Meditations on First Philosophy

Meditations on First Philosophy in which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated (Latin: Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animæ immortalitas demonstratur) is a philosophical treatise by René Descartes first published in Latin in 1641. The French translation (by the Duke of Luynes with Descartes' supervision) was published in 1647 as Méditations Métaphysiques. The title may contain a misreading by the printer, mistaking animae immortalitas for animae immaterialitas, as suspected by A. Baillet.[1]

The book is made up of six meditations, in which Descartes first discards all belief in things that are not absolutely certain, and then tries to establish what can be known for sure. He wrote the meditations as if he had meditated for six days: each meditation refers to the last one as "yesterday". (In fact, Descartes began work on the Meditations in 1639.)[2] One of the most influential philosophical texts ever written, it is widely read to this day.[3]

The book consists of the presentation of Descartes' metaphysical system in its most detailed level and in the expanding of his philosophical system, first introduced in the fourth part of his Discourse on Method (1637). Descartes' metaphysical thought is also found in the Principles of Philosophy (1644), which the author intended to be a philosophy guidebook.

Meditationes de prima philosophia 1641
The title page of the Meditations.

Letter of Dedication and Preface

Letter of dedication

To the most wise and illustrious the Dean and Doctors of the Sacred Faculty of Theology in Paris

Descartes says that he is asking the protection of the Faculty for his work, and to this end he writes the present dedication.

His first consideration is that the existence of God has to be demonstrated philosophically, besides the theological reasons for belief, particularly if we consider to make a demonstration for the non-believers. Moreover, the believers could be accused of making a circular reasoning, when saying that we must believe in God because of the Scriptures, and in the authority of the Scriptures because they have been inspired by God. He further indicates how the very Scriptures say that the mind of man is sufficient to discover God.

His aim is to apply a method to demonstrate these two truths, in a so clear and evident manner that result to be evident. This method he has developed for the Sciences.[4]

Preface to the reader

Descartes explains how he made a mention of the two questions, the existence of God, and the soul, in his Discourse on Method. Following this, he received objections, and two of them he considers are of importance. The first is how he concludes that the essence of the soul is a thing that thinks, excluding all other nature. To this he says that he has a clear perception that he is a thinking thing, and has no other clear perception, and from this he concludes that there is nothing else in the essence of the self.

The second is that from the idea I have of something that is more perfect than myself, it cannot be concluded that it exists. In the treatise we will see that in fact from the idea that there is something more perfect than myself, it follows that this exists.

It goes on to comment that on a general level the reasoning used by the atheists for denying the existence of God is based in the fact that "we ascribe to God affections that are human, or we attribute so much strength and wisdom to our minds" that we presume to understand that which God can and ought to do. He says that we have to consider God as incomprehensible and infinite, and our minds as limited and finite.

Finally says that the treatise was submitted to some men of learning to know their difficulties and objections, and are answered at the end of it.[4]

Summary of Meditations

Meditation I: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt

Summary

The First Meditation, subtitled "What can be called into doubt", opens with the Meditator reflecting on the number of falsehoods he has believed during his life and on the subsequent faultiness of the body of knowledge he has built up from these falsehoods. He has resolved to sweep away all he thinks he knows and to start again from the foundations, building up his knowledge once more on more certain grounds. He has seated himself alone, by the fire, free of all worries so that he can demolish his former opinions with care.

The Meditator reasons that he need only find some reason to doubt his present opinions in order to prompt him to seek sturdier foundations for knowledge. Rather than doubt every one of his opinions individually, he reasons that he might cast them all into doubt if he can doubt the foundations and basic principles on which the opinions are founded.

Everything that the Meditator has accepted as most true he has come to learn from or through his senses. He acknowledges that sometimes the senses can deceive, but only with respect to objects that are very small or far away, and that our sensory knowledge on the whole is quite sturdy. The Meditator acknowledges that insane people might be more deceived, but that he is clearly not one of them and needn't worry himself about that.

However, the Meditator realizes that he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects. He feels certain that he is awake and sitting by the fire, but reflects that often he has dreamed this very sort of thing and been wholly convinced by it. Though his present sensations may be dream images, he suggests that even dream images are drawn from waking experience, much like paintings in that respect. Even when a painter creates an imaginary creature, like a mermaid, the composite parts are drawn from real things—women and fish, in the case of a mermaid. And even when a painter creates something entirely new, at least the colors in the painting are drawn from real experience. Thus, the Meditator concludes, though he can doubt composite things, he cannot doubt the simple and universal parts from which they are constructed like shape, quantity, size, time, etc. While we can doubt studies based on composite things, like medicine, astronomy, or physics, he concludes that we cannot doubt studies based on simple things, like arithmetic and geometry.

On further reflection, the Meditator realizes that even simple things can be doubted. Omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false. One might argue that God is supremely good and would not lead him to believe falsely all these things. But by this reasoning we should think that God would not deceive him with regard to anything, and yet this is clearly not true. If we suppose there is no God, then there is even greater likelihood of being deceived, since our imperfect senses would not have been created by a perfect being.

The Meditator finds it almost impossible to keep his habitual opinions and assumptions out of his head, try as he might. He resolves to pretend that these opinions are totally false and imaginary in order to counterbalance his habitual way of thinking. The Meditator wishes to avoid an excess of skepticism and instead uses a skeptical method, an important distinction. He supposes that not God, but some evil demon has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false. By doubting everything, he can at least be sure not to be misled into falsehood by this demon.

Before retiring for the night, the Meditator indulges in his old beliefs, afraid to awake to a life of confusion. As a result he allows for the tempting falsehoods to continue unabridged. [5]

Analysis

Descartes saw his Meditations as providing the metaphysical underpinning of his new physics. Like Galileo, he sought to overturn what he saw as two-thousand-year-old prejudices injected into the Western tradition by Aristotle. The Aristotelian thought of Descartes' day placed a great weight on the testimony of the senses, suggesting that all knowledge comes from the senses. The Meditator's suggestion that all one's most certain knowledge comes from the senses is meant to appeal directly to the Aristotelian philosophers who will be reading the Meditations. The motivation, then, behind the First Meditation is to start in a position the Aristotelian philosophers would agree with and then, subtly, to seduce them away from it. Descartes is aware of how revolutionary his ideas are, and must pay lip service to the orthodox opinions of the day in order to be heeded.

Reading the First Meditation as an effort to coax Aristotelians away from their customary opinions allows us to read different interpretations into the different stages of doubt. For instance, there is some debate as to whether Descartes intended his famous "Dream Argument" to suggest the universal possibility of dreaming—that though there is waking experience, I can never know which moments are dreams and which are waking—or the possibility of a universal dream—that my whole life is a dream and that there is no waking world. If we read Descartes as suggesting the universal possibility of dreaming, we can explain an important distinction between the Dream Argument and the later "Evil Demon Argument". The latter suggests that all we know is false and that we cannot trust the senses one bit. The Dream Argument, if meant to suggest the universal possibility of dreaming, suggests only that the senses are not always and wholly reliable. The Dream Argument questions Aristotelian epistemology, while the Evil Demon Argument does away with it altogether. The Painter's Analogy, which draws on the Dream Argument, concludes that mathematics and other purely cerebral studies are far more certain than astronomy or physics, which is an important step away from the Aristotelian reliance on the senses and toward Cartesian rationalism.

Read on its own, the First Meditation can be seen as presenting skeptical doubts as a subject of study in their own right. Certainly, skepticism is a much discussed and hotly debated topic in philosophy, even today. Descartes raised the mystifying question of how we can claim to know with certainty anything about the world around us. The idea is not that these doubts are probable, but that their possibility can never be entirely ruled out. And if we can never be certain, how can we claim to know anything? Skepticism cuts straight to the heart of the Western philosophical enterprise and its attempt to provide a certain foundation for our knowledge and understanding of the world. It can even be pushed so far as to be read as a challenge to our very notion of rationality.

It is difficult to justify a dismissal of skepticism. Western philosophy since Descartes has been largely marked and motivated by an effort to overcome this problem. Descartes' doubt is a methodological and rational doubt. That is, the Meditator is not just doubting everything at random, but is providing solid reasons for his doubt at each stage. For instance, he rejects the possibility that he might be mad, since that would undercut the rationality that motivates his doubt. Descartes is trying to set up this doubt within a rational framework, and needs to maintain a claim to rationality for his arguments to proceed. He goes on to suggest more powerful reasons to doubt that his beliefs are true. In general, his method is that of forming skeptical hypotheses — methodic doubt. In the first meditation, he considers whether he is mad, dreaming, or deceived by an evil demon.[6]

The general form of these arguments is:

  1. If I am dreaming/deceived, then my beliefs are unreliable.

Descartes' goal — as stated at the beginning of the meditation — is to suspend judgment about any belief that is even slightly doubtful. The skeptical scenarios show that all of the beliefs he considers in the first meditation—including, at the very least, all his beliefs about the physical world, are doubtful. So he decides to suspend judgment. He will henceforth give up all of his beliefs about the physical world. He also decides to continually remind himself to avoid habitually falling into accepting beliefs without support, a habit to which he is susceptible.

Meditation II: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That the mind is more known than the body

In Meditation II, Descartes lays out a pattern of thought, sometimes called representationalism,[7] in response to the doubts forwarded in Meditation I. He identifies five steps in this theory:

  1. We have access to only the world of our ideas; things in the world are accessed only indirectly.
  2. These ideas are understood to include all of the contents of the mind, including perceptions, images, memories, concepts, beliefs, intentions, decisions, etc.
  3. Ideas and the things they represent are separate from each other.
  4. These represented things are many times "external" to the mind.
  5. It is possible for these ideas to constitute either accurate or false representations.

Descartes argues that this representational theory disconnects the world from the mind, leading to the need for some sort of bridge to span the separation and provide good reasons to believe that the ideas accurately represent the outside world. The first plank he uses in constructing this bridge can be found in the following excerpt:

I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world — no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it. (Descartes, Meditation II: On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known Than the Body).

In other words, one's consciousness implies one's existence. In one of Descartes' replies to objections to the book, he summed this up in the phrase, "I think therefore I am".[8]

Once he secures his existence, however, Descartes seeks to find out what "I" is. He rejects the typical method, which looks for a definition (e.g., Rational Animal), because the words used in the definition would then need to be defined. He seeks simple terms that do not need to be defined in this way, but whose meaning can just be "seen". From these self-evident truths, complex terms can be built up.

The first of these self-evident truths is Descartes' proof of existence turned on its head:

But what then am I? A thinking thing. And what is that? Something that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and also senses and has mental images. (Descartes, Meditation II: On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known Than the Body).

To define himself further, Descartes turns to the example of wax. He determines that wax isn't wax because of its color, texture or shape, as all of these things can change and the substance still be wax. He believes that wax is perceived "by the intellect alone" (Meditation II: On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known Than the Body). Therefore, he distinguishes between ordinary perception and judgment. When one understands the mathematical principles of the substance, such as its expansion under heat, figure and motion, the knowledge of the wax can be clear and distinct.

If a substance such as wax can be known in this fashion, then the same must be of ourselves. The self, then, is not determined by what we sense of ourselves — these hands, this head, these eyes — but by simply the things one thinks. Thus, one "can't grasp anything more easily or plainly than [his] mind".[9]

Descartes concludes that he exists because he is a "thinking thing". If he is the thing that can be deceived and can think and have thoughts, then he must exist.

Meditation III: Concerning God, That He Exists

Descartes proposed that there are three types of ideas: Innate, Fictitious, and Adventitious. Innate ideas are and have always been within us, fictitious or invented ideas come from our imagination, and Adventitious ideas come from experiences of the world. He argues that the idea of God is Innate and placed in us by God, and he rejected the possibility that the idea of God is Invented or Adventitious.

Argument 1

  1. Something cannot come from nothing.
  2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
  3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality.
  4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea.
  5. So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the source of my idea of God).
  6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being.
  7. So God is benevolent...
  8. So God would not deceive me, and would not permit me to err without giving me a way to correct my errors.

Argument 2

  1. I exist.
  2. My existence must have a cause.
  3. The only possible ultimate causes are
a) myself
b) my always having existed
c) my parents
d) something less perfect than God
e) God
4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
8. Therefore, e. God exists.

Descartes argued that he had a clear and distinct idea of God. In the same way that the cogito was self-evident, so too is the existence of God, as his perfect idea of a perfect being could not have been caused by anything less than a perfect being.[10]

Meditation IV: Concerning the True and the False

The conclusions of the previous Meditations that "I" and "God" both exist lead to another problem: If God is perfectly good and the source of all that is, how is there room for error or falsehood? Descartes attempts to answer this question in Meditation IV: On Truth and Falsity.

If I've got everything in me from God and He hasn't given me the ability to make errors, it doesn't seem possible for me ever to be in error. (Descartes, Meditation IV: On Truth and Falsity).

The framework of his arguments center on the Great Chain of Being, in which God's perfect goodness is relative to His perfect being. On the extreme opposite end of the scale is complete nothingness, which is also the most evil state possible. Thus, humans are an intermediary between these two extremes, being less "real" or "good" than God, but more "real" and "good" than nothingness. Thus, error (as a part of evil) is not a positive reality, it is only the absence of what is correct. In this way, its existence is allowed within the context of a perfectly inerrant God.

I find that I am "intermediate" between God and nothingness, between the supreme entity and nonentity. Insofar as I am the creation of the supreme entity, there's nothing in me to account for my being deceived or led into error, but, inasmuch as I somehow participate in nothing or nonentity — that is, insofar as I am distinct from the supreme entity itself and lack many things — it's not surprising that I go wrong. I thus understand that, in itself, error is a lack, rather than a real thing dependent on God. Hence, I understand that I can err without God's having given me a special ability to do so. Rather, I fall into error because my God-given ability to judge the truth is not infinite. (Descartes, Meditation IV: On Truth and Falsity).

Descartes also concedes two points that might allow for the possibility of his ability to make errors. First, he notes that it is very possible that his limited knowledge prevents him from understanding why God chose to create him so he could make mistakes. If he could see the things that God could see, with a complete and infinite scope, perhaps he would judge his ability to err as the best option. He uses this point to attack the Aristotelian structure of causes. The final cause described by Aristotle are the "what for" of an object, but Descartes claims that because he is unable to comprehend completely the mind of God, it is impossible to understand completely the "why" through science — only the "how".

I realize that I shouldn't be surprised at God's doing things that I can't explain. I shouldn't doubt His existence just because I find that I sometimes can't understand why or how He has made something. I know that my nature is weak and limited and that God's is limitless, incomprehensible, and infinite, and, from this, I can infer that He can do innumerable things whose reasons are unknown to me. On this ground alone, I regard the common practice of explaining things in terms of their purposes to be useless in physics: it would be foolhardy of me to think that I can discover God's purposes. (Descartes, Meditation IV: On Truth and Falsity).

Secondly, he considers the possibility that an apparent error at the individual level could be understood within the totality of creation as error free.

When asking whether God's works are perfect, I ought to look at all of them together, not at one isolation. For something that seems imperfect when viewed alone might seem completely perfect when regarded as having a place in the world. Of course, since calling everything into doubt, I haven't established that anything exists besides me and God. But, when I consider God's immense power, I can't deny that He has made — or, in any case, that He could have made — many other things, and I must therefore view myself as having a place in a universe. (Descartes, Meditation IV: On Truth and Falsity).

Lastly, Meditation IV attributes the source of error to a discrepancy between two divine gifts: understanding and free will. Understanding is given in an incomplete form, while will (by nature) can only be either completely given or not given at all. When he is presented with a certain amount of understanding and then chooses to act outside of that, he is in error. Thus, the gifts of God (understanding and will) both remain good and only the incorrect usage by him remains as error.

If I suspend judgement when I don't clearly and distinctly grasp what is true, I obviously do right and am not deceived. But, if I either affirm or deny in a case of this sort, I misuse my freedom of choice. If I affirm what is false, I clearly err, and, if I stumble onto the truth, I'm still blameworthy since the light of nature reveals that a perception of the understanding should always precede a decision of the will. In these misuses of freedom of choice lies the deprivation that accounts for error. And this deprivation, I maintain, lies in the working of the will insofar as it comes from me — not in my God-given ability to will, or even in the will's operation insofar as it derives from Him. (Descartes, Meditation IV: On Truth and Falsity).[10]

Meditation V: Concerning the Essence of Material Things, and Again Concerning God, That He Exists

Meditation V: Concerning the Essence of Material Things, and Again Concerning God, That He Exists begins with the stated purpose of expanding the "known items" of God and self to include outside material objects; but Descartes saves that for Meditation VI in lieu of something he deems more fundamental but in the same direction: a discussion concerning the ideas of those external items. Along the way, he advances another logical proof of God's existence.

Before asking whether any such objects exist outside me, I ought to consider the ideas of these objects as they exist in my thoughts and see which are clear and which confused. (Descartes, Meditation V: On the Essence of Material Objects and More on God's Existence).

Descartes separates external objects into those that are clear and distinct and those that are confused and obscure. The former group consists of the ideas of extension, duration and movement. These geometrical ideas cannot be misconstrued or combined in a way that makes them false. For example, if the idea of a creature with the head of a giraffe, the body of a lion and tail of a beaver was constructed and the question asked if the creature had a large intestine, the answer would have to be invented. But, no mathematical re-arrangement of a triangle could allow its three internal angles to sum to anything but 180 degrees. Thus, Descartes perceived that truths may have a nature or essence of themselves, independent of the thinker. (In Descartes' formulation, this is a mathematical truth only pragmatically related to nature; the properties of triangles in Euclidean geometry remain mathematically certain[11])

I find in myself innumerable ideas of things which, though they may not exist outside me, can't be said to be nothing. While I have some control over my thoughts of these things, I do not make the things up: they have their own real and immutable natures. Suppose, for example, that I have a mental image of a triangle. While it may be that no figure of this sort does exist or ever has existed outside my thought, the figure has a fixed nature (essence or form), immutable and eternal, which hasn't been produced by me and isn't dependent of my mind. (Descartes, Meditation V: On the Essence of Material Objects and More on God's Existence).

While thinking about the independence of these ideas of external objects, Descartes realizes that he is just as certain about God as he is about these mathematical ideas. He asserts that this is natural as the ideas of God are the only ideas that imply God's existence. He uses the example of a mountain and a valley. While one cannot picture a mountain without a valley, it's possible that these do not exist. However, the fact that one cannot conceive of God without existence inherently rules out the possibility of God's non-existence. Simply put, the argument is framed as follows:

  1. God is defined as an infinitely perfect being.
  2. Perfection includes existence.
  3. So God exists.

This ontological argument originated in the work of St. Anselm, the medieval Scholastic philosopher and theologian. While Descartes had already claimed to have confirmed God's existence through previous arguments, this one allows him to put to rest any discontent he might have had with his "distinct and clear" criteria for truth. With a confirmed existence of God, all doubt that what one previously thought was real and not a dream can be removed. Having made this realization, Descartes asserts that without this sure knowledge in the existence of a supreme and perfect being, assurance of any truth is impossible.

Thus I plainly see that the certainty and truth of all my knowledge derives from one thing: my thought of the true God. Before I knew Him, I couldn't know anything else perfectly. But now I can plainly and certainly know innumerable things, not only about God and other mental beings, but also about the nature of physical objects, insofar as it is the subject-matter of pure mathematics.

— Descartes, Meditation V: On the Essence of Material Objects and More on God's Existence)[12]

Meditation VI: Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body

In Meditation VI: Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body, Descartes addresses the potential existence of material outside of the self and God. First, he asserts that such objects can exist simply because God is able to make them. Therefore, our assumption of the physical world outside of ourselves in non theoretical sense.

Insofar as they are the subject of pure mathematics, I now know at least that they can exist, because I grasp them clearly and distinctly. For God can undoubtedly make whatever I can grasp in this way, and I never judge that something is impossible for Him to make unless there would be a contradiction in my grasping the thing distinctly. (Descartes, Meditation VI: On the Existence of Material Objects from Body).

Knowing that the existence of such objects is possible, Descartes then turns to the prevalence of mental images as proof. To do this, he draws a distinction between imagination and understanding—imagination being a non-linguistic "faculty of knowledge to the body which is immediately present to it [...] without intellection or conception," which therefore exists like a mental photograph; and understanding (or apprehending) being something that is not necessarily pictured. He uses an example of this to clarify:

When I have a mental image of a triangle, for example, I don't just understand that it is a figure bounded by three lines; I also "look at" the lines as though they were present to my mind's eye. And this is what I call having a mental image. When I want to think of a chiliagon, I understand that it is a figure with a thousand sides as well as I understand that a triangle is a figure with three, but I can't imagine its sides or "look" at them as though they were present (...) Thus I observe that a special effort of mind is necessary to the act of imagination, which is not required to conceiving or understanding (ad intelligendum); and this special exertion of mind clearly shows the difference between imagination and pure intellection (imaginatio et intellectio pura). (Descartes, Meditation VI: On the Existence of Material Objects and the Real Distinction of Mind from Body).[13]

Descartes has still not given proof that such external objects exist. At this point, he has only shown that their existence could conveniently explain this mental process. To obtain this proof, he first reviews his premises for the Meditations — that the senses cannot be trusted and what he is taught "by nature" does not have much credence. However, he views these arguments within a new context; after writing Meditation I, he has proved the existence of himself and of a perfect God. Thus, Descartes jumps quickly to proofs of the division between the body and mind and that material things exist:

Proof for the body being distinct from the mind

  1. It is possible for God to create anything I can clearly and distinctly perceive.
  2. If God creates something to be independent of another, they are distinct from each other.
  3. I clearly and distinctly understand my existence as a thinking thing (which does not require the existence of a body).
  4. So God can create a thinking thing independently of a body.
  5. I clearly and distinctly understand my body as an extended thing (which does not require a mind).
  6. So God can create a body independently of a mind.
  7. So my mind is a reality distinct from my body.
  8. So I (a thinking thing) can exist without a body.

Proof of the reality of external material things

  1. I have a "strong inclination" to believe in the reality of external material things due to my senses.
  2. God must have created me with this nature.
  3. If independent material things do not exist, God is a deceiver.
  4. But God is not a deceiver.
  5. So material things exist and contain the properties essential to them.

After using these two arguments to dispel solipsism and skepticism, Descartes seems to have succeeded in defining reality as being in three parts: God (infinite), minds, and material things (both finite). He closes by addressing natural phenomena that might appear to challenge his philosophy, such as phantom limbs, dreams, and dropsy.

Objections and replies

Descartes submitted his manuscript to many philosophers, theologians and a logician before publishing the Meditations. Their objections and his replies (many of which are quite extensive) were included in the first publication of the Meditations. In the Preface to the Meditations, Descartes asks the reader "not to pass judgment on the Meditations until they have been kind enough to read through all these objections and my replies to them.” Thus, this dialogue could be seen as an integral part of Descartes' views expressed in the Meditations.

The seven objectors were, in order (of the sets as they were published):

  • The Dutch theologian Johannes Caterus (Johan de Kater) – first set of objections.
  • Various "theologians and philosophers" gathered by Descartes' friend and principal correspondent, Friar Marin Mersenne – second set of objections
  • The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes – third set of objections
  • The theologian and logician Antoine Arnauld – fourth set
  • The philosopher Pierre Gassendi – fifth set (Descartes wrote that all of these could be easily dismissed.[14])
  • Another miscellany gathered by Mersenne – sixth set
  • The Jesuit Pierre Bourdin – seventh set of objections

They make many objections to Descartes’ arguments and method.[15] Some of the objections show that the objector has misunderstood the text, or wilfully misquoted it, as in the last set of objections by the Jesuit. Descartes’ response to these is often dismissive and curt. Other objections are more powerful, and in some cases it is controversial whether Descartes responds to them successfully (refer to Hobbes' objections). At times Descartes' demeanor suggests that he expected no criticisms would be forthcoming.[16]

Some of the most powerful objections include the following:

Objections to proof(s) of God’s existence:

A. We have no (clear) idea of an infinite Being (1st, 2nd, and 5th objections).

B. From the fact that I can think of a perfect being, it doesn’t follow that the perfect being exists (1st, 2nd, and 5th).

C. We could get the idea of God without God’s causing the idea (2nd, 3rd).

D. Nothing can cause itself to exist (4th), so God can’t cause himself to exist unless God is composed of some essence that in and of itself has the property of timelessness.

Objections to the epistemology:

A. How can we be sure that what we think is a clear and distinct perception really is clear and distinct (3rd, 5th)?

B. Circle objection 1: if we aren’t certain that judgments based on clear and distinct ideas are true before we prove God’s existence, then we can’t be certain that we are a thinking thing (2nd). Circle objection 2: if we aren’t certain that clear and distinct ideas are true before we prove God’s existence, then we can’t be certain that God exists, since we use clear and distinct ideas to prove God’s existence (4th).

C. Contrary to what Descartes argues, we are certain that bodies exist/that perception coincides with reality (5th, 6th), but we are not certain that the bodies of our perception are actual bodies in an existent external world.

Objections to philosophy of mind:

A. Ideas are always imagistic (3rd), so we have no idea of thinking substance (non-image idea).

B. We can’t conclude that the mind (thinking thing) is not also a corporeal thing, unless we know that we know everything about the mind. But we don’t know that we know everything about the mind. So we don’t know that the mind isn’t corporeal. (2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th).

Elisabeth of Bohemia also corresponded with Descartes on the Meditations.[17] She objected both to his description of the union between mind and body, and that virtue and moral truths seem to need to be grasped by something other than the intellect (despite Descartes's assertion that all truths must be grasped intellectually).[18]

Influence and legacy

The historical impact of the six meditations has been divided. The first two meditations, which employed the skeptical methodic doubt and concluded that only the ego and its thoughts are indubitable, have had a huge impact in the history of philosophy.[19] They are often considered as epoch-making for modernity, and an unavoidable first step for any modern philosophical thinking.[19][20]

Arthur David Smith, author of the Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Husserl, claims that since Edmund Husserl usually refers only to "the first two" of the Meditations, therefore Husserl must have thought that they are the only part of Descartes' work with any philosophical importance at all.[19]

See also

References

  1. ^ Adrien Baillet: La Vie de Mr. Descartes Paris 1692 p. 176. Cf. Theodor Ebert, Immortalitas oder Immaterialitas? Zum Untertitel von Descartes' Meditationen in: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 74 (1992) 180-202,
  2. ^ Skirry, J. (2008-09-13). "Descartes, René: Overview [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 2010-06-17.
  3. ^ Watson, Richard A. (31 March 2012). "René Descartes". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved 31 March 2012.
  4. ^ a b René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy in Focus. Edited by Stanley Tweyman. Routledge. 34–40. London and New York. 1993. ISBN 978-0415077071
  5. ^ Perry, Bratman, Fischer, John, Michael, John Martin. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-981299-8.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Descartes' Epistemology". plato.stanford.edu. 2005-04-14. Retrieved 2010-06-17.
  7. ^ "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Descartes' Epistemology". plato.stanford.edu. 2010-07-20. Retrieved 2013-04-03.
  8. ^ "René Descartes – French Philosopher and Scientist – Quotes". Egs.edu. Archived from the original on 2013-12-24. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
  9. ^ Descartes original meditation 2 translation
  10. ^ a b http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/meditation3.html Descartes original meditation 3 translation
  11. ^ Toulmin, S. (August 1996). "Descartes in His Time". In Weissman, William Theodore Bluhm, D. Discourse on the method: and, Meditations on first philosophy. Rethinking the Western Tradition. Yale University Press. p. 139. If Euclid is right, it is not the case that we know nothing permanently and for certain. A natural philosophy grounded in mathematics avoids the traditional objections to empirical or sensory knowledge: the sixteenth-century skeptics had been premature in despairing of any enduring systems of theoretical knowledge.
  12. ^ "Descartes' Meditations". as translated by John Veitch in 1901
  13. ^ "Descartes' Meditations". as translated by John Veitch in 1901
  14. ^ "Appendix to Fifth Objections and Replies: Author's note concerning the fifth set of objections". Meditations, Objections and Replies. 1647. I have not been able to discover a single objection which those who have some slight understanding of my Meditations will not, in my view, be able to answer quite easily without any help from me.
  15. ^ "Objections to Descartes Meditations". Archived from the original on 2010-09-06. Retrieved 2010-06-15.
  16. ^ Hobbes objections to Descartes' Meditations with Descartes' replies Archived 2009-02-10 at the Wayback Machine
  17. ^ Shapiro, L., ed. (June 2007). The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and Rene Descartes. The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-20442-0.
  18. ^ "Introduction". www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2010-06-16.
  19. ^ a b c Smith, Arthur David (2003) Routledge philosophy guidebook to Husserl and the Cartesian meditations pp.12–3 quotation:

    What even more precisely, therefore, is distinctive of Descartes is his 'regression' to the indubitable ego as the only possible way of combating scepticism. [...] Since, for Husserl, scepticism provided the goal that led the Greeks to the primal establishment of phylosophy, such a regression to the ego now emerges for the first time with Descartes as the necessary first step in philosophy. This is the 'ethernal significance' of Descartes's Meditations. They 'indicate, or attempt to indicate, the necessary style of the philosophycal beginning'. [...]

    In fact, the Cogito is the only thing in Descartes that is, according to Husserl, of any philosophical significance at all. Almost every time he refers to Descartes's Meditations in his other writings (e.g., EP I, 63; Crisis 76 [75]), it is the first two meditations that he refers to: those that solely concern the regression to the indubitability of the ego and its 'thoughts' through the offices of methodical doubt. Descartes's last four meditations do not even get a look in.

  20. ^ Husserl (1929) Cartesian Meditations p.4 quotation:

    [...] great weight must be given to the consideration that, in philosophy, the Meditations were epoch-making in a quite unique sense, and precisely because of their going back to the pure ego cogito. Descartes, in fact, inaugurates an entirely new kind of philosophy. Changing its total style, philosophy takes a radical turn: from naive objectivism to transcendental subjectivism.

Collected works in French and Latin

  • Oeuvres de Descartes edited by Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, Paris: Léopold Cerf, 1897–1913, 13 volumes; new revised edition, Paris: Vrin-CNRS, 1964–1974, 11 volumes (the first 5 volumes contains the correspondence).

English translations

  • The Philosophical Writings Of Descartes, 3 vols., translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
  • The Philosophical Works of Descartes, 2 vols, translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane, and G.R.T. Ross (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
  • The Method, Meditations and Philosophy of Descartes, translated by John Veitch (1901)

Single works

Further reading

  • Alquié, Ferdinand. La découverte métaphysique de l'homme chez Descartes (Paris: PUF, 2000).
  • Ariew, Roger & Grene, Marjorie (eds.), Descartes and His Contemporaries. Meditations, Objections and Replies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
  • Beyssade, Jean-Marie. La Philosophie première de Descartes (Paris: Flammarion, 1979).
  • Cottingham, John. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Descartes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
  • Dicker, Georges. Descartes: An Analytical and Historical Introduction (New York: OUP, 1993)
  • Frankfurt, Harry. Demons, Dreamers and Madmen (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970).
  • Gilson, Étienne. Etudes sur le rôle de la pensée médiévale dans la formation du système cartésien (Paris: Vrin, 1930).
  • Gueroult, Martial. Descartes selon L'Ordre des Raisons (Paris: Aubier, 1968). Translated by Roger Ariew as Descartes' Philosophy Interpreted According to the Order of Reasons (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).
  • Hatfield, Gary. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Descartes and the Meditations (London: Routledge, 2003).
  • Kenny, Anthony. Descartes: A Study of His Philosophy (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1968).
  • Rorty, Amelie. (ed.) Essays on Descartes' Meditations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).
  • Williams, Bernard. Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry (London: Penguin Books, 1978).
  • Wilson, Margaret. Descartes (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978).

External links

Online
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Others
1641 in France

Events from the year 1641 in France.

Cartesian Meditations

Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology (French: Méditations cartésiennes: Introduction à la phénoménologie) is a book by the philosopher Edmund Husserl, based on four lectures he gave at the Sorbonne, in the Amphithéatre Descartes on February 23 and 25, 1929. Over the next two years, he and his assistant Eugen Fink expanded and elaborated on the text of these lectures. These expanded lectures were first published in a 1931 French translation by Gabrielle Peiffer and Emmanuel Levinas with advice from Alexandre Koyré. They were published in German, along with the original Pariser Vortrage, in 1950, and again in an English translation by Dorion Cairns in 1960, based on a typescript of the text (Typescript C) which Husserl had designated for Cairns in 1933.

The Cartesian Meditations were never published in German during Husserl's lifetime, a fact which has led some commentators to conclude that Husserl had become dissatisfied with the work in relation to its aim, namely an introduction to transcendental phenomenology. The text introduces the main features of Husserl's mature transcendental phenomenology, including (not exhaustively) the transcendental reduction, the epoché, static and genetic phenomenology, eidetic reduction, and eidetic phenomenology. In the Fourth Meditation, Husserl argues that transcendental phenomenology is nothing other than transcendental idealism.

The name Cartesian Meditations refers to René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. Thus Husserl wrote:

France's greatest thinker, René Descartes, gave transcendental phenomenology new Impulses through his Meditations; their study acted quite directly on the transformation of an already developing phenomenology into a new kind of transcendental philosophy. Accordingly one might almost call transcendental phenomenology a neo-Cartesianism, even though It Is obliged — and precisely by its radical development of Cartesian motifs — to reject nearly all the well-known doctrinal content of the Cartesian philosophy.

Cartesian circle

The Cartesian circle is a potential mistake in reasoning attributed to René Descartes.

Descartes argues – for example, in the third of his Meditations on First Philosophy – that whatever one clearly and distinctly perceives is true: "I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true." (AT VII 35) He goes on in the same Meditation to argue for the existence of a benevolent God, in order to defeat his skeptical argument in the first Meditation that God might be a deceiver. He then says that without his knowledge of God's existence, none of his knowledge could be certain.

The Cartesian circle is a criticism of the above that takes this form:

Descartes' proof of the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions takes as a premise God's existence as a non-deceiver.

Descartes' proofs of God's existence presuppose the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions.Thus, Descartes' argument is circular.

Cartesian doubt

Cartesian doubt is a form of methodological skepticism associated with the writings and methodology of René Descartes (1596–1650). Cartesian doubt is also known as Cartesian skepticism, methodic doubt, methodological skepticism, universal doubt, systematic doubt or hyperbolic doubt.

Cartesian doubt is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy. This method of doubt was largely popularized in Western philosophy by René Descartes, who sought to doubt the truth of all his beliefs in order to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true. It is the basis for Descartes' statement, "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am").

Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certain knowledge.

Cartesianism

Cartesianism is the philosophical and scientific system of René Descartes and its subsequent development by other seventeenth century thinkers, most notably Nicolas Malebranche and Baruch Spinoza. Descartes is often regarded as the first thinker to emphasize the use of reason to develop the natural sciences. For him, the philosophy was a thinking system that embodied all knowledge, and expressed it in this way:Cartesians view the mind as being wholly separate from the corporeal body. Sensation and the perception of reality are thought to be the source of untruth and illusions, with the only reliable truths to be had in the existence of a metaphysical mind. Such a mind can perhaps interact with a physical body, but it does not exist in the body, nor even in the same physical plane as the body. The question of how mind and body interact would be a persistent difficulty for Descartes and his followers, with different Cartesians providing different answers.

Causal adequacy principle

The causal adequacy principle (CAP) is a philosophical claim made by René Descartes that the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself, whether formally or eminently.

Cogito, ergo sum

Cogito, ergo sum is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. It appeared in Latin in his later Principles of Philosophy. As Descartes explained, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt...." A fuller version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes's intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"). The concept is also sometimes known as the cogito.This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.

The critique against the proposition is the presupposition of an "I" doing the thinking, so that the most Descartes was entitled to say was: "thinking is occurring".

Cogito and the History of Madness

"Cogito and the History of Madness" is a paper by Jacques Derrida that critically responds to Michel Foucault's book the History of Madness. In this paper, Derrida questions the intentions and feasibility of Foucault's book, particularly in relation to the historical importance attributed by Foucault to the treatment of madness by Descartes in the Meditations on First Philosophy. Derrida's paper began a high-profile exchange between Derrida and Foucault as well as a considerable amount of attention from scholars. Foucault responded directly to Derrida in an appendix added to the 1972 edition of the History of Madness titled "My body, this paper, this fire." Derrida again considered Foucault's 1961 text on madness with "To do Justice to Freud: The History of madness in the age of psychoanalysis" in 1991. The exchange between Derrida and Foucault was sometimes acrimonious and it is said that "the two writers stopped communicating for ten years." Commentators on the exchange include Shoshana Felman, Gayatri Spivak, Geoffrey Bennington, Slavoj Žižek, Edward Saïd, Rémi Brague, Manfred Frank, and Christopher Norris.It had been stated that Derrida first used the neologism différance in "Cogito and the History of Madness", but more recent research has called this into question.

Desmond Clarke

Desmond M. Clarke (17 January 1942 – 17 September 2016) was an author and professor of philosophy at University College Cork, in Cork, Ireland. His research interests lay predominantly in the 17th century, on such topics as the history of philosophy and theories of science - with a specific interest in the writings of René Descartes, as well as contemporary church/state relations, human rights, and nationalism. He was co-editor of the Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy series, and he has translated and written an introduction for the Penguin edition of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. He retired from his position as Professor of Philosophy in 2006.Clarke was the founder and a general editor of Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy – 76 volumes have been published with new translations of non-English texts from ancient Greek, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, French, Italian and German. He died on 17 September 2016.

Discourse on the Method

Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences (French: Discours de la Méthode Pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences) is a philosophical and autobiographical treatise published by René Descartes in 1637. It is best known as the source of the famous quotation "Je pense, donc je suis" (English: "I think, therefore I am", or "I am thinking, therefore I exist"), which occurs in Part IV of the work. A similar argument, without this precise wording, is found in Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), and a Latin version of the same statement Cogito, ergo sum is found in Principles of Philosophy (1644).

Discourse on the Method is one of the most influential works in the history of modern philosophy, and important to the development of natural sciences. In this work, Descartes tackles the problem of skepticism, which had previously been studied by Sextus Empiricus, Al-Ghazali and Michel de Montaigne. Descartes modified it to account for a truth he found to be incontrovertible. Descartes started his line of reasoning by doubting everything, so as to assess the world from a fresh perspective, clear of any preconceived notions.

The book was originally published in Leiden, in the Netherlands. Later, it was translated into Latin and published in 1656 in Amsterdam. The book was intended as an introduction to three works: Dioptrique, Météores and Géométrie. La Géométrie contains Descartes's initial concepts that later developed into the Cartesian coordinate system. The text was written and published in French rather than Latin, the latter being the language in which most philosophical and scientific texts were written and published at that time. Most of Descartes' other works were written in Latin.

Together with Meditations on First Philosophy, Principles of Philosophy and Rules for the Direction of the Mind, it forms the base of the epistemology known as Cartesianism.

Dream argument

The dream argument is the postulation that the act of dreaming provides preliminary evidence that the senses we trust to distinguish reality from illusion should not be fully trusted, and therefore, any state that is dependent on our senses should at the very least be carefully examined and rigorously tested to determine whether it is in fact reality.

Egmond (municipality)

Egmond is a former municipality in the north-western Netherlands, in the province of North Holland. In 2001, it was merged with the municipalities of Schoorl and Bergen to form the municipality of Bergen. The three main villages in the former municipality are Egmond aan den Hoef, Egmond aan Zee and Egmond-Binnen. The place gave its name to the House of Egmond, who became the powerful protectors of Egmond Abbey, founded in the 9th-century in Egmond-Binnen, and who built their residence (hoeve/hoef) in Egmond aan den Hoef.

The French philosopher René Descartes, author of Meditations on First Philosophy, lived in both Egmond aan den Hoef and (mostly) Egmond-Binnen from April 1636 to September 1638 and again from May 1643 until the end of September 1649 before leaving for Sweden (where he died 4 months later). His Les Météores, La Dioptrique and La Géométrie were published in the first period and his letters to Elisabeth of the Palatinate and Les Passions de l'âme were from the second period. Descartes lived longer in Egmond then in any other place in his life.

Egmond aan den Hoef

Egmond aan den Hoef (52°37′N 4°39′E) is a village in the Dutch province of North Holland. It is a part of the municipality of Bergen, and lies about 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) west of Alkmaar. Until 2001, Egmond aan den Hoef was part of the municipality of Egmond.

In 2001 Egmond aan den Hoef had 2491 inhabitants. The built-up area of the town was 0.42 square kilometres (100 acres), and contained 922 residences. The wider statistical area of Egmond aan den Hoef had a population of around 3540, which had risen to 3920 by end 2008.In Egmond aan den Hoef are the remains of Egmond Castle, the residence of the House of Egmond. The castle was first built in the 11th century, and was destroyed around 1205. It was rebuilt and fortified, and was destroyed again in the 14th century. Again it was rebuilt. In 1573 at the order of William the Silent it was demolished by the Geuzen, led by Diederik Sonoy. The remnants were taken down at the end of the 18th century. During the 1930s the remains were dug up.

The French philosopher René Descartes, author of Meditations on First Philosophy, lived in Egmond aan den Hoef, right near the castle remains, in 1643-44 and perhaps longer. For many years he lived in the neighboring village of Egmond-Binnen.

Evil demon

The evil demon, also known as malicious demon and evil genius, is a concept in Cartesian philosophy. In the first of his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes imagines that an evil demon, of "utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me." This evil demon is imagined to present a complete illusion of an external world, so that Descartes can say, "I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgement. I shall consider myself as not having hands or eyes, or flesh, or blood or senses, but as falsely believing that I have all these things."

Some Cartesian scholars opine that the demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic, though omnipotence of the evil demon would be contrary to Descartes' hypothesis, as he rebuked accusations of the evil demon having omnipotence.It is one of several methods of systematic doubt that Descartes employs in the Meditations.

Glass delusion

The glass delusion is an external manifestation of a psychiatric disorder recorded in Europe mainly in the late Middle Ages and early modern period (15th to 17th centuries). People feared that they were made of glass "and therefore likely to shatter into pieces". One famous early sufferer was King Charles VI of France, who refused to allow people to touch him and wore reinforced clothing to protect himself from accidental "shattering".

Port-Royal Logic

Port-Royal Logic, or Logique de Port-Royal, is the common name of La logique, ou l'art de penser, an important textbook on logic first published anonymously in 1662 by Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, two prominent members of the Jansenist movement, centered on Port-Royal. Blaise Pascal likely contributed considerable portions of the text. Its linguistic companion piece is the Port Royal Grammar (1660) by Arnauld and Lancelot.

Written in French, it became quite popular and was in use up to the twentieth century, introducing the reader to logic, and exhibiting strong Cartesian elements in its metaphysics and epistemology (Arnauld having been one of the main philosophers whose objections were published, with replies, in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy). The Port-Royal Logic is sometimes cited as a paradigmatic example of traditional term logic.

The philosopher Louis Marin particularly studied it in the 20th century (La Critique du discours, Éditions de Minuit, 1975), while Michel Foucault considered it, in The Order of Things, one of the bases of the classical épistémè.

Among the contributions of the Port-Royal Logic is the introduction of a distinction between comprehension and extension, which would later become a more refined distinction between intension and extension. Roughly speaking: a definition with more qualifications or features (the intension) denotes a class with fewer members (the extension), and vice versa.

The main idea traces back through the scholastic philosophers to Aristotle's ideas about genus and species, and is fundamental in the philosophy of Leibniz. More recently, it has been related to mathematical lattice theory in Formal Concept Analysis, and independently formalized similarly by Yu. Schreider's group in Moscow, Jon Barwise & Jerry Seligman in Information Flow, and others.

Principles of Philosophy

Principles of Philosophy (Latin: Principia Philosophiæ) is a book by René Descartes. In essence it is a synthesis of the Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy It was written in Latin, published in 1644 and dedicated to Elisabeth of Bohemia, with whom Descartes had a long-standing friendship. A French version (Les Principes de la Philosophie) followed in 1647. It set forth the principles of nature—the Laws of Physics—as Descartes viewed them. Most notably, it set forth the principle that in the absence of external forces, an object's motion will be uniform and in a straight line. Newton borrowed this principle from Descartes and included it in his own Principia; to this day, it is still generally referred to as Newton's First Law of Motion. The book was primarily intended to replace the Aristotelian curriculum then used in French and British universities. The work provides a systematic statement of his metaphysics and natural philosophy, and represents the first truly comprehensive, mechanistic account of the universe.

René Descartes

René Descartes (US: , UK: , French: [ʁəne dekaʁt]; Latinized: Renatus Cartesius; adjectival form: Cartesian; 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. A native of the Kingdom of France, he spent about 20 years (1629–1649) of his life in the Dutch Republic after serving for a while in the Dutch States Army of Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange and the Stadtholder of the United Provinces. He is generally considered one of the most notable intellectual figures of the Dutch Golden Age.Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) continues to be a standard text at most university philosophy departments. Descartes' influence in mathematics is equally apparent; the Cartesian coordinate system (see below) was named after him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry, the bridge between algebra and geometry, used in the discovery of infinitesimal calculus and analysis. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the Scientific Revolution.

Descartes refused to accept the authority of previous philosophers. He frequently set his views apart from those of his predecessors. In the opening section of the Passions of the Soul, an early modern treatise on emotions, Descartes goes so far as to assert that he will write on this topic "as if no one had written on these matters before". His best known philosophical statement is "I think, therefore I am" (French: Je pense, donc je suis; Latin: Ego cogito, ergo sum), found in Discourse on the Method (1637; written in French and Latin) and Principles of Philosophy (1644; written in Latin).Many elements of his philosophy have precedents in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or in earlier philosophers like Augustine. In his natural philosophy, he differed from the schools on two major points: first, he rejected the splitting of corporeal substance into matter and form; second, he rejected any appeal to final ends, divine or natural, in explaining natural phenomena. In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of God's act of creation.

Descartes laid the foundation for 17th-century continental rationalism, later advocated by Spinoza and Leibniz, and was later opposed by the empiricist school of thought consisting of Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Leibniz, Spinoza, and Descartes were all well-versed in mathematics as well as philosophy, and Descartes and Leibniz contributed greatly to science as well.

Wax argument

The wax argument or the ball of wax example is a thought experiment that René Descartes created within his Meditations on First Philosophy. He devised it to analyze what properties are essential for bodies, show how uncertain our knowledge of the world is compared to our knowledge of our minds, and argue for rationalism.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.