Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It's strange that no one answers – everyone politely gives way to each other, probably.
This is a straight line, a deep-water river in European philosophy. All the Great Ones did nothing but do this, and from time to time they were only distracted by some other trifle. It all started with Rene Descartes – ” cogito ergo sum “(I think therefore I exist) as a result of the so-called “method of radical doubt”, which leads to the conclusion that” I ” is the only thing that I do not doubt in this world.
The next big milestone in this river (we'll ignore the pot-bellied trifle, right?) is this bundle: George Berkeley plus David Hume with access to Immanuel Kant. The latter has three synonyms – “the transcendental unity of apperception”, it is also “I think”, it is also just “I”.
Then, as a separate figure in the 19th century, stands the majestic Friedrich Nietzsche – here you need to read “Human, too human” exclusively about the “I”. This is, in general, a great work dictated by an author who was waiting for his death and was in a hurry to say what was in his brain to Peter Gast.
The next beacon is Henri Bergson, who, in order not to be swayed for a long time, simply writes a dissertation for a scientific degree on the topic “Experience on direct data of consciousness”, immediately putting it on the shelf of “Classics”.
“We are all Bergsonians to varying degrees,” Edmund Husserl would later say, laying the foundations for phenomenology as a branch of philosophical thought that did not deal with anything other than the “I” at all, and was therefore called “neo-Cartesianism.”
Jean-Paul Sartre drew a bold line (presumably for now) under this story, writing “Being and Nothing”, where by” Nothing ” – this is what is meant. It explains almost everything about the Self, and it's a very complex book… But the subject is also, I'm sorry, not khukhry-mukhry (“Linqua latina non penis canis est”, as students used to say in my great-grandmother's youth).
Ugh-f-f…