Authors: Pozdnyakov M.V. Published: 13.08.2019
Published in issue: #4(78)/2019  
DOI: 10.18698/2306-8477-2019-4-614  
Category: The Humanities in Technical University | Chapter: Philosophy Science  
Keywords: Heidegger, metaphysics , being, nature, representation, consciousness, Descartes, cogitatio, cogito, ego, subject, object, substance, dreaming, fallacy, passions, bodily sensations, body

The article considers Heidegger's interpretation of the metaphysical content of Descartes’ ideas. Heidegger believes that this content is a turning point in the history of metaphysics. He interprets Cartesian cogitatio (thinking, consciousness) as a representation, which means ensuring the unimpeded command of the consciousness content by man and the nomination of the human itself as the only judge for the rest of the nature. Based on the comparison of this concept with the Descartes’ texts, the author concludes that it does not fully agree with them. It is shown that Heidegger, in the first place ignores the differentiation by Descartes representation as a mode cogito and thinking as its other mode. Second, he ignores dreaming as a mode of consciousness. Third, the fallacy problem explored by Cartesius is not considered. Fourth, the specific status of the bodily sensations mentioned by Descartes is overlooked, as well as the special status of the passions, the definitive feature of which is the setting the subject in the condition of inability to command and dispose of their own states. Heidegger's understanding of ego position within the act of representation, ascribed by him to Descartes, seems rather contradictory. Fifth, Sixth, Heidegger does not confirm with Descartes' texts the replacement of the term “cogitatio” by “perception”. Meanwhile, this is the reference point of the concept he is constructing. Based on the aforesaid, the author draws two major conclusions. First: Heidegger's model of the metaphysical content of Descartes ' ideas contains a number of significant distortions. Second: therefore the thesis on Cartesian philosophy being the point where metaphysics enters a completely new phase cannot be accepted without some serious reservations.

[1] Slinin A.Ya. Mysl: Zhurnal Peterburgskogo filosofskogo obshchestva (Thought: Journal of the St. Petersburg philosophical society), 1998, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7–27.
[2] Tarasov A.G. Teoreticheskiy zhurnal «Credo New» (Theoretical Journal «Credo New»), 2008, no. 2. Available at: http://www.intelros.ru/readroom/credo_new/credo_02_2008/2147-ego-cogito-kak-princip-filosofii-r..html
[3] Molchanov V.I. Issledovaniya po fenomenologii soznaniya [Research on the phenomenology of consciousness]. Moscow, Territoriya budushchego Publ., 2007, 456 p.
[4] Heidegger M. Vremya kartiny mira [Time of the world picture]. In: Vremya i bytie: Statyi i vystupleniya [Time and being. Articles and speeches]. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 1993, рр. 41–62. [In Russ.].
[5] Heidegger M. Der europäische Nihilismus. Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 6.2. Frankfurt am Main, 1996, S. 31–230.
[6] Descartes R. Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cottingham J., ed. Cambridge University Press Publ., 1986 [In Russ.: Descartes R. Razmyshleniya o pervoy filosofii, v koikh dokazyvaetsyja sushchestvovanie Boga i razlichie mezhdu chelovecheskoy dushoj i telom. In: Descartes R. Sobranie sochineniy v dvukh tomakh. Tom 2. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1994, 638 p.].
[7] Descartes R. Renati Des-Cartes Principia philosophiae. Amsterdam, Ludovicum Elzevirium Publ., 1644, 310 p. [In Russ.: Pervonachala filosofii. In: Descartes R. Sobranie sochineniy v dvukh tomakh. Tom 1. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1989, 654 p.].
[8] Descartes R. Meditations metaphysiqves. Paris, Camvsat I and Le Petit P. Publ., 1641 [In Russ.: Descartes R. Metafizicheskie razmyshlenia. In: Dekartes R. Isbrannye proisvedeniya. Moscow, Politicheskaya literarura Publ., 1950, pр. 319–408].
[9] Descartes R. Les Passions de l’ame. Amsterdam, Louys Elzevier Publ., 1650 [In Russ.: Descartes R. Strasti dushi. In: Descartes R. Sobranie sochineniy v dvukh tomakh. Tom 1. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1989, pр. 481–572].