief in an external world, attitudes towards perceptions (belief), and propensities of the mind. However, we argue that they are neither unexamined presuppositions made by Hume, nor accessory measures used to solve problems as they begin to show up in his philosophy; rather, they are necessary elements of his philosophy, thoroughly worked by him, and without which the understanding of Hume’s philosophy would become very limited.

Resumo não disponível

O presente trabalho procura mostrar que para Hume poder fazer as distinções que ele pretende fazer no início do Tratado da Natureza Humana, entre impressões e idéias e entre idéias da imaginação e idéias da memória, Hume precisa ter recurso a elementos que não são dados empiricamente, como a crença em um mundo externo, atitudes em relação a percepções (crença) e propensões da mente. No entanto, argumentamos que estes não são nem pressupostos irrefletidos de Hume, nem medidas de contenção usadas quando problemas começam a aparecer, mas que constituem elementos imprescindíveis de sua filosofia, amplamente trabalhados por ele, e sem os quais a compreensão de sua filosofia ficaria severamente prejudicada. / The present work tries to show that, for Hume to be able to make the distinctions he intends to make at the beginning of A Treatise of Human Nature, between impressions and ideas, and between ideas of imagination and ideas of memory, Hume needs to make use of elements which are not given empirically, such as belief in an external world, attitudes towards perceptions (belief), and propensities of the mind. However, we argue that they are neither unexamined presuppositions made by Hume, nor accessory measures used to solve problems as they begin to show up in his philosophy; rather, they are necessary elements of his philosophy, thoroughly worked by him, and without which the understanding of Hume’s philosophy would become very limited.

O presente trabalho procura mostrar que para Hume poder fazer as distinções que ele pretende fazer no início do Tratado da Natureza Humana, entre impressões e idéias e entre idéias da imaginação e idéias da memória, Hume precisa ter recurso a elementos que não são dados empiricamente, como a crença em um mundo externo, atitudes em relação a percepções (crença) e propensões da mente. No entanto, argumentamos que estes não são nem pressupostos irrefletidos de Hume, nem medidas de contenção usadas quando problemas começam a aparecer, mas que constituem elementos imprescindíveis de sua filosofia, amplamente trabalhados por ele, e sem os quais a compreensão de sua filosofia ficaria severamente prejudicada. / The present work tries to show that, for Hume to be able to make the distinctions he intends to make at the beginning of A Treatise of Human Nature, between impressions and ideas, and between ideas of imagination and ideas of memory, Hume needs to make use of elements which are not given empirically, such as belief in an external world, attitudes towards perceptions (belief), and propensities of the mind. However, we argue that they are neither unexamined presuppositions made by Hume, nor accessory measures used to solve problems as they begin to show up in his philosophy; rather, they are necessary elements of his philosophy, thoroughly worked by him, and without which the understanding of Hume’s philosophy would become very limited.

Generally acclaimed as the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment, David Hume has been, nevertheless, a problem for Enlightenment historians. In terms of the Enlightenment's own standards of empiricism and demonstrable philosophical tenets, Hume's is by far the most "legitimate" philosophy of the age, yet it is almost diametrically opposed to the traditional historical characterization of the Enlightenment. Consequently, historians must re-assess the empirical character of the Enlightenment, acknowledging it as yet another Age of Faith rather than science (as Becker contends), or acknowledge Hume's as the most valid Enlightenment philosophy. Such a re-assessment and study of Hume's conclusions would dramatically alter Enlightenment histories and provide meaningful insights into the actual Enlightenment legacy regarding modern man and his society.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-28T20:40:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mariel Rosauro Zasso.pdf: 735888 bytes, checksum: b4e98a2bb7429588cbba159468fa5130 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-03-05 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / This essay talks about theoretical devices with which we can operate relations of sympathy in clinical encounters. We propose to highlight the complexity of the issue through a brief overview of what happened with the idea of sympathy throughout the history of Western thought. From the viewpoint of conceptual connections, we rely especially to David Hume, for whom, in the eighteenth century, the issue that influences the theme of sympathy is that of relations between humans. Because sympathy is a passion, and like all passion, in Hume, is characterized by its partiality, the difficulty to consider, in the social point of view, is the sympathy's intensity reduccion as it extends. A sympathy's clinic is thematized in resonance with this problem, discussed with help of Gilles Deleuze's book Empirisme et subjectivité (1953). This clinical practice should promote the intensification of sympathy without recreate the relational limitation that it suffers from restricted groups, like family, and be able to establish itself as a nomadic place of relations of sympathy's extent, in favor of an affirmation of differential life / Esta dissertação discorre acerca de dispositivos teóricos com os quais podemos operar relações de simpatia em encontros clínicos. Propomonos a evidenciar a complexidade do tema através de um breve apanhado daquilo que se passou com a idéia de simpatia ao longo da história do pensamento ocidental. Do ponto de vista das conexões conceituais, recorremos especialmente a David Hume, para quem, no séc XVIII, a problemática que influencia o tema da simpatia é o das relações entre os humanos. Como a simpatia é uma paixão, e como toda paixão, em Hume, se caracteriza por sua parcialidade, a dificuldade a ser levada em conta, do ponto de vista social, é a redução da intensidade da simpatia à medida que ela se estende. Uma clínica da simpatia é tematizada em ressonância com esse problema, discutido com ajuda do livro de Gilles Deleuze (19251995) Empirisme et subjectivité, de 1953. Tal clinicar deve possibilitar a intensificação da simpatia sem recriar a limitação relacional que ela sofre em grupos restritos, como a família; e ser capaz de constituirse como lugar nômade de uma extensão das relações de simpatia, em favor de uma afirmação diferencial da vida