%0 Journal Article
%T Callejones sin salida: dos reconstrucciones de la respuesta al c赤-rculo cartesiano / Dead-ends: Two reconstructions of the answer to the Cartesian circle
%A Jos谷 Marcos de Teresa
%J Signos filos車ficos
%D 2012
%I Universidad Aut車noma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa
%X Resumen: En este art赤culo explico el problema de la circularidad, tradicionalmente achacado a la metaf赤sica cartesiana, destacando la importancia que, seg迆n Descartes, reviste esta cuesti車n. Argumento que las versiones del cartesianismo que ofrecen algunos de los comentarios m芍s populares, utilizados en lengua castellana (los de Margaret Wilson y John Cottingham), resultan incompatibles con las posiciones que Descartes mantiene en una serie de textos. Teor赤as de ese corte s車lo podr赤an justificarse por su valor filos車fico intr赤nseco, pero tambi谷n sostengo que ambas reconstrucciones presentan debilidades conceptuales que las llevan al fracaso, sea como pretendida soluci車n, en el caso de Wilson; o bien como intento por desplazar o disolver el problema central, en el caso de Cottingham. Abstract: The problem of logical circularity, which traditionally has been blamed on Cartesian metaphysics, was clearly seen by Descartes himself, who moreover advertised its avoidance (or its solution) as a crucial merit of his own philosophy. On this subject two of the most popular commentaries on Descartes 〞those of Margaret Wilson and John Cottingham, which are widely used in teaching at least in Spanish〞 are criticized. Some of the objections I set here against both readings are textual in nature, while other ones hinge, as I argue, on their respective conceptual weaknesses. Wilson＊s proposed solution is shown to the botched, while Cottingham is shown to fail in his attempt to dissolve the problem.
%K c赤rculo
%K Cottingham
%K Descartes
%K interpretaci車n
%K Wilson
%K circle
%K interpretation
%U http://148.206.53.230/revistasuam/signosfilosoficos/include/getdoc.php?id=677&article=510&mode=pdf