Carolina Choice Realty

To characterize the man in Jean-Jacques Rousseau she is necessary to have in mind the way as it reconstructs the history of the humanity, showing that the existing inaquality between the men is fruit of the action of the proper men throughout history. Through this reconstruction the author works the State of Nature and the Civil State. Rousseau says that the property becomes the beginning of the inaquality of the men and defends that only an organized society can reveal the divisions of the properties, as many private properties as public, but being always the private property a common good. For the distant philosopher the more the man will be of the Civil State, of the rationality, better the man if he becomes, therefore he believes that what ruins the man is the society, is the rationality and is for this reason that Rousseau wants the return of the man for its State of Nature. The author was the first philosopher to question the rationality, that for it the rationality was not something negative, therefore the way as being something positive, but yes, because it was come back toward the things superfluous and not essential to the men and for this reason contests that it. It does not believe that the rationality was used for being the rational man and yes for interest. For the thinker the man must be independent and therefore he believes that only the education cannot be only one way of instruction, but yes a pedagogia of the autonomy. Rousseau believes a Social Contract where the people is who decides, where the laws are determined by the people, it had the notion of public good, where only with public good if it would arrive then at an organized society that had prescribed the properties. For Rousseau the scientific ascension was not folloied by a moral ascension, human being, for it and as he himself at the beginning says Of the Social Contract ' ' the man is born exempts, and for all the part meets acorrentado' '.

2. We only can think the things about a cause relation and effect because the causalidade is in the citizen, not in the world, according to Kant (Critical of the Pure Reason), in contrast to Hume, that considered it a habit (Inquiry On the Human Agreement). In Kant the forms a priori of the agreement (the pure concepts) are the categories. The causalidade concept is part of these categories. Of this form, we cannot conceive the succession of the phenomena not to be as causal succession. That is, we know a priori that all phenomenon is caused and that in all change some never dumb thing (this is its condition of possibility). The critical kantiana continues when it says that ' ' whichever the way and the ways for which the knowledge can become related with objects, the way for which the knowledge if relates immediately they is intuio' '.

That is, intuition only exists if an object in the data. However, ' ' intuitions without concepts are cegos' '. The impossibility of knowledge of a priori object goes beyond any particular causal relation. As much for Hume how much for Kant it is in guideline the empirismo. All knowledge starts for the experience, precedes never it.

The paper of the rational citizen is basic in the critical one. ' ' We do not know in the things seno a priori what we ourselves in it colocamos' '. In the Critical one, the objects in relation to the citizen are considered independent things, the proper substance of the knowledge. The phenomenon is as these objects appear for we, and being dependents of the citizen they constitute the form of the knowledge. One is about the external belief in the object existence according to Hume. In the Hume Inquiry it says: ' ' It seems exactly that, in isolated cases of operation of bodies, never we can discover, for the examination most minute, something beyond a simple event following itself it another one, and we are not capable to apprehend any force or power for which the cause operated, or any connection between it and its presumption efeito' ' (Inquiries VII). In the operations of the Nature the events if occur independently of the citizen. Our way to see the world if bases on the belief which according to, our perceptions sees objects as if they present to the directions. But about this context, if to think about the transcendental idealismo, the way to know the causes and the effect, this knowledge is opposing to the empiricist. The principle transcendente exceeds the domain of the experience. All the progress of science will not open the limits of the experience. Everything that will be given we is always relative. If all subjectivity will be abstracted, object will not be found in place none.