In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Descartes’s Theory of MindEnrique Chávez-ArvizoDesmond M. Clarke. Descartes’s Theory of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. Pp. viii + 267. Cloth, $49.95.Desmond Clarke, commentator on Cartesian natural philosophy, has now published an interpretation of Descartes's dualism, a theme which can hardly be said to be underrepresented in the literature. The monograph is divided into nine chapters concerned with explanation, sensation, imagination and memory, the passions, the will, language, thought, (...) substance, and property dualism—yes, property dualism.The book pushes forward a reading of Descartes's theory of mind, made from a perspective which Clarke has adopted over the last three decades or so, that maintains that Descartes was primarily (and willingly) a scientist and incidentally (and reluctantly) a philosopher. From this viewpoint, according to Clarke, natural philosophy provides the paradigm for genuine explanation in Descartes's metaphysics. Furthermore, given that Descartes rejects Scholastic substantial forms and real qualities as explanatorily infertile and since substances are equally unfruitful, substances play no explanatory role in his system of philosophy. Substance dualism is not at the center of Descartes's philosophy of mind; his account of explanation is. This makes Descartes not a substance dualist; but a property dualist. So argues, in very broad strokes, Clarke. [End Page 116]Unlike us, Descartes did not draw a sharp distinction between philosophy and science. For him, these two realms of enquiry were part of a unified realm of knowledge, what he deemed scientia or philosophy in the wider sense. Hence his use of the instructive metaphor of philosophy as a tree, whose roots are metaphysics, the trunk physics, and the branches the other sciences which he reduces to three principal ones, namely medicine, mechanics, and morals (Letter Preface to Picot, French translation of the Principles of Philosophy, Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. C. Adam and P. Tannery [Paris: Vrin, 1989], 14). However, Descartes did distinguish the roots from the trunk, that is, metaphysics (or "first philosophy") from physics (or "natural philosophy"). Commentators on Descartes's system of philosophy ignore his natural philosophy at their peril, for it does shed considerable light on his metaphysics. But, likewise, Descartes's philosophy greatly illuminates his science. It is for this reason that I want to cast doubt on Clarke's apparent scientific imperialism in which Descartes's methodological, epistemological, and metaphysical concerns are forced to play second fiddle to his scientific views. We cannot neatly fit Descartes's metaphysical views into Clarke's scientific mold, nor can we force them in, without incurring serious error. I do not think that one has to choose between one and the other as being primary, between the tree of knowledge and the inverted tree of knowledge. We need to keep in mind that in Descartes's system of philosophy, both science and philosophy are interconnected and that both parts elucidate each other.Clarke's attempt to eliminate substance from Descartes's account of mind is problematic. True, the term 'substance' is an extremely ambiguous one and Descartes's comments about it are often blurred and puzzling. On the one hand, one must concede that the concept of substance plays a small role in Descartes's natural philosophy, in which although the material universe is depicted in terms of extended substance or res extensa, physics is ultimately unwrapped by way of laws describing the behavior of particles in virtue of their size, shape, and motion. But, in contrast, substance plays a far more prominent role in his metaphysics, not to mention in his theology. This leads to a related point. Clarke overlooks the importance of theology for Descartes's philosophical project and the role of God in Cartesian natural philosophy.The level of argument drops considerably in the final chapter, where Clarke offers an uncritical and not very clear survey of naming and necessity, the identity theory, anomalous monism, and property dualism. This chapter seems in tension with his disapproval of anachronistic readings of Descartes (8-9) and contains some serious slips. Clarke's answer to his own question "Was Descartes, then, a substance dualist" is a mind boggling "Yes and no" (258), and his claim that Descartes was a property dualist, collapses under... (shrink)

Forty two years before Descartes’ birth, in his Antoniana Margarita, Spanish physician and philosopher Gómez Pereira explicitly argues the following assertions: Animals lack reason Animals lack understanding Animals do not think Animals cannot feel Animals cannot see as we do Animals are machines Animals have no rational soul Animals have no indivisible soul Animals have no language The above claims on animal automatism are commonly thought to have originated with Descartes. In this paper I will expound Gómez Pereira’s arguments, contra (...) the School and common sense, in favor of animal automatism and discuss their possible influence on Descartes’ so-called bêtemachine doctrine. (shrink)

Constituye la primera publicación del Seminario Internacional de Jóvenes Investigadores, foro creado en el Instituto de Filosofía, perteneciente al Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Literatura y filosofía son dos viajes hacia la verdadera dimensión del ser humano. Por eso -de Homero a Borges-, constatamos que todos los grandes de la literatura han abordado las grandes cuestiones sobre la condición humana. Sin ser filósofos, han entrando de lleno en el campo de la filosofía para iluminarla con la belleza de su estilo. En su compañía, este libro es un atractivo paseo por esos temas siempre vivos. Para lograr un texto asequible, hemos seleccionado los referentes más (...) universales: el hombre en Homero, la inteligencia en Robinson Crusoe, la verdad en El Quijote, el amor en El Principito, los sentimientos en Ana Frank, la amistad en Etty Hillesum, la familia en Delibes, la ciencia en Julio Verne, el comunismo en Orwell, el darwinismo en Jack London, el superhombre de Nietzsche en Crimen y castigo, el mal en El señor de las moscas, el bien en El Señor de los anillos, la muerte en Hamlet, Dios en Dostoievski. (shrink)

Tradução para o português do artigo de Richard H. Popkin "Did Hume Ever Read Berkeley?", publicado em "The Journal of Philosophy". Volume LVI, número 12, 1959, pp. 535-545.

El autor recorre las principales aportaciones del derecho natural que surgen a lo largo del siglo veinte, explicando los contextos teóricos que les dan sentido. Este artículo ofrece una considerable bibliografía, con nombres de autores enmarcados en su corriente correspondiente. En este sentido, resultan especialmente detalladas las referencias de corrientes y autores iusnaturalistas del periodo que media entre los años cuarenta y los años sesenta del siglo XX. Las corrientes destacadas de ese periodo (en sus vertientes iusnaturalistas) son la neo-escolástica, (...) el neo-tomismo, el krausismo, la f ilosofía de los valores y la f ilosofía existencialista. (shrink)

In the present work we try to return to the problem of Merleau-Ponty’s historic and political evaluation of action in the light of his accounts in Humanism and Terror and their updating in the last years by commentators such as Alexandre Hubeny, Leonardo Eiff and Jérôme Melançon. We will present some arguments against two very close related theses by Merleau-Ponty: that of the “objective” evaluation of action, which holds that the subjects behavior can be described as constituing a “betrayal” or (...) a “crime” independently of any attribution of intentions to the agents and the thesis of the “objective” responsibility of the agent, that is, the tenet that affirms that the historic and political subjects can be “responsible” or “guilty” for an outcome of their actions, that they cannot have foreseen or can be the exact opposite for what they intended. (shrink)