Back to Husserl: Reclaiming the Traditional Philosophical Context ofthe Phenomenological ‘Problem’ of the Other: Leibniz’s Monadology”. The internalmotivation that led Husserl to revise his early view of the pure Ego as empty ofessential content is traced to the end of explicating his reformulation of phenomenologyas the egology of the concrete transcendental Ego. The necessity ofrecasting transcendental phenomenology as a transcendental idealism that followsfrom this reformulation is presented and the appearance of transcendentalsolipsism of this idealism exposed as unfounded. That the ground of this exposureis Husserl’s phenomenological appropriation of Leibniz’s metaphysical insightsinto the problem of accounting for the plurality of monads, and, therefore, not theCartesian problem of the other mind, is presented as the key to reclaiming thetraditional philosophical context of the phenomenological problem of the other. / La motivación interna que llevó a Husserl a revisar su visión tempranadel Ego puro como vacío de contenido esencial puede rastrearse con el fin de explicarsu reformulación de la fenomenología como la egología del Ego trascendentalconcreto. Este artículo presenta la necesidad de replantear la fenomenologíatrascendental como un idealismo trascendental que se sigue de esta reformulación,y se expone como infundada la apariencia de solipsismo trascendentalde este idealismo. El presente artículo también se ocupa de mostrar que la basepara esta exposición es la apropiación fenomenológica que hace Husserl de laspenetrantes intuiciones metafísicas de Leibniz en torno al problema de cómoexplicar la pluralidad de mónadas, y, por lo tanto, no el problema cartesianode la otra mente. Esto es considerado clave para reclamar el contexto filosóficotradicional del problema fenomenológico del otro.

Erik Olof Burman, som disputerat 1872 på en boströmianskt präglad avhandling, efterträddes 1911 som professor i praktisk filosofi i Uppsala av sin adept Axel Hägerström. Denne kom att utveckla en materialistisk realism som bröt med Burmans och de närmaste föregångarnas subjektivism. Enligt vad han själv omvittnade, hade Hägerström inspirerats till filosofisk forskning genom att läsa Burmans skrift Om Kants kunskapslära (1884; Kk). I föreliggande studie undersöks dels om denna skrift innebär någon förskjutning av Burmans filosofi i realistisk riktning, dels om den påverkat utvecklingen av Hägerströms realism. Resultat: 1) Kk är väsentligen trogen den boströmianska metafysiken men innehåller formuleringar om rummet och tiden som kan tolkas objektivistiskt; 2) ingen specifik tanke i just Kk kan visas ha påverkat Hägerström; 3) Burmans betoning av verkligheten som logiskt bestämd, hans krav på systemisk enhet i kunskaps- och verklighetsteorin, och Kants avståndstagande från metafysisk spekulation påminner om Hägerström. / In 1872, Erik Olof Burman had defended a Boströmian idealistic dissertation in Uppsala. He was succeeded there in 1911 as professor of practical philosophy by his student Axel Hägerström, who was to develop a materialistic realism in contrast to the subjectivism of Burman and his predecessors. According to Hägerström’s own testimony, he had been inspired to take up philosophical research by reading Burman’s essay Om Kants kunskapslära (1884; ”Of Kant’s theory of knowledge”, Kk). In the present paper, an attempt is made at answering whether Burman’s essay on Kant represents any shift of Burman’s philosophy towards realism, and whether it has influenced Hägerström in that direction. Results: 1) Kk remains largely faithful to Boströmian metaphysics but contains expressions about space and time which may be interpreted in a more objectivistic manner; 2) no thought specifically from Kk can be shown to have influenced Hägerström; 3) Burman’s emphasis on reality as logical determination, his demand for systematic unity in the theory of knowledge and reality, and Kant’s rejection of metaphysical speculation are reminiscent of Hägerström.

Esta tese de doutorado estuda o perspectivismo na obra de Nietzsche, bem como o confronto com a verdade que ele representa. Para tanto, procuramos mostrar que esse confronto atravessa toda a obra de Nietzsche, pois já os seus escritos iniciais investigam as condições para o surgimento da crença na verdade, além dos interesses a que ela atendia. Expondo que Nietzsche, apropriando-se do legado crítico de Kant em suas primeiras obras, ensaia uma destruição completa da verdade, pretendemos demonstrar que ele falha em seus objetivos porque a radicalidade de seus argumentos destruiria os próprios pressupostos em que estão baseados, ou seja, os do idealismo transcendental kantiano. Nesse momento em que circunscrevemos nossa análise aos escritos inicias, tentamos demonstrar que Nietzsche limita-se a refutar a noção de verdade como adequação com a coisa-em-si, mas falha ao querer ampliar esse refutação além desses limites. Por isso, analisando a maneira pela qual o combate à verdade se posiciona a partir dos escritos da década de 80, defendemos que neles o perspectivismo se torna decisivo para os problemas enfrentados inicialmente por Nietzsche. Interpretando o perspectivismo como um fenomenalismo da consciência e um interpretacionismo, investigamos, no decorrer deste trabalho, a forma pela qual Nietzsche re-elabora a crítica à verdade em seus escritos tardios. Considerando essa crítica ainda a partir da apropriação de Kant, buscamos demonstrar que ela atinge os fins perseguidos por Nietzsche sem, contudo, ficar preso aos impasses das primeiras 5 obras. Isso implica mostrar que Nietzsche vai recusar não apenas a noção de verdade como adequação com a coisa-em-si, mas também a concepção moderna de verdade como certeza e fundamento para o conhecimento. Eis por que Nietzsche alveja a noção cartesiana do eu penso como a primeira verdade, assim como a concepção kantiana de verdade expressa nos juízos lógicos. Sustentamos, assim, que o fenomenalismo da consciência refuta a noção de unidade, pressuposto fundamental às filosofias cartesiana e kantiana. Em seguida, analisamos como Nietzsche, apropriando-se da ideia kantiana de princípios regulativos, afirma que todas as visões com que avaliamos o mundo são ficções, erros, ótica-de-perspectivas da vida com valor regulativo para a existência. Defendemos, por fim, que embora se posicione radicalmente contra a verdade a partir da luta de interpretações, o perspectivismo não se torna um relativismo, na medida em que se liga à teoria da vontade de potência, a qual é o critério para avaliar as perspectivas e ela mesma apresentada como interpretação. / This Doctoral Thesis studies perspectivism on the work of Nietzsche, as well as the confrontation with the truth it represents. In order to do so, we try to show that this confrontation pervades Nietzsche\'s work, as his former writings investigate the conditions for the emergence of the belief in the truth, beyond the interests to which it served. By expounding that Nietzsche, borrowing Kant\'s critical legacy in his early works, starts out a complete destruction of truth, we intend to demonstrate that he fails in his objectives. This occurs because the radicalism of his arguments would destroy the very foundations which they are based upon, that is, Kantian transcendental idealism. At the moment we circumscribe our analysis to the early writings, we intend to demonstrate that Nietzsche limits himself to refuting the notion of truth as an adequacy to the thing-in-itself, but fails to widen this refutation beyond these limits. Therefore, we analyze the means of the fight against the truth, as presented in his writings from the 80`s. We defend that, in these writings, perspectivism becomes decisive in relation to the problems formerly faced by Nietzsche. By interpreting perspectivism as a phenomenalism of the conscience and interpretationism, we investigate the means by which Nietzsche re-elaborates the critique of truth in his late writings. Through the understanding of this critique as an appropriation of Kant\'s ideas, we try to demonstrate that it reaches the goals set by Nietzsche. Therefore it bypasses the impasses of his early work. This is to show that Nietzsche declines not only the notion of truth as adequacy to the thing-in-itself, but also the modern concept of truth as certainty and foundation of knowledge. That is 7 why Nietzsche aims at the Cartesian notion of \"I think\" as the first truth, as well as the Kantian conception of truth as expressed in logical judgments. Therefore, we sustain that phenomenalism of the conscience refutes the notion of unity, fundamental presupposition to Cartesian and Kantian philosophies. Additionally, we analyze the way Nietzsche, appropriating the Kantian idea of regulative principles, asserts that every vision we take to evaluate the world is fiction, a mistake, a perspectives-optic of life with a regulative value to existence. We defend, finally, that, even perspectivism radically stands against the truth - understood as strife of interpretations. It does not become relativism, since it is connected to the Theory of the Will to Power, which is the criterion to evaluate perspectives and which is itself presented as interpretation.

Kant is famous for his use of transcendental arguments in the transcendental deduction. This thesis examines how such a transcendental argument is used within Kant’s methodological framework. Following the work of Henrich and Walker, the paper asks whether transcendental arguments in the Critique of Pure Reason are compatible with Kant’s methodology in general. We find that these arguments and Kant’s methodology are compatible, and that transcendental arguments are indeed very weak arguments by Walker’s standards. However, the entire transcendental deduction should be understood as a deduction writing that uses transcendental arguments particularly effectively according to Kant’s own methodological standards.

Esta tese de doutorado estuda o perspectivismo na obra de Nietzsche, bem como o confronto com a verdade que ele representa. Para tanto, procuramos mostrar que esse confronto atravessa toda a obra de Nietzsche, pois já os seus escritos iniciais investigam as condições para o surgimento da crença na verdade, além dos interesses a que ela atendia. Expondo que Nietzsche, apropriando-se do legado crítico de Kant em suas primeiras obras, ensaia uma destruição completa da verdade, pretendemos demonstrar que ele falha em seus objetivos porque a radicalidade de seus argumentos destruiria os próprios pressupostos em que estão baseados, ou seja, os do idealismo transcendental kantiano. Nesse momento em que circunscrevemos nossa análise aos escritos inicias, tentamos demonstrar que Nietzsche limita-se a refutar a noção de verdade como adequação com a coisa-em-si, mas falha ao querer ampliar esse refutação além desses limites. Por isso, analisando a maneira pela qual o combate à verdade se posiciona a partir dos escritos da década de 80, defendemos que neles o perspectivismo se torna decisivo para os problemas enfrentados inicialmente por Nietzsche. Interpretando o perspectivismo como um fenomenalismo da consciência e um interpretacionismo, investigamos, no decorrer deste trabalho, a forma pela qual Nietzsche re-elabora a crítica à verdade em seus escritos tardios. Considerando essa crítica ainda a partir da apropriação de Kant, buscamos demonstrar que ela atinge os fins perseguidos por Nietzsche sem, contudo, ficar preso aos impasses das primeiras 5 obras. Isso implica mostrar que Nietzsche vai recusar não apenas a noção de verdade como adequação com a coisa-em-si, mas também a concepção moderna de verdade como certeza e fundamento para o conhecimento. Eis por que Nietzsche alveja a noção cartesiana do eu penso como a primeira verdade, assim como a concepção kantiana de verdade expressa nos juízos lógicos. Sustentamos, assim, que o fenomenalismo da consciência refuta a noção de unidade, pressuposto fundamental às filosofias cartesiana e kantiana. Em seguida, analisamos como Nietzsche, apropriando-se da ideia kantiana de princípios regulativos, afirma que todas as visões com que avaliamos o mundo são ficções, erros, ótica-de-perspectivas da vida com valor regulativo para a existência. Defendemos, por fim, que embora se posicione radicalmente contra a verdade a partir da luta de interpretações, o perspectivismo não se torna um relativismo, na medida em que se liga à teoria da vontade de potência, a qual é o critério para avaliar as perspectivas e ela mesma apresentada como interpretação. / This Doctoral Thesis studies perspectivism on the work of Nietzsche, as well as the confrontation with the truth it represents. In order to do so, we try to show that this confrontation pervades Nietzsche\'s work, as his former writings investigate the conditions for the emergence of the belief in the truth, beyond the interests to which it served. By expounding that Nietzsche, borrowing Kant\'s critical legacy in his early works, starts out a complete destruction of truth, we intend to demonstrate that he fails in his objectives. This occurs because the radicalism of his arguments would destroy the very foundations which they are based upon, that is, Kantian transcendental idealism. At the moment we circumscribe our analysis to the early writings, we intend to demonstrate that Nietzsche limits himself to refuting the notion of truth as an adequacy to the thing-in-itself, but fails to widen this refutation beyond these limits. Therefore, we analyze the means of the fight against the truth, as presented in his writings from the 80`s. We defend that, in these writings, perspectivism becomes decisive in relation to the problems formerly faced by Nietzsche. By interpreting perspectivism as a phenomenalism of the conscience and interpretationism, we investigate the means by which Nietzsche re-elaborates the critique of truth in his late writings. Through the understanding of this critique as an appropriation of Kant\'s ideas, we try to demonstrate that it reaches the goals set by Nietzsche. Therefore it bypasses the impasses of his early work. This is to show that Nietzsche declines not only the notion of truth as adequacy to the thing-in-itself, but also the modern concept of truth as certainty and foundation of knowledge. That is 7 why Nietzsche aims at the Cartesian notion of \"I think\" as the first truth, as well as the Kantian conception of truth as expressed in logical judgments. Therefore, we sustain that phenomenalism of the conscience refutes the notion of unity, fundamental presupposition to Cartesian and Kantian philosophies. Additionally, we analyze the way Nietzsche, appropriating the Kantian idea of regulative principles, asserts that every vision we take to evaluate the world is fiction, a mistake, a perspectives-optic of life with a regulative value to existence. We defend, finally, that, even perspectivism radically stands against the truth - understood as strife of interpretations. It does not become relativism, since it is connected to the Theory of the Will to Power, which is the criterion to evaluate perspectives and which is itself presented as interpretation.

No description available.

Chacune des éditions de la Critique de la raison pure contient une preuve de la réalité du monde externe : la première se trouve dans le « quatrième paralogisme » et la deuxième dans la « Réfutation de l’idéalisme ». Ce travail examine l’évolution du premier argument vers le deuxième, en rendant compte de deux critiques importantes de la première édition qui ont influencé le second travail de Kant. La deuxième partie de ce travail se concentre sur des problèmes propres à la Réfutation, où sont traités des sujets particulièrement problématiques, tel que la structure de la conscience empirique déterminée, le rôle du permanent dans l’établissement de l’objectivité, ainsi qu’un argument secondaire présenté dans les notes de bas de page du texte principal et de la préface. / Each edition of the Critique of Pure Reason contains a proof for the reality of the external world: the first is located in the “Fourth Paralogism”, the second, in the “Refutation of Idealism.” This work examines the evolution from the first argument to the second, taking into account two significant criticisms of the first edition which influenced Kant’s second attempt. The latter half of this work treats topics particular to the Refutation only, focusing again on the issues which were stumbling blocks, namely the structure of determined empirical consciousness, the role of the permanent in establishing objectivity, as well as a secondary argument found in the footnotes of the main text and preface.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-10-03T12:32:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luis Sergio Vieira Conterato.pdf: 965280 bytes, checksum: 37b80ad428bfaee27fb8e31e9545665e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-03T12:32:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luis Sergio Vieira Conterato.pdf: 965280 bytes, checksum: 37b80ad428bfaee27fb8e31e9545665e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-18 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / This dissertation aims to study the concept of thing in itself in the Critique of Pure Reason and the origins of the controversy that surrounds it. In the light of this scope, this work was elaborated and articulated in three chapters whose purpose was to point out the origins of the controversy that involves the concept of thing itself, the main objectors and their respective objections to the thing itself. Given these questions to the thing itself, we’ve approached Allison's proposal to defend a non-polemical use of the concept of thing itself, from the understanding that the distinction phenomena and thing itself are two ways of considering the same thing. Next, it deals with the construction of the concept of thing itself within the Critique of Pure Reason, addressing the implications of texts of the Preface, Transcendental Aesthetics, Analytic Concepts and Analytic of the Principles for the consolidation of the meaning of the thing considered in itself it. In this sense, the differences between the thing itself, phenomenon, transcendental object and noumenon, and especially in what sense some of these concepts can be used as equivalents in the light of the Critique of Pure Reason, stand out. Finally, the importance of the concept of thing itself in Transcendental Idealism was analyzed, since the criticisms were incisive, but Kant remained with the concept of thing itself in his Theory of Knowledge. Thus, the task of the concept of thing itself in Transcendental Idealism was observed, which led to the conclusion that the thing considered in itself, in spite of the controversies surrounding it, is essential for the success of Kant's critical program, named as Transcendental Idealism whose thesis is the access to the objects of the senses, since these depend on the pure forms of sensibility and the impossibility of the cognoscent subject to scan things considered in themselves, since their existence does not depend on the human faculty of knowledge / Essa dissertação tem como objetivo estudar o conceito de coisa em si na Crítica da Razão Pura e as origens da polêmica que o envolve. À luz desse escopo, o trabalho foi elaborado e articulado em três capítulos, cujo propósito foi de apontar as origens da polêmica que envolve o conceito de coisa em si, os principais objetores e seus respectivos questionamentos à coisa em si. Dado estes questionamentos à coisa em si, abordou-se a proposta de Allison em defender um uso não polêmico do conceito de coisa em si, a partir da compreensão que a distinção fenômeno e coisa em si são dois modos de considerar a mesma coisa. Em seguida, trata-se da construção do conceito de coisa em si no interior da Crítica da Razão Pura, abordando as implicações de textos do “Prefácio”; “Estética Transcendental”; “Analítica dos Conceitos” e “Analítica dos Princípios” para a consolidação do significado da coisa considerada em si mesma. Nesse sentido, destacam-se as diferenças entre coisa em si, fenômeno, objeto transcendental e númeno e, especialmente, em que sentido alguns desses conceitos podem ser utilizados como equivalentes à luz da Crítica da Razão Pura. Por fim, analisou-se a importância do conceito de coisa em si no Idealismo Transcendental, visto que as críticas foram incisivas, mas Kant permaneceu com esse conceito em sua Teoria do Conhecimento. Sendo assim, observou-se a tarefa do conceito de coisa em si no Idealismo Transcendental o que conduziu à conclusão de que a coisa considerada em si mesma, a despeito das polêmicas que a envolve, é imprescindível para o êxito do programa crítico de Kant, nomeado como Idealismo Transcendental cuja tese é o acesso aos objetos dos sentidos, pois estes dependem das formas puras da sensibilidade e a impossibilidade do sujeito cognoscente esquadrinhar as coisas consideradas em si mesmas, porque o modo de existir dessas não dependem da faculdade humana de conhecimento

The notion of the organism has a somewhat ambiguous status in Kant’s philosophy. On the one hand it belongs to natural science, on the other hand it is based on an analogy with the structure of reason. Biology therefore has a peculiar place among the sciences according to Kant: it is a natural science constituted by the use of a regulative maxim. The present study places Kant’s views on biological teleology in the larger context of transcendental idealism. It consists of five essays. The first one treats the notions of things in themselves and appearances, arguing for an interpretation in terms of two aspects or perspectives rather than two worlds. The importance of the discursivity of our cognitive capacity is stressed, as well as the need to separate Kant’s various reflective perspectives. In the second essay this interpretation is applied to the third section of the Groundwork, arguing that this text does not belong to theoretical metaphysics, but rather to the articulation of a specifically practical perspective. The third essay discusses similarities and differences between Kant’s a priori conditions for cognition and conceptions of innate ideas in the rationalist tradition. Kant’s comparison of the system of categories with the biological theory of epigenesis is considered in connection to eighteenth century theories of generation. The comparison is viewed as an analogy rather than as a naturalistic theory of the a priori. In the fourth essay Kant’s account of functional attribution in biology is explicated in the context of the present day debate of the issue. It is claimed that Kant’s neo-Aristotelian approach avoids some of the difficulties in the dominant naturalistic accounts of today. Kant’s view differs from the Aristotelian in that it involves a distinction of levels, making it possible to take functional attributions on the one hand as objective from the standpoint of biology but on the other hand as having a merely regulative status from a philosophical point of view. In the fifth essay an interpretation of the antinomy of teleological judgment in the Critique of Judgment is offered. The antinomy is taken to consist in the dialectical tendency to treat the regulative maxims of teleology and mechanism as constitutive principles. The difference between the discursivity of the human understanding and the idea of a non-discursive understanding, an important theme in Kant’s solution of the antinomy, puts the question of biological teleology in relation to central tenets of transcendental idealism.

Chacune des éditions de la Critique de la raison pure contient une preuve de la réalité du monde externe : la première se trouve dans le « quatrième paralogisme » et la deuxième dans la « Réfutation de l’idéalisme ». Ce travail examine l’évolution du premier argument vers le deuxième, en rendant compte de deux critiques importantes de la première édition qui ont influencé le second travail de Kant. La deuxième partie de ce travail se concentre sur des problèmes propres à la Réfutation, où sont traités des sujets particulièrement problématiques, tel que la structure de la conscience empirique déterminée, le rôle du permanent dans l’établissement de l’objectivité, ainsi qu’un argument secondaire présenté dans les notes de bas de page du texte principal et de la préface. / Each edition of the Critique of Pure Reason contains a proof for the reality of the external world: the first is located in the “Fourth Paralogism”, the second, in the “Refutation of Idealism.” This work examines the evolution from the first argument to the second, taking into account two significant criticisms of the first edition which influenced Kant’s second attempt. The latter half of this work treats topics particular to the Refutation only, focusing again on the issues which were stumbling blocks, namely the structure of determined empirical consciousness, the role of the permanent in establishing objectivity, as well as a secondary argument found in the footnotes of the main text and preface.