As Boyer rightly points out, however, this does not diminish the importance of the work in the history of mathematics. In Descartes began writing the Meditations. And, in he returned to Leiden to help work out its publication.
There is evidence suggesting that he was called away from Leiden around the time of her death, returning soon after. Some have speculated that he left Leiden to be at her side. Rather, it seems to have been in a letter from Mersenne that Descartes first learns of it. In a follow up letter to Mersenne, dated 3 December , Descartes expresses regret in not having been able to see his father before his death.
Mersenne sent the Meditations to philosophers and theologians for criticism. The list of critics includes: Caterus, Hobbes, Arnauld, Gassendi, and Mersenne himself, with several other unnamed readers who raised their objections through Mersenne. A later edition would include an objection from Bordin. The Meditations opens by developing skeptical questions concerning the possibility of knowledge.
Through a series of several carefully thought out meditations, the reader establishes along with the author the groundwork for the possibility of knowledge scientia. There were two styles of presentation: analytic and synthetic. It is important not to confuse these terms with those, say, used by Kant.
For Descartes the analytic style of presentation and inquiry proceeds by beginning with what is commonly taken to be known and discovering what is necessary for such knowledge.
Thus, the inquiry moves from what is commonly known to first principles. By contrast, the synthetic style of presentation begins by asserting first principles and then to determining what follows. Prompted by Mersenne, Descartes sketches out in the Second Replies a synthetic rendering of the Meditations.
In establishing the ground for science, Descartes was at the same time overthrowing a system of natural philosophy that had been established for centuries—a qualitative, Aristotelian physics. But please do not tell people, for that might make it harder for supporters of Aristotle to approve them.
I hope that readers will gradually get used to my principles, and recognize their truth, before they notice that they destroy the principles of Aristotle. Specifically, the Cartesian view denies that physics is grounded in hot, cold, wet, and dry. Rather, the only properties of bodies with which the physicist can concern him or herself are size, shape, motion, position, and so on—those modifications that conceptually or logically entail extension in length, breadth, and depth.
This conception of matter, conjoined with the sort of mathematics found in the Geometry , allies itself with the work of such Italian natural philosophers as Tartaglia, Ubaldo, and Galileo, and helps further the movement of early thinkers in their attempts to establish a mathematical physics.
Though the endorsement of the Learned Men would not have guaranteed that the Meditations would be accepted or used as a textbook, it could certainly be viewed as an important step to getting it accepted. He was, it could be said, a freelancer with no academic or political ties to the university outside of his connection to Mersenne.
And, he certainly lacked the credentials and reputation of someone like a Eustachius, whose widely used textbook of the period is of the sort the Meditations was in all likelihood aimed at replacing. Although the Meditations seems to have been endorsed by the Sorbonne, it was never adopted as a text for the university. In his defense Descartes entered into the debate. The controversy would leave Regius confined to teaching medicine, and his published defense of his conception of Cartesian thought would be officially condemned by Voetius, who in five years time would rise to the position of University rector.
At the end of the debate, which off and on lasted about five years, the situation ultimately became desperate for Descartes. He feared being expelled from the country and of seeing his books burned. In , at the age of forty-seven, Descartes moved to Egmond du Hoef.
With the Voetius controversy seemingly behind him though, as mentioned above, it would again raise its head and climax five years down the road , Descartes and Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia began to correspond.
In this exchange, Princess Elisabeth probed Descartes on the implications of his commitment to mind-body dualism. During this time, he completed a final draft of a new textbook, which he had begun three years earlier, the Principia Philosophiae Principles of Philosophy , and in it was published. He dedicated it to Princess Elisabeth. The Principles is an important text. The work is divided into four Parts, with five hundred and four articles.
Although it would appear to be a quick run through of the Meditations , there are a number of dissimilarities. The principles introduced in Part Two are based on the metaphysics of Part One. And, the subsequent physics developed in Parts Three and Four is based upon the principles of Part Two. Although the physics turns out to be unsound, the Principles nevertheless inspired such great thinkers as Robert Boyle — , Edmond Halley — , and Isaac Newton.
As an important side note, it must be stressed that even though Descartes had throughout his career put a great deal of emphasis on mathematics, the physics developed in the Principles does not appear to be a mathematical physics.
Rather, it is traditionally taken to be a conceptual project with only a hint of empirical overtones—a physics rooted entirely in metaphysics. Two parts, never completed, were originally intended to deal with plants, animals, and man. In light of this and what Descartes says in a 31 January letter to the mathematician Constantijn Huygens, it is plausible to think that the Principles would have looked something like The World had it been completed as planned. One of the more controversial positions the Principles forwarded, at least according to Newton, was that a vacuum was impossible.
In other words, vacuum, taken as an extended nothing , is a flat contradiction. The corporeal universe is thus a plenum, individual bodies separated only by their surfaces. Newton argued in his De Gravitatione and Principia that the concept of motion becomes problematic if the universe is taken to be a plenum. In line with the ancient atomist Epicurus, they argued that if matter was infinitely divisible, so dividing it would show that there was no bottom—and so, corporeality would not be substantial.
So, if corporeality is substantial, as Descartes himself had claimed, there must be a minimum measure of extension that could not be divided by natural means, anyway. And so, there are atoms. But, this conclusion is something that Descartes explicitly rejects in the Principles. During this year another prominent political figure began to correspond with Descartes, Queen Christina of Sweden.
And, Regius published what he took to be a new and improved version of Cartesian science, which as we now know would draw the wrath of Voetius. In response to this, Descartes wrote a single-page printed defense that was posted on public kiosks for all to read.
However, as mentioned earlier, tensions mounted as a result of the public exchange and Descartes felt his way of life in the Netherlands to be threatened. And, after a not too lengthy correspondence, Queen Christina offered Descartes a position in her court.
For many reasons, which would certanily include those related to his concerns about Voetius, Descartes accepted the offer. Subsequently, Descartes mentioned a little metaphysical treatise in Latin—presumably an early version of the Meditations —that he wrote upon first coming to the Netherlands , While working on the parhelia, Descartes conceived the idea for a very ambitious treatise.
This work eventually became The World , which was to have had three parts: on light a general treatise on visible, or material, nature , on man a treatise of physiology , and on the soul. Only the first two survive and perhaps only they were ever written , as the Treatise on Light and Treatise on Man. In these works, which Descartes decided to suppress upon learning of the condemnation of Galileo , , he offered a comprehensive vision of the universe as constituted from a bare form of matter having only length, breadth, and depth three-dimensional volume and carved up into particles with size and shape, which may be in motion or at rest, and which interact through laws of motion enforced by God —4.
These works contained a description of the visible universe as a single physical system in which all its operations, from the formation of planets and the transmission of light from the sun, to the physiological processes of human and nonhuman animal bodies, can be explained through the mechanism of matter arranged into shapes and structures and moving according to three laws of motion.
In fact, his explanations in the World and the subsequent Principles made little use of the three laws of motion in other than a qualitative manner. After suppressing his World , Descartes decided to put forward, anonymously, a limited sample of his new philosophy, in the Discourse with its attached essays.
The Discourse recounted Descartes' own life journey, explaining how he had come to the position of doubting his previous knowledge and seeking to begin afresh. It offered some initial results of his metaphysical investigations, including mind—body dualism. It did not, however, engage in the deep skepticism of the later Meditations , nor did it claim to establish, metaphysically, that the essence of matter is extension.
This last conclusion was presented merely as a hypothesis whose fruitfulness could be tested and proven by way of its results, as contained in the attached essays on Dioptrics and Meteorology. In his Meteorology , Descartes described his general hypothesis about the nature of matter, before continuing on to provide accounts of vapors, salt, winds, clouds, snow, rain, hail, lightning, the rainbow, coronas, and parhelia.
He presented a corpuscularian basis for his physics, which denied the atoms-and-void theory of ancient atomism and affirmed that all bodies are composed from one type of matter, which is infinitely divisible In the World , he had presented his non-atomistic corpuscularism, but without denying void space outright and without affirming infinite divisibility — Indeed, Descartes claimed that he could explain these qualities themselves through matter in motion , a claim that he repeated in the Meteorology —6.
Unlike Descartes' purely extended matter, which can exist on its own having only size and shape, many scholastic Aristotelians held that prime matter cannot exist on its own. The four Aristotelian elements, earth, air, fire, and water, had substantial forms that combined the basic qualities of hot, cold, wet, and dry: earth is cold and dry; air is hot and wet; fire is hot and dry; and water is cold and wet. For earth, that activity is to approach the center to the universe; water has the same tendency, but not as strongly.
For this reason, Aristotelians explained, the planet earth has formed at the center, with water on its surface. This form then organizes that matter into the shape of a rabbit, including organizing and directing the activity of its various organs and physiological processes.
Although in the World and Meteorology Descartes avoided outright denial of substantial forms and real qualities, it is clear that he intended to deny them ; ; , , Two considerations help explain his tentative language: first, when he wrote these works, he was not yet prepared to release his metaphysics, which would support his hypothesis about matter and so rule out substantial forms ; and, second, he was sensitive to the prudential value of not directly attacking the scholastic Aristotelian position , since it was the accepted position in university education and was strongly supported by orthodox theologians, both Catholic and Protestant —6; Descartes' correspondence from the second half of the s repays close study, among other things for his discussions of hypothesis-confirmation in science, his replies to objections concerning his metaphysics, and his explanation that he had left the most radical skeptical arguments out of this work, since it was written in French for a wide audience , In , Descartes fathered a daughter named Francine.
Her mother was Descartes' housekeeper, Helena Jans. They lived with Descartes part of the time in the latter s, and Descartes was arranging for them to join him when he learned of Francine's untimely death in September Descartes subsequently contributed a dowry for Helena's marriage in Watson , This was the Meditations , and presumably he was revising or recasting the Latin treatise from In the end, he and Mersenne collected seven sets of objections to the Meditations , which Descartes published with the work, along with his replies , Some objections were from unnamed theologians, passed on by Mersenne; one set came from the Dutch priest Johannes Caterus; one set was from the Jesuit philosopher Pierre Bourdin; others were from Mersenne himself, from the philosophers Pierre Gassendi and Thomas Hobbes, and from the Catholic philosopher-theologian Antoine Arnauld.
As previously mentioned, Descartes considered the Meditations to contain the principles of his physics. Descartes and his followers included topics concerning the nature of the mind and mind—body interaction within physics or natural philosophy, on which, see Hatfield Once Descartes had presented his metaphysics, he felt free to proceed with the publication of his entire physics. However, he needed first to teach it to speak Latin , the lingua franca of the seventeenth century.
He hatched a scheme to publish a Latin version of his physics the Principles together with a scholastic Aristotelian work on physics, so that the comparative advantages would be manifest. For this purpose, he chose the Summa philosophiae of Eustace of St. That part of his plan never came to fruition.
Ultimately, his physics was taught in the Netherlands, France, England, and parts of Germany. For the Catholic lands, the teaching of his philosophy was dampened when his works were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in , although his followers in France, such as Jacques Rohault —72 and Pierre Regis — , continued to promote Descartes' natural philosophy.
The Principles appeared in Latin in , with a French translation following in In the letter he explained important elements of his attitude toward philosophy, including the view that in matters philosophical one must reason through the arguments and evaluate them for one's self 9B He also presented an image of the relations among the various parts of philosophy, in the form of a tree:. The extant Principles offer metaphysics in Part I; the general principles of physics, in the form of his matter theory and laws of motion, are presented in Part II, as following from the metaphysics; Part III concerns astronomical phenomena; and Part IV covers the formation of the earth and seeks to explain the properties of minerals, metals, magnets, fire, and the like, to which are appended discussions of how the senses operate and a final discussion of methodological issues in natural philosophy.
His intent had been also to explain in depth the origins of plants and animals, human physiology, mind—body union and interaction, and the function of the senses. In the end, he had to abandon the discussion of plants and animals Princ. From early in his correspondence with Mersenne, Descartes showed a concern to avoid becoming embroiled in theological controversy or earning the enmity of church authorities —6, , Nonetheless, he was drawn into theological controversy with Calvinist theologians in the Netherlands.
In the latter s, Henry le Roy — , or Regius, a professor of medicine in Utrecht, taught Descartes' system of natural philosophy. Already by , Gisbert Voetius — , a theologian at Utrecht, expressed his displeasure over this to Mersenne Controversy brewed, at first between Regius and Voetius, with Descartes advising the former. Voetius, who was rector of the University, convinced the faculty senate to condemn Descartes' philosophy in He and his colleagues published two works in and attacking Descartes' philosophy, to which Descartes himself responded by publishing a Letter to Voetius The controversy simmered through the mids.
Descartes eventually had a falling out with Regius, who published a broadsheet or manifesto that deviated from Descartes' theory of the human mind. Descartes replied with his Comments on a Certain Broadsheet In the mids, Descartes continued work on his physiological system, which he had pursued throughout the s.
He allowed his Treatise on Man to be copied —7 and he began a new work , Description of the Human Body , in which he sought to explain the embryonic development of animal bodies. During this period he corresponded with Princess Elisabeth, at first on topics in metaphysics stemming from her reading of the Meditations and then on the passions and emotions. Eventually, he wrote the Passions of the Soul , which gave the most extensive account of his behavioral physiology to be published in his lifetime and which contained a comprehensive and original theory of the passions and emotions.
Portions of this work constitute what we have of Descartes' moral theory. In , Descartes accepted the invitation of Queen Christina of Sweden to join her court. On the day he delivered them to her, he became ill. He never recovered. He died on 11 February In general, it is rare for a philosopher's positions and arguments to remain the same across an entire life. This means that, in reading philosophers' works and reconstructing their arguments, one must pay attention to the place of each work in the philosophical development of the author in question.
Readers of the philosophical works of Immanuel Kant are aware of the basic distinction between his critical and precritical periods. Readers of the works of G. Leibniz are also aware of his philosophical development, although in his case there is less agreement on how to place his writings into a developmental scheme. Scholars have proposed various schemes for dividing Descartes' life into periods. In effect, he adopted a hypothetico-deductive scheme of confirmation, but with this difference: the range of hypotheses was limited by his metaphysical conclusions concerning the essence of mind and matter, their union, and the role of God in creating and conserving the universe.
Argumentative differences among the World , Discourse , and Meditations and Principles may then be seen as arising from the fact that in the s Descartes had not yet presented his metaphysics and so adopted an empirical mode of justification, whereas after he could appeal to his published metaphysics in seeking to secure the general framework of his physics.
Other scholars see things differently. John Schuster finds that the epistemology of the Rules lasted into the s and was superseded unhappily, in his view only by the metaphysical quest for certainty of the Meditations. Daniel Garber , 48 also holds that Descartes abandoned his early method after the Discourse.
Machamer and McGuire believe that Descartes expected natural philosophy to meet the standard of absolute certainty through the time of the Meditations , and that he in effect admitted defeat on that score in the final articles of the Principles , adopting a lower standard of certainty for his particular hypotheses such as the explanation of magnetism by corkscrew-shaped particles.
These contrasting views of Descartes' intellectual development suggest different relations between his metaphysics and physics. Schuster treats Descartes' metaphysical arguments as a kind of afterthought. There are also differences among interpreters concerning the relative priority in Descartes' philosophical endeavors of epistemology or the theory of knowledge as opposed to metaphysics or first philosophy. In the account of Descartes' development from Sec. Thereafter, his aim was to establish a new natural philosophy based on a new metaphysics.
In the extant works from the s, the World and Discourse plus essays, he argued for the general principles of his physics, including his conception of matter, on empirical grounds. He argued from explanatory scope and theoretical parsimony. As regards parsimony or simplicity, he pointed out that his reconceived matter had only a few basic properties especially size, shape, position, and motion , from which he would construct his explanations. He claimed great explanatory scope by contending that his explanations could extend to all natural phenomena, celestial and terrestrial, inorganic and organic.
But throughout the s, Descartes claimed that he also was in possession of a metaphysics that could justify the first principles of his physics, which he finally presented in the Meditations and Principles.
Some scholars emphasize the epistemological aspects of Descartes' work, starting with the Rules and continuing through to the Principles. Accordingly, the main change in Descartes' intellectual development is the introduction of skeptical arguments in the Discourse and Meditations.
Many interpreters, represented prominently in the latter twentieth century by Richard Popkin , believe that Descartes took the skeptical threat to knowledge quite seriously and sought to overcome it in the Meditations. By contrast, in the main interpretive thread followed here, skeptical arguments were a cognitive tool that Descartes used in order to guide the reader of the Meditations into the right cognitive frame of mind for grasping the first truths of metaphysics.
Achieving stable knowledge of such truths would have as a side-effect security against skeptical challenge. The reader who is curious about these issues should read the relevant works of Descartes, together with his correspondence from the latter half of the s and early s. Descartes first presented his metaphysics in the Meditations and then reformulated it in textbook-format in the Principles.
His metaphysics sought to answer these philosophical questions: How does the human mind acquire knowledge? What is the mark of truth? What is the actual nature of reality? How are our experiences related to our bodies and brains? Is there a benevolent God, and if so, how can we reconcile his existence with the facts of illness, error, and immoral actions?
Descartes had no doubt that human beings know some things and are capable of discovering others, including at least since his metaphysical insights of fundamental truths about the basic structure of reality. Yet he also believed that the philosophical methods taught in the schools of his time and used by most of his contemporaries were deeply flawed. He believed that the doctrines of scholastic Aristotelian philosophy contained a basic error about the manner in which fundamental truths, such as the truths of metaphysics, are to be gained.
He then went on to challenge the veridicality of the senses with the skeptical arguments of First Meditation, including arguments from previous errors, the dream argument, and the argument from a deceptive God or an evil deceiver. Descartes explained these convictions as the results of childhood prejudice , 17, 69, ; Princ.
As children, we are naturally led by our senses in seeking benefits and avoiding bodily harms. Descartes denied that the senses reveal the natures of substances. He held that in fact the human intellect is able to perceive the nature of reality through a purely intellectual perception. Descartes constructed the Meditations so as to secure this process of withdrawal from the senses in Meditation I.
Hence, he sets up clear and distinct intellectual perception, independent of the senses, as the mark of truth , 62, We consider these results in Secs. For now, let us examine what Descartes thought about the senses as a source of knowledge that was different from the pure intellect. In the Meditations , he held that the essence of matter could be apprehended by innate ideas, independently of any sensory image —5, 72—3.
To that extent, his later position agrees with the Platonic tradition in philosophy, which denigrated sensory knowledge and held that the things known by the intellect have a higher reality than the objects of the senses. Descartes, however, was no Platonist, a point to which we will return. His attitude toward the senses in his mature period was not one of total disparagement. Descartes assigned two roles to the senses in the acquisition of human knowledge.
First, he acknowledged that the senses are usually adequate for detecting benefits and harms for the body. In this connection, he was agreeing with the conception of the function of the senses that was widely shared in the traditional literature in natural philosophy, including the Aristotelian literature, as well as in the medical literature on the natural functions of the senses.
Second, he recognized that the senses have an essential role to play in natural philosophy. The older interpretive literature sometimes had Descartes claiming that he could derive all natural philosophical or scientific knowledge from the pure intellect, independent of the senses. But Descartes knew full well that he could not do that. He distinguished between the general principles of his physics and the more particular mechanisms that he posited to explain natural phenomena, such as magnetism or the properties of oil and water.
These include the fundamental doctrine that the essence of matter is extension Princ. As to particular phenomena, in general he had to rely on observations to determine their properties such as the properties of the magnet , and he acknowledged that multiple hypotheses about subvisible mechanisms could be constructed to account for those phenomena.
The natural philosopher must, therefore, test the various hypotheses by their consequences, and consider empirical virtues such as simplicity and scope Disc.
VI; Princ. Further, Descartes knew that some problems rely on measurements that can only be made with the senses, including determining the size of the sun or the refractive indexes of various materials Met. Although Descartes recognized an important role for the senses in natural philosophy, he also limited the role of sense-based knowledge by comparison with Aristotelian epistemology. According to many scholastic Aristotelians, all intellectual content arises through a process of intellectual abstraction that starts from sensory images as present in the faculty of imagination.
Mathematical objects are formed by abstraction from such images. Even metaphysics rests on knowledge derived by abstraction from images. Of course, in this Aristotelian scheme the intellect plays an important role in grasping mathematical objects or the essences of natural things through considering images. By contrast, Descartes affirmed that the truths of mathematics and metaphysics are grasped by the intellect operating independently of the senses and without need for assistance from the faculty of imagination.
In Descartes' scheme of mental capacities, knowledge does not arise from the intellect alone. The intellect may present some content as true, but by itself it does not affirm or deny that truth. That function belongs to the will. A judgment, and hence an instance of at least putative knowledge, does not arise in this scheme until the will has affirmed or denied the content presented by the intellect. IV, Princ. The intellect is the power of perception or representation.
Acts of pure intellect occur without the need for any accompanying brain processes; these are purely intellectual perceptions. But there are other intellectual acts that require the presence of the body: sense perception, imagination, and corporeal body-involving memory.
These intellectual acts are less clear and distinct than acts of pure intellect, and may indeed be obscure and confused as in the case of color sensations. Nonetheless, the will may affirm or deny such content. As discussed in the next subsection, error can arise in these judgments. In sum, in considering Descartes' answer to how we know, we can distinguish classes of knowledge that differ as regards the degree of certainty one may expect to achieve.
Metaphysical first principles as known by the intellect acting alone should attain absolute certainty. Practical knowledge concerning immediate benefits and harms is known by the senses. Such knowledge is usually good enough. Objects of natural science are known by a combination of pure intellect and sensory observation: the pure intellect tells us what properties bodies can have, and we use the senses to determine which particular instances of those properties bodies do have.
For submicroscopic particles, we must reason from observed effects to potential cause. In these latter cases, our measurements and our inferences may be subject to error, but we may also hope to arrive at the truth. Clarity and distinctness of intellectual perception is the mark of truth. In the fifth set of Objections to the Meditations , Gassendi suggests that there is difficulty concerning.
Gassendi has in effect asked how it is that we should recognize clear and distinct perceptions. If clarity and distinctness is the mark of truth, what is the method for recognizing clarity and distinctness? In reply, Descartes claims that he has already supplied such a method What could he have in mind?
It cannot be the simple belief that one has attained clarity and distinctness, for Descartes himself acknowledges that individuals can be wrong in that belief , Nonetheless, he does offer a criterion. We have a clear and distinct perception of something if, when we consider it, we cannot doubt it That is, in the face of genuine clear and distinct perception, our affirmation of it is so firm that it cannot be shaken, even by a concerted effort to call the things thus affirmed into doubt.
As mentioned in 3. The intellect perceives or represents the content of the judgment; the will affirms or denies that content. The inclination of the will is so strong that it amounts to compulsion; we cannot help but so affirm. Descartes thus makes unshakable conviction the criterion.
Can't someone be unshakable in their conviction merely because they are stubborn? Assuredly so. But Descartes is talking about a conviction that remains unshakable in face of serious and well-thought out challenges To be immune from doubt does not mean simply that you do not doubt a proposition, or even that it resists a momentary attempt to doubt; the real criterion for truth is that the content of a proposition is so clearly perceived that the will is drawn to it in such a way that the will's affirmation cannot be shaken even by the systematic and sustained doubts of the Meditations.
Perhaps because the process for achieving knowledge of fundamental truths requires sustained, systematic doubt, Descartes indicates that such doubt should be undertaken only once in the course of a life ; Even so, problems remain.
Having extracted clarity and distinctness as the criterion of truth at the beginning of the Third Meditation, Descartes immediately calls it into question. In the course of the Third Meditation, Descartes constructs an argument for the existence of God that starts from the fact that he has an idea of an infinite being. The argument is intricate. Descartes then applies that principle not to the mere existence of the idea of God as a state of mind, but to the content of that idea.
Descartes characterizes that content as infinite, and he then argues that a content that represents infinity requires an infinite being as its cause. He concludes, therefore, that an infinite being, or God, must exist.
He then equates an infinite being with a perfect being and asks whether a perfect being could be a deceiver. The second and fourth sets of objections drew attention to a problematic characteristic of this argument. In the words of Arnauld:. Arnauld here raises the well-known problem of the Cartesian circle, which has been much discussed by commentators in recent years.
In reply to Arnauld, Descartes claims that he avoided this problem by distinguishing between present clear and distinct perceptions and those that are merely remembered He is not here challenging the reliability of memory Frankfurt Rather, his strategy is to suggest that the hypothesis of a deceiving God can only present itself when we are not clearly and distinctly perceiving the infinity and perfection of God, because when we are doing that we cannot help but believe that God is no deceiver.
It is as if this very evident perception is then to be balanced with the uncertain opinion that God might be a deceiver The evident perception wins out and the doubt is removed. Descartes explicitly responds to the charge of circularity in the manner just described. Over the years, scholars have debated whether this response is adequate.
Some scholars have constructed other responses on Descartes' behalf or have found such responses embedded in his text at various locations. One type of response appeals to a distinction between the natural light and clear and distinct perception, and seeks to vindicate the natural light without appeal to God Jacquette Another response suggests that, in the end, Descartes was not aiming at metaphysical certainty concerning a mind-independent world but was merely seeking an internally coherent set of beliefs Frankfurt A related response suggests that Descartes was after mere psychological certainty Loeb The interested reader can follow up this question by turning to the literature here cited as also Carriero , Doney , and Hatfield Building on his claim that clear and distinct perceptions are true, Descartes seeks to establish various results concerning the nature of reality, including the existence of a perfect God as well as the natures of mind and matter to which we turn in the next subsection.
Here we must ask: What is the human mind that it can perceive the nature of reality? Descartes has a specific answer to this question: the human mind comes supplied with innate ideas that allow it to perceive the main properties of God infinity and perfection , the essence of matter, and the essence of mind. Descartes rejected both alternatives.
He denied, along with many of his contemporaries, that there are eternal truths independent of the existence of God. But he also denied that the eternal truths are fixed in God's intellect. Some Neoplatonist philosophers held that the eternal truths in the human mind are copies, or ectypes, of the archetypes in the mind of God. Eternal truths are latent in God's creative power, and he understands this, so that if human beings understand the eternal truths as eternal, they also do so by understanding the creative power of God Hatfield Descartes had a different account.
He held that the eternal truths are the free creations of God , , ; , , originating from him in a way that does not distinguish among his power, will, and intellect. He might have created other essences, although we are unable to conceive what they might have been.
Our conceptual capacity is limited to the innate ideas that God has implanted in us, and these reflect the actual truths that he created. God creates the eternal truths concerning logic, mathematics, the nature of the good, the essences of mind and matter , and he creates the human mind and provisions it with innate ideas that correspond to those truths.
However, even in this scheme there must remain some eternal truths that are not created by God: those that pertain to the essence of God himself, including his existence and perfection see Wells Descartes reveals his ontology implicitly in the Meditations , more formally in the Replies, and in textbook fashion in the Principles.
The main metaphysical results that describe the nature of reality assert the existence of three substances, each characterized by an essence. The first and primary substance is God, whose essence is perfection. In fact, God is the only true substance, that is, the only being that is capable of existing on its own. Descartes' arguments to establish the essences of these substances appeal directly to his clear and distinct perception of those essences.
The essence of matter is extension in length, breadth, and depth. Cartesian matter does not fill a distinct spatial container; rather, spatial extension is constituted by extended matter there is no void, or unfilled space. Modes are properties that exist only as modifications of the essential principal and the general attributes of a substance. In addition to its essence, extension, matter also has the general attributes of existence and duration.
The individual parts of matter have durations as particular modes. All the modes of matter, including size, shape, position, and motion, can exist only as modifications of extended substance. The essence of mind is thought.
Besides existence and duration, minds have the two chief powers or faculties previously mentioned: intellect and will. The intellectual or perceiving power is further divided into the modes of pure intellect, imagination, and sense perception.
Pure intellect operates independently of the brain or body; imagination and sense perception depend upon the body for their operation as does corporeal memory. The will is also divided into various modes, including desire, aversion, assertion, denial, and doubt. These always require some intellectual content whether pure, imagined, or sensory upon which to operate. It seems he held that the mind essentially has a will, but that the intellectual or perceptive, or representational power is more basic, because the will depends on it in its operation.
What role does consciousness play in Descartes' theory of mind? Many scholars believe that, for Descartes, consciousness is the defining property of mind e. There is some support for this position in the Second Replies. If mind is thinking substance and thoughts are essentially conscious, perhaps consciousness is the essence of thought? Descartes in fact did hold that all thoughts are, in some way, conscious He did not mean by this that we have reflective awareness of, and can remember, every thought that we have In the Second Meditation, he describes himself as a thinking thing by enumerating all the modes of thoughts of which he is conscious: understanding or intellection , willing, imagining, and at this point, at least seeming to have sense perceptions He thus sets up consciousness as a mark of thought.
But is it the essence? There is another possibility. If perception intellection, representation is the essence of thought, then all thoughts might be conscious in a basic way because the character of the intellectual substance is to represent, and any representation present in an intellectual substance is thereby conscious. Similarly, any act of will present in an intellectual substance also is available to consciousness, because it is of the essence of such a substance to perceive its own states Accordingly, perception or representation is the essence of mind, and consciousness follows as a result of the mind's being a representing substance.
All the same, in distinguishing between thoughts possessed of consciousness and thoughts of which we are reflectively aware, Descartes opened a space for conscious thoughts that we don't notice or remember. As in his theory of the senses Sec. In the Discourse , Descartes presented the following argument to establish that mind and body are distinct substances:.
This argument moves from the fact that he can doubt the existence of the material world, but cannot doubt the existence of himself as a thinking thing, to the conclusion that his thoughts belong to a nonspatial substance that is distinct from matter. The argument is fallacious. It relies on conceivability based in ignorance. Descartes has not included anything in the argument to ward off the possibility that he, as a thinking thing, is in fact a complex material system.
He has merely relied on the fact that he can doubt the existence of matter to conclude that matter is distinct from mind. This argument is clearly inconclusive. From the fact that the Joker cannot, at a certain moment, doubt the existence of Batman because he is with him , but he can doubt the existence of Bruce Wayne who might, for all the Joker knows, have been killed by the Joker's henchmen , it does not follow that Bruce Wayne is not Batman. In fact, he is Batman. The Joker is merely ignorant of that fact.
In the Meditations , Descartes changed the structure of the argument. In the Second Meditation, he established that he could not doubt the existence of himself as a thinking thing, but that he could doubt the existence of matter. However, he explicitly refused to use this situation to conclude that his mind was distinct from body, on the grounds that he was still ignorant of his nature Then, in the Sixth Meditation, having established, to his satisfaction, the mark of truth, he used that mark to frame a positive argument to the effect that the essence of mind is thought and that a thinking thing is unextended; and that the essence of matter is extension and that extended things cannot think He based this argument on clear and distinct intellectual perceptions of the essences of mind and matter, not on the fact that he could doubt the existence of one or the other.
This conclusion in the Sixth Meditation asserts the well-known substance dualism of Descartes. That dualism leads to problems. As Princess Elisabeth, among others, asked: if mind is unextended and matter is extended, how do they interact?
He and his siblings were raised by their grandmother, as their father used to be busy elsewhere with work and as a council member in the provincial parliament. Descartes never married, but he fathered a child in with Helena Jans van der Strom. The child was named Francine. Unfortunately, he died at the age of five due to scarlet fever. In addition to classical studies, science, mathematics, and metaphysics, they were taught acting, music, poetry, dancing, riding, and fencing. There, he was encouraged in his studies of science and mathematics by the physicist Isaac Beeckman, for whom he wrote the Compendium of Music , his first surviving work.
It is during this year that Descartes was stationed at Ulm. He had three dreams that inspired him to seek a new scientific inquirmethod y and envisage a unified science. Soon afterward, in , he began looking for this new method, started but never completed several works on the method, including drafts of the first eleven rules of Rules for the Direction of the Mind.
He worked on and off it for years until he finally abandoned it for good in During this time, he also worked on other, more scientifically oriented projects such as optics. From , Descartes finished his scientific essays D'optique and Meteors , which applied his geometrical method to these fields.
Descartes began work on Meditations on First Philosophy in The first edition of the Meditations was published in Latin in , in which he listed six sets of objections and his replies. He published a second edition in , which also included a seventh set of objections and replies and a letter to Father Dinet.
Descartes defended his system against charges of unorthodoxy. He developed rules for deductive reasoning, a system for using letters as mathematical variables, and discovered how to plot points on a plane called the Cartesian plane. This work was responsible for making Descartes famous in mathematics history because it was the invention of analytical geometry.
Analytical geometry is basically applying algebra to geometry. He is also credited with the development of Cartesian dualism also referred to as mind-body dualism , the metaphysical argument that the mind and body are two different substances that interact with one another.
In the mathematics sphere, his primary contribution was bridging the gap between algebra and geometry, which resulted in the Cartesian coordinate system, still widely used today. Credited as the father of analytical geometry, Descartes was also one of the key figures in the Scientific Revolution. In it, he provides a philosophical groundwork for the possibility of the sciences. There was a research prize, which was awarded to teams of researchers who had "achieved outstanding scientific or technological results through collaborative research in any field of science, including the economic, social science and humanities.
Nominations for this were submitted by either the research teams themselves or by suitable national bodies.
0コメント