Indifférence et irrationalité chez Descartes
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9689554 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kim Sang Ong-Van-Cung, Kim Sang Ong‐van‐cung (Université de Poitiers, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 725-748 |
| Publication date | 2003-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Dialogue (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0012-2173 • E-ISSN: 1759-0949 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0012217300005722 |
| OpenAlex | W1983879244 |
| Language | FR |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 2 |
Indifference in the choice, in the twofold sense found in Letter to Mesland, 9 February 1645, is similar to akrasia or incontinence. The aim in this article is to provide an explanation of the Cartesian analysis of the choice against better judgement which has different faces: “irresolution,” “extravagance,” “resolution grounded on false opinion,” the last two nowadays being called “megalomania.” Just as Descartes emphasizes the representative function of idea and the resolution to follow the better judgement, his conception of incontinence is to be understood on the basis of lack of representation, rather than on deliberation, in the Fifth Responses to Gassendi. Nevertheless, indifference is not deemed “irrational” by Descartes. I give an interpretation of this Cartesian abstention and conclude with a discussion of Davidson's conception of paradoxes of irrationality
Deliberation · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Irrational number · Irrationality · Judgement · Rationality · Representation (politics) · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Historical Philosophy and Science · Mathematics · Philosophy · Psychology · Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,13 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2025 (15) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |