{"id":3199,"date":"2021-01-04T21:42:56","date_gmt":"2021-01-04T18:42:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bestessayhomework.com\/tr\/?p=3199"},"modified":"2021-01-04T21:42:56","modified_gmt":"2021-01-04T18:42:56","slug":"donusen-felsefe-felsefe-uzerine-arastirmalar-felsefenin-alanlari-nelerdir-felsefe-nasil-incelenir-felsefe-alaninda-odev-yaptirma-odev-yaptirma-fiyatla","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bestessayhomework.com\/tr\/donusen-felsefe-felsefe-uzerine-arastirmalar-felsefenin-alanlari-nelerdir-felsefe-nasil-incelenir-felsefe-alaninda-odev-yaptirma-odev-yaptirma-fiyatla\/","title":{"rendered":"D\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fen Felsefe\u2013 Felsefe \u00dczerine Ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar \u2013 Felsefenin Alanlar\u0131 Nelerdir? \u2013 Felsefe Nas\u0131l \u0130ncelenir \u2013 Felsefe Alan\u0131nda \u00d6dev Yapt\u0131rma \u2013 \u00d6dev Yapt\u0131rma Fiyatlar\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Felsefenin sonu” g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn di\u011fer iki temsilcisi Foucault ve Derrida’d\u0131r. Her iki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr de \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n belirli i\u00e7eri\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan son derece ilgin\u00e7tir, ancak konumum ba\u011flam\u0131nda, yaln\u0131zca performatif kendi kendine \u00e7eli\u015fki ile felsefenin mevcut kendi kendini yok etmesini daha da temsil ettiklerini s\u00f6yleyebilirim.<\/span><\/p>\n

Derrida belki de bu de\u011ferlendirmeyi, bug\u00fcn hala tart\u0131\u015fmac\u0131 ayg\u0131t\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken bat\u0131l\u0131 “mant\u0131k merkezcili\u011fi” a\u015fmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktan ba\u015fka bir yol olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ederek do\u011frulayabilirdi (bir anlamda, daha sonraki Heidegger bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce \u00e7izgisini \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc. Bat\u0131l\u0131 metafizi\u011fin bir Verwinden der Metaphysik arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla \u00fcstesinden gelmek hakk\u0131ndaki konu\u015fmas\u0131yla yer al\u0131r).<\/span><\/p>\n

Ancak bu, performatif kendi kendine \u00e7eli\u015fkinin aporia’s\u0131ndan ka\u00e7man\u0131n yolu de\u011fildir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Derida’n\u0131n durumunda, “a\u015fk\u0131n bir g\u00f6sterilen” i\u015faretlerle sunulmas\u0131 ve bu suretle de tam da bu iddia edilen ger\u00e7e\u011fi iletme olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/span><\/p>\n

Derrida’n\u0131n “farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131” (yani, bir anlam farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcrekli olu\u015fumu) ve g\u00f6sterge s\u00fcrecinin “yay\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131” ke\u015ffetmenin ba\u015fka bir yolu olmal\u0131. Sadece i\u015faretlerin di\u011fer i\u015faretlere sonsuz referans\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda i\u015faret i\u015flevinin \u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 da bilen ve b\u00f6ylece Derrida’n\u0131n g\u00f6stergebilimden g\u00f6stergebilimcili\u011fe ge\u00e7i\u015fini \u00f6nleyen bir Peircean g\u00f6stergebiliminin yard\u0131m\u0131yla b\u00f6yle bir yol bulabilece\u011fimize inan\u0131yorum.<\/span><\/p>\n

Foucault’ya gelince, felsefi \u00f6z-anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na uymadan tarihsel ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar\u0131n\u0131n ke\u015fiflerine de\u011fer vermeyi daha da kolay buluyorum. Anayasan\u0131n t\u00fcm \u00e7a\u011fsal ihlallerinde ve sosyal ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin dilbilimsel yorumunda, “yarg\u0131 yetkisi” ve “karar” \u0131n “hakikat rejimleri” taraf\u0131ndan i\u00e7 i\u00e7e ge\u00e7mesinin i\u015f ba\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu kabul edilebilir; ancak yine de ikisi aras\u0131ndaki analitik ayr\u0131l\u0131kta \u0131srar edilebilir.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u0130nsan bilimleri ger\u00e7ekten de s\u00fcrekli bir ideoloji ele\u015ftirisinin konusu ve nesnesi olmal\u0131d\u0131r, ancak kendi ge\u00e7erlilik iddias\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131ran Nietzscheci bir “soybilim” (ahlak ve hakikat) ile de\u011fi\u015ftirilemez.<\/span><\/p>\n

Do\u011frusu, bana g\u00f6re Nietzsche, hakikat ve ahlaki do\u011fruluk iddias\u0131n\u0131n maskesini kald\u0131rarak kendi ge\u00e7erlilik iddias\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131ran bu y\u00f6ntem veya d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce tarz\u0131n\u0131n klasik ba\u015flat\u0131c\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r. Bu perfonnatif kendi kendine \u00e7eli\u015fki yapma tarz\u0131, bat\u0131l\u0131 metafizi\u011fin \u00fcstesinden gelmez; daha ziyade, modern bilimsel indirgemeci a\u00e7\u0131klaman\u0131n metafiziksel bir yanl\u0131\u015f kullan\u0131m\u0131 olan nat\u00fcralist indirgemecili\u011fin anti-Platonist kar\u015f\u0131-metafizi\u011finin tipik bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/span><\/p>\n

Schopenhauer’in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine g\u00f6re, bu kar\u015f\u0131-metafizik, akl\u0131n i\u015flevsel bir indirgeme bi\u00e7imini ald\u0131. Alman \u0130dealizminin metafizi\u011fi, \u00f6zg\u00fcr iradeyi akla entegre ederken, Schopenhauer i\u00e7in ak\u0131l, do\u011fal iradenin gerekli bir i\u015flevinden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildi, ya\u015fam d\u00fcrt\u00fcs\u00fc olarak adland\u0131r\u0131labilir.<\/span><\/p>\n

Schopenhauer, \u0130nsan\u0131n hakikat ve ahlaki merhamet duygusu (merhamet) i\u00e7in do\u011fal iradeyi neden ve nas\u0131l reddetmesi gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131rken kendisiyle \u00e7eli\u015fiyordu. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer’in tutars\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, do\u011fal iradeyi “iktidar iradesi” olarak onaylayarak a\u015fmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ancak bu, basit\u00e7e, i\u015flevsel indirgemecilikte edimsel \u00f6z \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi daha da a\u00e7\u0131k hale getirdi. \u0130ronik bir \u015fekilde, s\u00f6zde Postmodernizm felsefesi, Nietzsche’nin indirgemeci kar\u015f\u0131-metafizi\u011finin Platon’un ak\u0131l ya da logos ya da “nous hipostatizasyonunun” kendi kendini ortadan kald\u0131ran bir tersine \u00e7evirmesini s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcr.<\/span><\/p>\n

Belki de “logosentrizm” (Derrida’n\u0131n anlam\u0131yla), Heidegger’in Gestell (bilim ve teknik) etiketi alt\u0131nda dahil etti\u011fi modern rasyonalizm, yani d\u00fcnyan\u0131n nesnelle\u015ftirilmesidir ya da modern d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin buna g\u00f6re “rasyonalizasyon” t\u00fcr\u00fcd\u00fcr. Max Weber ve Horkheimer \/ Adorno’ya g\u00f6re, “ara\u00e7-ama\u00e7lar\u0131n” veya “ara\u00e7sal” rasyonalitenin mutlakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131yla sonu\u00e7lan\u0131r.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bu durumda modern rasyonalizm mant\u0131k a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bir ele\u015ftiriye tabi tutulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu, ak\u0131l yoluyla akl\u0131n kendi kendini yok eden bir ele\u015ftirisi de\u011fil, tart\u0131\u015fmac\u0131 s\u00f6ylemin felsefi rasyonalitesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirli soyutlay\u0131c\u0131 rasyonalite t\u00fcrlerinin modern mutlakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n bir ele\u015ftirisi olacakt\u0131r.<\/span><\/p>\n

Her hal\u00fckarda, “felsefenin sonu” g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn ortaya koydu\u011fu toplam ak\u0131l ele\u015ftirisi, zaman\u0131m\u0131zda felsefenin ne olabilece\u011fine dair sorular\u0131m\u0131za cevap veremez. Bu nedenle, \u015fimdi felsefeyi d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrme projesini ele alal\u0131m.<\/span><\/p>\n

spinoza’n\u0131n tanr\u0131s\u0131<\/span>
\nDin felsefesi filozoflar\u0131<\/a><\/span>
\nSpinoza felsefesi k\u0131saca<\/span>
\nDin felsefesi di\u011fer ad\u0131<\/span>
\nSpinoza S\u00f6zleri<\/span>
\nSpinoza felsefesi pdf<\/span>
\nSpinoza ahlak felsefesi<\/span>
\nDin felsefesi kavramlar\u0131<\/span><\/p>\n

D\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fen Felsefe<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u00d6nceki b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi gibi, felsefenin atlat\u0131lamaz (ve \u015fimdiye kadar a\u015fk\u0131n) varsay\u0131m\u0131, arg\u00fcmantasyonun evrensel ge\u00e7erlilik iddialar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fidir. Ge\u00e7ici olarak, bu t\u00fcr iddialar\u0131n -anlam iddias\u0131, hakikat iddias\u0131, do\u011fruluk iddias\u0131 ve ahlaki hak iddias\u0131 – bir s\u00f6ylem toplulu\u011fu i\u00e7indeki herhangi bir arg\u00fcmantasyon eyleminde \u00f6rt\u00fck oldu\u011funu not ediyorum: Felsefe.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bu nedenle, t\u00fcm felsefi tezleri (\u00f6zellikle felsefi bir konumu karakterize eden tezleri), onlar\u0131n \u00f6nerme i\u00e7eriklerinin, kendi bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131yla ifade edilen ge\u00e7erlilik iddialar\u0131yla tutarl\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmek i\u00e7in test etmeliyiz.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bir tez bu \u015fekilde tutarl\u0131 de\u011filse, anlam iddias\u0131n\u0131 (di\u011fer ge\u00e7erlilik iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nceden varsayd\u0131\u011f\u0131) ortadan kald\u0131rarak kendisini ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131r. Bu performanssal tutarl\u0131l\u0131k testi, duyu ele\u015ftirisinin (Sinnkritik) en radikal kriterini sa\u011flar.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bence duyu ele\u015ftirisi, felsefenin dilbilimsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnden sonra a\u015fk\u0131nsal bir ak\u0131l ele\u015ftirisinin ilkel y\u00f6ntemi ve dilin yans\u0131t\u0131c\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131nsal pragmatikleri ile temsil edilebilen bir y\u00f6ntemdir.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hangi tezlerin bizzat tart\u0131\u015fma eylemi taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6nceden varsay\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ay\u0131rt etmek i\u00e7in arg\u00fcmanlar\u0131n edimsel tutarl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemeliyiz. Baz\u0131 iddialar\u0131n, arg\u00fcmantasyonun performatif varsay\u0131mlar\u0131 oldu\u011funu varsayan (ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sorgulamadan muaf olan) dogmatik bir a\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131 benimsememeliyiz.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tart\u0131\u015fman\u0131n d\u00f6rt ge\u00e7erlilik iddias\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7ici olarak s\u0131ralad\u0131\u011f\u0131m i\u00e7in, b\u00f6yle dogmatik bir duru\u015ftan su\u00e7lu oldu\u011fumdan \u015f\u00fcphelenilebilir. Ancak bunun yerine, hangi arg\u00fcmantasyon \u00f6n varsay\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n performatif bir \u00f6z \u00e7eli\u015fkiye kar\u0131\u015fmadan sorgulanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 (ve ayn\u0131 zamanda, taahh\u00fctte bulunmadan geleneksel anlamda temellendirilemeyece\u011fini) bulmak i\u00e7in duyu ele\u015ftirisi y\u00f6ntemini kullanmam\u0131z\u0131 \u00f6neriyorum.<\/span><\/p>\n

Duyu ele\u015ftirisi y\u00f6ntemi, d\u00f6rt ge\u00e7erlilik iddias\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, tart\u0131\u015fman\u0131n \u00f6n varsay\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r: \u00f6rne\u011fin, irade ve eylem \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6n varsay\u0131m\u0131, tart\u0131\u015fmac\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve konunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki bir d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnyan\u0131n \u00f6n varsay\u0131m\u0131. Bilin\u00e7, tart\u0131\u015fmac\u0131n\u0131n somutla\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n varsay\u0131m\u0131 ve bu ba\u011flamda dilbilimsel ve do\u011fal i\u015faretler vb vard\u0131r.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tart\u0131\u015fman\u0131n bu a\u015fk\u0131n-pragmatik varsay\u0131mlar\u0131, \u00f6zel olarak felsefi dil oyununun paradigmatik kan\u0131tlar\u0131 olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclebilir. Di\u011fer t\u00fcm dil oyunlar\u0131n\u0131n paradigmatik kan\u0131tlar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131d\u0131rlar \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc neredeyse t\u00fcm di\u011fer dil oyunlar\u0131 paradigmatik kan\u0131tlar\u0131yla birlikte tarihsel olarak olumsal olarak sorgulanabilir.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tersine, felsefi dil oyununun paradigmatik kan\u0131tlar\u0131 sorgulanamaz \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc bunlar t\u00fcm sorgulama olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131d\u0131r. \u00c7a\u011fda\u015f filozoflar\u0131n \u00e7o\u011fu i\u00e7in mant\u0131ks\u0131z g\u00f6r\u00fcnen bu teze geri ilerleyen yaz\u0131larda geri d\u00f6nece\u011fiz.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Felsefenin sonu” g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn di\u011fer iki temsilcisi Foucault ve Derrida’d\u0131r. Her iki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr de \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n belirli i\u00e7eri\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan son derece ilgin\u00e7tir, ancak konumum ba\u011flam\u0131nda, yaln\u0131zca performatif kendi kendine \u00e7eli\u015fki ile felsefenin mevcut kendi kendini yok etmesini daha da temsil ettiklerini s\u00f6yleyebilirim. Derrida belki de bu de\u011ferlendirmeyi, bug\u00fcn hala tart\u0131\u015fmac\u0131 ayg\u0131t\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken bat\u0131l\u0131 “mant\u0131k merkezcili\u011fi” a\u015fmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktan…
Devam\u0131<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":3202,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,5187,5190,5188,5189,5191],"tags":[3746,3745,3750,5196,5193,5195,5194,5192],"class_list":["post-3199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-genel","category-spinoza-ahlak-felsefesi","category-spinoza-felsefesi-kisaca","category-spinoza-felsefesi-pdf","category-spinoza-sozleri","category-spinozanin-tanrisi","tag-din-felsefesi-diger-adi","tag-din-felsefesi-filozoflari","tag-din-felsefesi-kavramlari","tag-spinoza-ahlak-felsefesi","tag-spinoza-felsefesi-kisaca","tag-spinoza-felsefesi-pdf","tag-spinoza-sozleri","tag-spinozanin-tanrisi"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t