EPISTEMOLOGICAL DILEMMA OF MODERN CONSCIOUSNESS AS RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM IN THE CONTEXT OF DESCARTES AND BACON

DESCARTES VE BACON BAĞLAMINDA MODERN BİLİNCİN EPİSTEMOLOJİK ÇIKMAZI OLARAK RASYONALİZM VE AMPİRİZM

Abstract

In classical philosophy, truth is independent from human knowledge and it transcends human mind. Therefore the classical belief of truth has created an organic universe idea. The humanist assumptions that have emerged with the Renaissance have led to questioning the transcendence of truth and the claim of the unity of the universe, and it has caused a search for a new reference point for truth. With Modern philosophy, the subject is taken as the new reference point for new cosmos understanding. For this reason, the way to follow the truth has been left to the mental capacities of the subject. However, this confident trust to subject’s reason has also brought skeptical questions about the possibilities of reaching the truth. Modern philosophy has developed two different methods as a response to this epistemological argument that emerged after the Renaissance. These are rationalism and empiricism. Founder of Rationalism Rene Descartes describes the a posteriori knowledge obtained with the senses as misleading. On the other hand Francis Bacon likens the idea of a priori knowledge of abstract reasoning to the theater idols in his idol teachings. For this reason Bacon describes the method of rationalism that Descartes founded with mathematical principles as metaphysical and speculative. For Bacon, knowledge is a power with its a posteriori nature. By means of empiricism, knowledge will move away from its theoretical character and become practical. Subject-based modern epistemology which developed as an attempt to find the truth by two different methods has laid the foundations of the Enlightenment philosophy that questions the possibilities of the knowledge of truth. The epistemological conflict that began between Descartes and Bacon continued as far as Immanuel Kant, and modern consciousness was also the beginning of the epistemological alienation process Philosophy has been separated from theology after Renaissance. The reason of this break is the nominalism that destroys the transcendence (Gökberk, 2015: 165). Now, philosophy has become an attempt to solve all kinds of problems that are preoccupation with human thought, not knowledge directed to a single purpose. Natural religion or understanding of reason as a religion based on human nature is taken from the philosophy of Stoa in this period. This understanding sees religion not as an inspiration but as a product of reason. Because nature and reason are synonymous in Stoa philosophy. The "lumen naturale", the light of nature, represents universal wisdom (Gökberk, 2015: 183). Because the humankind is a part of nature, his/her own nature is also based on this reason. With this acceptance of the fact that it is the main forces that unite the universe in the depths of nature, the Renaissance rejects the distinction between Earth and sky, the Aristotelian of the Middle Ages and the understanding of the dualistic nature. This rejection is the acceptance of the "live by nature" principle of early Stoa philosophy. Living according to the nature, which is regarded as the law of the universe, is now synonymous with living according to the mind encompassing the universe. Thus, nature has acquired a qualification that must be discovered directly with reason (Copleston, 2009: 21-22). The discovery of the nature and the mind of the Stoacs together with the Renaissance gave rise to the belief that absolute goodness for modern philosophy through mankind could take place in the material world/nature. The discovery of the nature and the mind of the Stoacs together with the Renaissance gave rise to the belief that absolute goodness for modern philosophy could take place in the material world/nature through man. The human will now be able to use the knowledge he gained from his/her knowledge of nature with his/her consciousness and senses to discover. Thus, while knowledge becomes power, at the same time it will enable material salvation, which humankind can dominate nature. The notion that nature and reason inherited from Stoa philosophy is one step forward with humanism. The break in classical thought has led to the search for a new authority on truth. Humanism is trying to take a person to the centre and answer it by accepting it as a reference. The rejection of classical acceptance and the taking of human reference have brought about fundamental changes in the judgment of cosmology. This change has inevitably led to the dissolution of the tradition and religion, which is thought to be the products of the vision of a static universe. Parallel to this, the political and social order that tradition and religion have brought about in the past has taken its share from this situation. Now all acceptance from the past by a new authority needs to be rearranged. The new authority mentioned is human and its abstract mind based on the consciousness of the subject, based on the assumption of a fundamental epistemology that the ontology has lost its priority (Cevizci, 2013: 19; Küçükalp, 2011: 74). The scientific revolution has emerged as the end result of the Renaissance thought with stoic character, combining intelligence and nature. In this context, Copernicus and his followers have advocated decreasing the causes related to the present, not multiplying them. The inevitable consequence of this situation has been the abandonment of the Aristotle-Ptolemy system, which is a consistent, earth-centered fixed world view adopted in the Middle Ages, which is contrary to the simple universal principles of nature. Galileo has developed a method that explains how to use mathematics instead of Aristotelian physics, which explains the movements of objects with the question. The common view of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo is that nature does not operate with mysterious secrets but with simple and open principles. At the same time, it is based on the belief that nature is mechanical rather than organic (Gökberk, 2015: 214). Now with the collapse of the classical cosmos, the s

Özet

Klasik felsefede hakikat, insan bilgisinden bağımsız ve insan zihnini aşan nitelikte olmasından dolayı organik bir evren yaratmıştır. Rönesans ile birlikte ortaya çıkan hümanist kabuller, hakikatin aşkınlığı ve evrenin bütünlüğü iddialarının sorgulanmasına, hakikat için yeni bir referans noktası aranmasına neden olmuştur. Modern felsefe ile birlikte özne yeni kozmosun referansı kabul edilirken hakikate dair izlenecek yol da artık kaçınılmaz olarak öznenin zihinsel yetilerine bırakılmıştır. Akla duyulan bu güven, hakikate ulaşılabileceğine dair septik sorgulamaları da beraberinde getirmiştir. Modern felsefe Rönesans sonrası ortaya çıkan bu epistemolojik krize cevap vermek gayesiyle iki farklı yöntem geliştirmiştir. Bu yöntemler rasyonalizm ve ampirizmdir. Rasyonalizmin kurucusu Rene Descartes duyularla elde edilen a posteriori bilgiyi yanıltıcı olarak nitelendirerek eleştirmiştir. Öte yandan Francis Bacon soyut aklın a priori bilgisini idol öğretisinde yer bulan tiyatro idollerine benzetmiştir. Bu nedenle Bacon, Descartes'ın matematik ilkeleri ile kurmuş olduğu rasyonalizm öğretisini metafizik ve spekülatif olarak nitelendirmiştir. Bacon için bilgi bir güç olarak a posteriori niteliktedir ve ampirizm sayesinde teorik niteliğinden sıyrılarak pratik olana yönelmelidir. İki farklı yöntem ile hakikati bulma girişimi olarak gelişen modern epistemoloji, hakikate dair bilginin imkânlarının sorgulanacağı Aydınlanma felsefesinin temellerini atmıştır. Descartes ve Bacon tarafından öne sürülen iki yöntem arasında başlayan bu çatışma, Immanuel Kant'a kadar devam ederek modern bilincin epistemolojik yabancılaşma sürecinin de başlangıcı olmuştur