The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and WrongBrentano, Franz
Philosophy
The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong
Brentano, Franz
Ethics
At first sight this passage appears to be so clearly in contradiction
to the one in the third Meditation that, as we have said, it is
scarcely possible to avoid the supposition that Descartes had meantime
rejected his thesis as to the three fundamental classes of psychical
phenomena, so shunning Scylla only to plunge into Charybdis; avoiding
the old mistake of confusing the judgment with the idea (Vorstellung),
he would now seem to confound it with the will. But a more attentive
examination of all the circumstances will suffice to exonerate
Descartes from such a charge, and this on the following grounds: (1)
There is not the slightest sign that Descartes was ever conscious of
having become untrue to the view expressed in the Meditations. (2)
Further, in the year 1647 (three years after the publication of the
Meditations and shortly before writing the Notae to his Programma) the
Meditations appeared in a translation revised by Descartes himself,
where, remarkably enough, not the slightest alteration is to be
found in the decisive passage in the third Meditation. “Entre mes
pensées,” it reads, “quelques unes sont commes les images des choses,
et c’est à celles-là scules que convient proprement le nom d’idée....
D’autres, outre cela ont quelques autres formes; ... et de ce genre de
pensées _les unes sont appelées volontés ou affections, et les autres
jugements_.” (3) In the _Principles_ itself he says directly after
(i. No. 42) that all our errors depend upon our will (a voluntate
pendere); but so far is he from regarding the “error” as an act of
volition, that he says there is no one who errs voluntarily (nemo est
qui velit falli). Still clearer is it that he does not regard the
judgment like the desires and dislikes as inner activities of the will
itself, but only as a product of the will, since he at once adds:
sed longe aliud est velle falli quam velle assentiri iis, in quibus
contingit errorem reperiri,” etc. He does not say of the will that it
desires, affirms, assents, but that it wills the assent; so also, not
that it _is_ true but that it desires the truth (veritatis assequendae
cupiditas ... _efficit_, ut ... judicium ferant).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account