Metaphysics and morality in Schopenhauer and Kant

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rochamonte, Catarina
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