| spelling |
José Raimundo Maia Netohttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2106122979359662Telma de Souza BirchalMaíra de Souza Borbahttp://lattes.cnpq.br/4055132504359228Ana Cláudia Teodoro Sousa2021-02-22T10:49:33Z2021-02-22T10:49:33Z2020-02-07http://hdl.handle.net/1843/350280000-0003-2187-6725O objetivo deste trabalho é contrapor duas interpretações contemporâneas a respeito de como a filosofia cartesiana se vincula com o ceticismo e, assim, estabelecer se Descartes intencionava responder e eliminar o ceticismo; se sim, indicar como ele teria realizado esta tarefa e, posteriormente, determinar se ele teria sido bem sucedido ou não dentro desta possível empreitada, apontando também para as consequências caso a resposta revele uma tentativa fracassada. Primeiramente, retomamos a leitura inovadora de Richard Popkin acerca da filosofia cartesiana, que a insere dentro do contexto de uma crise pirrônica da modernidade, estabelecendo que a solução dada por Descartes à sua dúvida hiperbólica metodológica não representa só um trabalho epistêmico interno à sua filosofia, mas também aparece como uma reação à crise pirrônica. Popkin entende que a filosofia cartesiana tem como objetivo principal responder os argumentos céticos, mas falha nesta empreitada, o que faria de Descartes um cético malgré lui. Posteriormente, apresentamos a leitura de Thomas Lennon, antagônica à leitura proposta por Popkin, que indica que a filosofia cartesiana não tinha como meta responder ao ceticismo e que, apesar de tê-lo feito, falhar em algo que não está colocado como um objetivo não seria um problema, pelo menos não tão grave como alega Popkin. Desse modo, analisando as fontes apresentadas por estes dois autores e buscando informações contextuais e históricas acerca das passagens do corpus cartesiano que indicam a relação desta filosofia com o ceticismo, procuraremos apontar as forças que emergem das leituras de Popkin e de Lennon, mostrando também onde elas falham. Neste sentido, reconhecemos que não é possível desprezar a importância do ceticismo entre as influências cartesianas, mas também não é possível exagerar ao dizer que refutar o ceticismo era o principal objetivo da filosofia de Descartes. Além disso, constatamos que Descartes não pode ser um cético apesar de suas intenções dogmáticas, como indica Popkin, ainda que a filosofia cartesiana tenha reforçado a dificuldade que o ceticismo colocava após ter os seus fundamentos questionados pelas próprias dúvidas céticas que são o ponto de partida desta filosofia.The aim of this work is to compare two contemporary interpretations of how Cartesian philosophy is linked with skepticism and thus to establish whether Descartes aimed to responding and eliminating skepticism; if so, we will indicate how he would have accomplished this task and then determine whether or not he would have been successful within this possible endeavor, also pointing to the consequences if the answer reveals a failed attempt. First, we return to Richard Popkin's groundbreaking reading of Cartesian philosophy, which places it within the context of a Pyrrhonian crisis of modernity, establishing that Descartes' solution to his own hyperbolic methodological doubt is not merely an epistemic work internal to his philosophy, but it also appears as a reaction to the Pyrrhonian crisis. Popkin understands that Cartesian philosophy has as its main goal to answer the skeptical arguments, but fails in this endeavor, which would make Descartes a skeptic malgré lui. Subsequently, we present Thomas Lennon's reading, antagonistic to Popkin’s, which claims that Cartesian philosophy was not meant to respond to skepticism and that, despite having done so, failing to do something that was not set as a goal would not be a problem, at least not as major as Popkin says. Thus, by analyzing the sources presented by these two authors and seeking contextual and historical information about the passages of the Cartesian corpus that indicate the relation of this philosophy with skepticism, we point out the forces that emerge from the readings of Popkin and Lennon, also showing where they fail. In this sense, we recognize that it is not possible to overlook the importance of skepticism among Cartesian’s influences, but neither it is possible to exaggerate by saying that refuting skepticism was the main purpose of Descartes’ philosophy. Furthermore, we find that Descartes cannot be a skeptic despite his dogmatic intentions, as Popkin indicates, even though Cartesian philosophy has reinforced the difficulty that skepticism posed after having its foundations questioned by the very skeptical doubts that are the starting point of this philosophy.CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoporUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisPrograma de Pós-Graduação em FilosofiaUFMGBrasilFAF - DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOSOFIACeticismoDúvidaFilosofia cartesianaDescartes e o ceticismo : um exame da controvérsia entre Popkin e Lennoninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMGinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMGORIGINALDissertação - Ana Cláudia Teodoro Sousa.pdfDissertação - Ana Cláudia Teodoro Sousa.pdfapplication/pdf4172146https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/35028/1/Disserta%c3%a7%c3%a3o%20-%20Ana%20Cl%c3%a1udia%20Teodoro%20Sousa.pdf329a04de208a9a7025579a25a77cfbaaMD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82119https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/35028/2/license.txt34badce4be7e31e3adb4575ae96af679MD521843/350282021-02-22 07:49:33.24oai:repositorio.ufmg.br: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Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://repositorio.ufmg.br/oaiopendoar:2021-02-22T10:49:33Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false
|