A natureza do si-mesmo: Hume ou Kant?
Abstract
De acordo com uma opinião amplamente divulgada, a noção kantiana de apercepção deve ser considerada como uma resposta ao desafio cético de Hume, formulada em sua "teoria do feixe" sobre o si-mesmo. O objetivo deste artigo é oferecer uma análise das diferenças na abrangência e no conteúdo existentes entre as abordagens que os dois filósofos dão da representação do "eu" no contexto de uma explicação do conhecimento. A teoria humeana do auto-conhecimento é baseada sobre um modelo observacional ainda aceito em discussões contemporâneas sobre a identidade pessoal, enquanto a abordagem de Kant é determinada por considerações que têm relação com o ponto de vista da primeira pessoa. essas diferenças conduzem a teorias muito incompatíveis entre si e não sugerem a idéia de que Kant queria dar uma resposta ao desafio cético de Hume.
Abstract
According to a widespread view, Kant's notion of apperception is to be considered as an answer to Hume's sceptical challenge of his "bundle-theory" of the self. The aim of this paper is an analysis of the differences in scope and content between the accounts the two philosophers are giving of the "i"-representation within the framework of an explanation of knowledge. Hume´s theory of self-knowledge is based upon an observational model still accepted in contemporary discussions about personal identity, while Kant's approach is determined by considerations which have something to do with the first-person point of view. These differences lead to theories quite incompatible with each other, and don't suggest the idea that Kant wanted to give an answer to Hume's sceptical challenge.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Analytica. Journal of Philosophy is an open-access scientific journal licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license. This means that its content can be copied and redistributed in any medium or format for any purpose provided the following requirements are met: proper credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and it is indicated if any changes were made. Legal terms or technological measures that restrict others from exercising rights granted by the license shall not be applied. In the case of any transformation or adaptation of the content, the new material cannot be distributed.
This statement aligns with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.