Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2010 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18959 |
Resumo: | The concept of thing in itself as propounded by Kant “works” as the only argument in order to give support to modern science and open way to a free will. Such a concept, however, was considered illegitimate, and the aporias that were aroused by it were seen as absence of philosophical fundament whose validation was therefore a quest of German idealism in its search of a subjectivity that was conceived within a philosophy of immanence. The empirical realism was maintained precisely by the concept of thing in itself, a concept whose dissolution would mean the loss of the transcendental dimension that both Kant and Schopenhauer want to preserve. This concept has the twofold interest of Kant: besides limiting the scientific knowledge to the notion of phenomenon, the thing in itself leaves room for considering a free will, that is, makes room for a moral consideration of the world. Now, when Schopenhauer explains the notion of will as the thing in itself (and not the subject), he relies on the ambiguous concept for the same goal sought by Kant: to make room for morality. The difference is the type of morality that one tries to justify: for Kant, the Judeo-Christian moral as reached by a Lutheran deflected route, to which free will is conditio sine qua non. In the case of Schopenhauer, the Hindu-Buddhist morality, which propounds freedom as the karmic nullification by denying will itself. |
id |
UFC-17_a7bbd840e360f1a885627332e3946c8f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufc:article/18959 |
network_acronym_str |
UFC-17 |
network_name_str |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and KantMetafísica e moralidade em Schopenhauer e KantThing in itself. Freedom. Determinism. Kant. Schopenhauer.Coisa-em-si. Liberdade. Determinismo. Kant. Schopenhauer.The concept of thing in itself as propounded by Kant “works” as the only argument in order to give support to modern science and open way to a free will. Such a concept, however, was considered illegitimate, and the aporias that were aroused by it were seen as absence of philosophical fundament whose validation was therefore a quest of German idealism in its search of a subjectivity that was conceived within a philosophy of immanence. The empirical realism was maintained precisely by the concept of thing in itself, a concept whose dissolution would mean the loss of the transcendental dimension that both Kant and Schopenhauer want to preserve. This concept has the twofold interest of Kant: besides limiting the scientific knowledge to the notion of phenomenon, the thing in itself leaves room for considering a free will, that is, makes room for a moral consideration of the world. Now, when Schopenhauer explains the notion of will as the thing in itself (and not the subject), he relies on the ambiguous concept for the same goal sought by Kant: to make room for morality. The difference is the type of morality that one tries to justify: for Kant, the Judeo-Christian moral as reached by a Lutheran deflected route, to which free will is conditio sine qua non. In the case of Schopenhauer, the Hindu-Buddhist morality, which propounds freedom as the karmic nullification by denying will itself.Em Kant, o conceito de coisa-em-si “funciona” como um único argumento para fundamentar a ciência moderna e para deixar espaço para uma vontade livre. Tal conceito, entretanto, foi considerado ilegítimo e as aporias provocadas por ele foram interpretadas como ausência de um fundamento filosófico que o idealismo alemão passou a buscar em uma subjetividade pensada dentro de uma filosofia da imanência. O realismo empírico era mantido justamente pelo conceito de coisa-em-si, cuja dissolução implicaria a perda da dimensão transcendental que tanto Kant, quanto Schopenhauer querem preservar. Esse conceito responde a um duplo interesse de Kant: além de limitar o saber científico à noção de fenômeno, a coisa-em-si deixa espaço para se pensar uma vontade livre, isto é, abre espaço para uma consideração moral do mundo. Ora, quando Schopenhauer explica a noção de vontade como sendo a coisa-em-si (e não mais a matéria), ele se vale do conceito ambíguo para o mesmo objetivo de Kant: abrir espaço para a moralidade. A diferença é o tipo de moralidade que se tenta legitimar: no caso de Kant, a moral judaico-cristã de viés luterano, para a qual a vontade livre é conditio sine qua non. No caso de Schopenhauer, a moralidade hindu-budista, consistindo a liberdade na anulação cármica através da negação da própria vontade.Universidade Federal do Ceará2010-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18959Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; No 3Argumentos - Periódico de Filosofia; Núm. 3Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; n. 31984-42551984-4247reponame:Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)instacron:UFCporhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18959/29678Copyright (c) 2017 Argumentosinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRochamonte, Catarina2021-07-24T13:18:03Zoai:periodicos.ufc:article/18959Revistahttp://www.filosofia.ufc.br/argumentosPUBhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/oaiargumentos@ufc.br||1984-42551984-4247opendoar:2021-07-24T13:18:03Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant Metafísica e moralidade em Schopenhauer e Kant |
title |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant |
spellingShingle |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant Rochamonte, Catarina Thing in itself. Freedom. Determinism. Kant. Schopenhauer. Coisa-em-si. Liberdade. Determinismo. Kant. Schopenhauer. |
title_short |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant |
title_full |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant |
title_fullStr |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant |
title_full_unstemmed |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant |
title_sort |
Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant |
author |
Rochamonte, Catarina |
author_facet |
Rochamonte, Catarina |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Rochamonte, Catarina |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Thing in itself. Freedom. Determinism. Kant. Schopenhauer. Coisa-em-si. Liberdade. Determinismo. Kant. Schopenhauer. |
topic |
Thing in itself. Freedom. Determinism. Kant. Schopenhauer. Coisa-em-si. Liberdade. Determinismo. Kant. Schopenhauer. |
description |
The concept of thing in itself as propounded by Kant “works” as the only argument in order to give support to modern science and open way to a free will. Such a concept, however, was considered illegitimate, and the aporias that were aroused by it were seen as absence of philosophical fundament whose validation was therefore a quest of German idealism in its search of a subjectivity that was conceived within a philosophy of immanence. The empirical realism was maintained precisely by the concept of thing in itself, a concept whose dissolution would mean the loss of the transcendental dimension that both Kant and Schopenhauer want to preserve. This concept has the twofold interest of Kant: besides limiting the scientific knowledge to the notion of phenomenon, the thing in itself leaves room for considering a free will, that is, makes room for a moral consideration of the world. Now, when Schopenhauer explains the notion of will as the thing in itself (and not the subject), he relies on the ambiguous concept for the same goal sought by Kant: to make room for morality. The difference is the type of morality that one tries to justify: for Kant, the Judeo-Christian moral as reached by a Lutheran deflected route, to which free will is conditio sine qua non. In the case of Schopenhauer, the Hindu-Buddhist morality, which propounds freedom as the karmic nullification by denying will itself. |
publishDate |
2010 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2010-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18959 |
url |
http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18959 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18959/29678 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Argumentos info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Argumentos |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Ceará |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Ceará |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; No 3 Argumentos - Periódico de Filosofia; Núm. 3 Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; n. 3 1984-4255 1984-4247 reponame:Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) instacron:UFC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
instacron_str |
UFC |
institution |
UFC |
reponame_str |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
collection |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
argumentos@ufc.br|| |
_version_ |
1797068845006979072 |