This is the first abstract of an organized series that I composed with the objective to clearly divide with the readers
of shvoong some small beddings of the reasoning and. Before initiating, however I must leave clearly that these reflections that I place in this small series if apóiam wide in authors as Aristotle, Platão, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Gaston Bachelard and Blaise Pascal. The consulted references will come in the last summary of the series as a species of annex, to allow the readers to reconstruirem (if to desire) the reading way who I covered until arriving at the composition of this text. The first subject that will be boarded in this series is what concerns the
question of the doubt. To this respect, Sören Kierkgaard in its book: “Of Omnibum Dubitare” (She is necessary to doubt everything) in them it brings the skeptical doubt as only half to arrive at the
knowledge. It would not go so far however, therefore the circular doubt, that one directed against the proper capacity to learn something, or same against the proper existence of who doubt bring more damages of what benefits if correctly will not be used. In the present time we live in a society that if it arrests to one of the two extremities: or if it passively doubts everything (before exactly to investigate the causes of the supposed doubt) or if accepted everything what it is presented in knowledge terms. I defend the idea of that none of the two extremities satisfies to our necessity knowledge contemporary. But here it is that it is the question: how then I must doubt? Exists a doubt to salutar? Of a point of view supported in the Kantiano Criticism and the Rationalism of all the generation of René Descartes (including Leibniz, Pascal and Whitehead), exists the possibility of the doubt to obey a method, which allows to extract of the mental movement to doubt the proper beddings to the activity to understand the world. Such method can be synthecized in some small steps that I present now: 1. To understand which the doubt: many people when having doubt on a point if find so confused that they do not obtain nor to know as to express its doubt in question form. Exactly some that obtain this expression, many times due to the habit to organize the reasoning finish for pergutar a thing when they would have to ask another one. With sights to eliminate this problem I suggest that, when appearing the doubt, is made for itself exactly the following questions: which point was not clearly? What desire to know with this question? With this, it is started to aclarar the thought so that the inquiry continues. 2. To differentiate argument fact: the quarrel on facts and arguments is old and controversa. It has the ones that defend the inexistence of the facts (especially some rhetorician) and have the ones that defend that the arguments nothing more are of what presented facts in persuasiva way. For our practical interests none of the two positions interests. Fit-in giving attention to them, at the moment of the reply to the question (or to the doubt) if who it answers only tries to induce the interlocutor by means of arguments, or if the “presented facts” are demonstrated. With the time, it is each clearer time the distinction between a thing and another one. 3. To learn to give utility to the doubt: from the doubt many things can appear, and would say that to know to doubt he is one of the beddings of the well constructed human knowledge. In this direction, I defend the idea of that the person must become accustomed to formulate it its doubts/questions in view of its utility in knowledge terms. This can exactly be made simply asking itself: because desire to clarify this point? With the time we will perceive that much of our mental capacity was wasted with unfounded doubts, whereas crucial questions of our lives nor always are contemplated in our cogitações. 4. To know to who to direct the doubt: so important how much to make a pertinent question is to makeit it they alguem that it can answer you in satisfactory way. You are welcome it advances a question well formulated and an interlocutor who goes to deviate you from the way of the agreement, either for ineptitude, either for bad intention. Aparently obvious, this rule is not followed by many of us and requires great attention to become the search for the beneficial agreement. You are welcome advances to consult a doctor being wanted to clarify a doubt on the history of sciences, for example.
5. To try to answer mentally to its proper doubt: therefore exactly that it is not possible to answer to its proper question, when placing it again (and if possible in another way) the raciocíio takes new ways and take-in the ones in the best one of the hypotheses to reformulate our doubts and concepts. These small steps are the contribution that I leave to the readers of shvoong, modest certainly, but offered as a simple way to bring to all the beddings of the philosophical and epistemológica reflection. In the next abstract to this series I will go to approach the question of the composition of arguments. Good advantage to all!