This edition features reliable, accessible translations; useful editorial materials; and a straightforward presentation of the Objections and Replies, including the objections from Caterus, Arnauld, and Hobbes, accompanied by Descartes' replies, in their entirety. The letter serving as a reply to Gassendi--in which several of Descartes' associates present Gassendi's best arguments and Descartes' replies--conveys the highlights and important issues of their notoriously extended exchange. Roger Ariew's illuminating Introduction discusses the Meditations and the intellectual environment surrounding its reception.

According to Kepler and Descartes, the geometry of the triangle formed by the two eyes when focused on a single point affords perception of the distance to that point. Kepler characterized the processes involved as associative learning. Descartes described the processes as a “ natural geometry.” Many interpreters have Descartes holding that perceivers calculate the distance to the focal point using angle-side-angle, calculations that are reduced to unnoticed mental habits in adult vision. This article offers a purely (...) psychophysiological interpretation of Descartes’s natural geometry. In his account of perceived limb position from the Treatise on Man, he envisioned a central brain state that controls ocular convergence and thereby co-varies with the distance from observer to object. A psychophysiological law relates the visual perception of distance to this brain state. Descartes also invokes more traditional theories of distance and size perception based on unnoticed judgments, yielding a hybrid account. (shrink)

I here address Descartes' account of human nature as a union of mind and body by appealing to The Passions of the Soul. I first show that Descartes takes us to be able to reform the naturally instituted associations between bodily and mental states. I go on to argue that Descartes offers a teleological explanation of body-mind associations (those instituted both by nature and by artifice). This explanation sheds light on the ontological status of the union. I (...) suggest that it affords a way of understanding how mind and body form a true unit without compromising Descartes' dualism. (shrink)

Though Descartes is traditionally associated with the moderately nativist doctrine that our ideas of God, of eternal truths, and of true and immutable natures are innate, on two occasions he explicitly argued that all of our ideas, even sensory ideas, are innate in the mind. One reason it is surprising to find Descartes endorsing universal innateness is that such a view seems to leave no role for bodies in the production of our ideas of them.

The usual reading of Descartes' “anthropological” perspective classifies it as a radical dualism with a distinction between two substances, mind and body, which experience major interaction difficulties. Through a contextualization of Descartes' physiological and psychological thought as well as through a less fragmented reading of his work, we intend to review this traditional interpretation, thereby showing its distorted character. When we pay attention to passion, a new Descartes’ image as a sort of phenomenal monism appears, which is (...) markedly different from the legendary image typically associated with him, even today. (shrink)

A bold and insightful departure from related texts, _Descartes_ goes beyond the categorical associations placed on the philosopher’s ideas, and explores the subtleties of his beliefs. An elegant, compelling and insightful introduction to Descartes' life and work. Discusses a broad range of his most scrutinized philosophical thought, including his contributions to logic, philosophy of the mind, epistemology, metaphysics, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion. Explores the subtleties of Descartes' seemingly contradictory beliefs. Addresses themes left unexamined (...) in other works on Descartes. (shrink)

Les textes presentes dans ce volume sont ceux des conferences prononcees en seance pleniere dans le cadre du XXVIe Congres international de Philosophie de Langue Francaise (ASPLF), consacre, pour marquer le quatrieme centenaire de la naissance de Descarte, au theme general L'esprit cartesien, et organise du 30 aout au 3 septembre 1996, en Sorbonne et au Palais de l'UNESCO, par la Societe Francaise de Philosophie. Le volume est complete par une version en langue francaise des contributions a un Hommage international (...) a Descartes, prononcees, dans leurs langues respectives, lors de la seance de cloture du Congres. Un CD-Rom (Windows) presentant la version integrale des Actes du Congres est joint a ce volume, dont il constitue le complement necessaire. (shrink)

Why would Rene Descartes, the father of modern rationalist philosophy, choose "meditations" -- a term and genre associated with religious discourse and practice -- for the title of his magnum opus that lays the metaphysical foundations for his reform of all knowledge, including mathematics and sciences? Why did he believe that the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, which the Meditations on First Philosophy set out to demonstrate, can only be made self-evident through meditating? These are (...) the question that Christopher Wild's book answers. Descartes discovered the "foundations of a marvelous science" through a dramatic conversion in southern Germany in the winter of 1619. The spiritual and cognitive exercises, derived from ancient philosophy and the Christian meditative tradition, which Descartes deployed in the Meditations, enable readers to discover metaphysical truths with the same degree of self-evidence with which Descartes did during his own conversion. Descartes' meditative turn, Wild argues, brings to a culmination a life-long preoccupation with the practice or craft of thinking, known as Cartesian method. By joining meditation to method the Meditations becomes the founding document for a Cartesian "art of turning," a new practice of both thought and life. (shrink)

Quelle place l'infinité divine occupe-t-elle dans la philosophie cartésienne? Peut-elle éclairer la situation de Descartes dans le temps long de l'histoire de la métaphysique ou révéler une béance toujours sise au coeur de son concept? Loin d'être une innovation cartésienne, l'infinité de Dieu constitue une conquête de l'histoire de la métaphysique, qui, en prenant pour objet le concept d'ens, s'est approprié Dieu sous la figure de l'ens infinitum. Et parce que la philosophia prima des Meditationes a pour premier principe (...) le cogito, l'idea infiniti ne peut que s'ordonner à l'univocité de la cogitatio et se soumettre au régime métaphysique de la représentation, qu'elle prolonge et accomplit. Mais Descartes confère à l'infini une autre détermination, qui contredit sa portée métaphysique : car, en toute rigueur, l'infini ne se donne pas tant en une représentation, qu'il n'excède toute représentation pour la conditionner. Ainsi Descartes démontre-t-il l'existence de Dieu au moyen du nom qui énonce d'abord sa transcendance à toute démonstration ; ainsi l'idée d'infini est-elle plus "lourde" que l'ego qui la porte et qu'elle creuse d'une antériorité à jamais irrécupérable. Descartes a donc associé en un même nom - l'infini - une détermination métaphysique et une détermination non métaphysique de Dieu. Mais cette double détermination traduit l'ambiguïté même de l'infini dans l'histoire de la métaphysique, s'il est vrai que c'est aussi bien comme infini que Dieu y est entré (Duns Scot) et qu'il en est sorti (Levinas). L'infinité divine peut dès lors accomplir chez Descartes la sortie de la métaphysique depuis la métaphysique elle-même, puisqu'elle nomme l'au-delà de la représentation apparu depuis la représentation : la métaphysique se trouverait alors contemporaine de sa fin, qui toujours en sourdine la double et la défait. En la déployant sans nuances, Descartes fait accéder à sa visibilité la plus haute l'ambiguïté de l'infini : sa métaphysique en acquiert une ambivalence à laquelle nous n'avons pas voulu demeurer aveugle. D. A. (shrink)

Descartes rejected syllogism and its associated formal account of deductive reasoning. One of his main reasons was his concern for truth, and the ability to recognize new truths and to distinguish truths from falsehoods. Formal logic is non‐ampliative; the conclusion of a deductively valid argument does not impose any constraints on the truths that we know are not already imposed by the premises. Instead of rejecting deduction in favour of induction, like Bacon, Descartes developed a new, ampliative theory (...) of deduction in the Regulae. This theory of inference was based on intuition, a forerunner of his later account of clear and distinct perception. One directly intuited that two ideas were related in a certain way. One deduced that one idea was related to another by forming a chain of ideas, the connection between each idea and its neighbour being perceived by intuition. (shrink)

In this paper, I present an interpretation of Descartes that deemphasizes his skepticism. I analyze a selection of remarks from Descartes’ correspondence in which he makes judgments about the skeptics. I argue that such remarks display Descartes’ attitude of contempt for skeptical philosophy. Since Descartes associates the skeptics with the activity of constant and total doubting and yet presents scenarios that seemingly arise from extreme doubt—like the malicious demon hypothesis—I look at what Descartes says in (...) the correspondence about his own use of doubt in his published works. Descartes distances himself from the skeptics because he claims that whereas they doubt everything and, in so doing, act heretically, he uses doubt for a noble purpose. I suggest that although Descartes is influenced by skeptical ideas and considers skeptical argumentation to be useful, his strategic use of such argumentation should not lead us to believe that he condones skepticism. Quite the contrary, most of his remarks on the subject show that Descartes is highly critical or dismissive of skeptical ideas. Therefore, I argue that it is more accurate to characterize Descartes as a philosopher generally opposed to skepticism. (shrink)

Philosophy and Memory Traces defends two theories of autobiographical memory. One is a bewildering historical view of memories as dynamic patterns in fleeting animal spirits, nervous fluids which rummaged through the pores of brain and body. The other is new connectionism, in which memories are 'stored' only superpositionally, and reconstructed rather than reproduced. Both models, argues John Sutton, depart from static archival metaphors by employing distributed representation, which brings interference and confusion between memory traces. Both raise urgent issues about control (...) of the personal past, and about relations between self and body. Sutton demonstrates the role of bizarre body fluids in moral physiology, as philosophers from Descartes and Locke to Coleridge struggled to control their own innards and impose cognitive discipline on 'the phantasmal chaos of association'. Going on to defend connectionism against Fodor and critics of passive mental representations, he shows how problems of the self are implicated in cognitive science. (shrink)

Descartes has been associated with a project of establishing the ego’s separation from and sovereignty over its material environment, a project often held to be constitutive of modernity as well as its discontents. Kyoo Lee’s Reading Descartes Otherwise tries to free our understanding of modernity from this imaginary and reductive reading, which she calls the “Cartesian complex,” by presenting the voice of The Meditations as embodied, phenomenologically astute, and emerging from the interstices of his own repeated dreamlike thought (...) experiments. (shrink)

This anthology offers the key works of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz in their entirety or in substantial selections, along with a rich selection of associated texts by other leading thinkers of the period.

On Descartes’ Passive Thought is the culmination of a life-long reflection on the philosophy of Descartes by one of the most important living French philosophers. In it, Jean-Luc Marion examines anew some of the questions left unresolved in his previous books about Descartes, with a particular focus on Descartes’s theory of morals and the passions. Descartes has long been associated with mind-body dualism, but Marion argues here that this is a historical misattribution, popularized by Malebranche (...) and popular ever since both within the academy and with the general public. Actually, Marion shows, Descartes held a holistic conception of body and mind. He called it the meum corpus, a passive mode of thinking, which implies far more than just pure mind—rather, it signifies a mind directly connected to the body: the human being that I am. Understood in this new light, the Descartes Marion uncovers through close readings of works such as Passions of the Soul resists prominent criticisms leveled at him by twentieth-century figures like Husserl and Heidegger, and even anticipates the non-dualistic, phenomenological concepts of human being discussed today. This is a momentous book that no serious historian of philosophy will be able to ignore. (shrink)

Contrary to Michael Miller, I maintain that Descartes’s language test adequately distinguishes humans from non-human animals, and that the bonobosKanzi and Panbanisha have not passed it. Miller accepts Descartes’s language test as a good test for true language usage, but denies that it is an adequate test for the presence or absence of reason. I argue that it is a good test for reason, for normal rational beings eventually recognize the desirableness of knowledge of the world for its (...) own sake as well as the fact that such knowledge can be increased by conversing with others. I also argue that the tests administered to the bonobos in question are inadequate for determining true language usage, as they could be passed by animals merely capable of associative learning. (shrink)

Central to Descartes’ philosophy is a view about immutable essences and eternal truths. After mentioning a Platonist account of recollection in Meditation V, Descartes declares that the ideas we have of mathematical notions “are not my invention but have their own true and immutable natures” (AT VII, 64/CSM II, 44).Descartes claims that other important philosophical notions, such as God, mind, body, and human free will (AT VII, 68; AT VIII-2, 348; AT III, 383; AT VII, 433, respectively), (...) also have immutable natures or essences. Although Descartes says a good many things about this view, nowhere does he offer definitive doctrine on the matter, and in fact frequently confuses his reader with apparently inconsistent pronouncements about immutable natures and eternal truths. In this essay, I focus on the immutable natures and propose a solution to two of the main problems associated with Descartes’ position, the metaphysical status of immutable natures and the purported indivisibility of their existence as ideas in the mind. (shrink)

Descartes developed an elaborate theory of animal physiology that he used to explain functionally organized, situationally adapted behavior in both human and nonhuman animals. Although he restricted true mentality to the human soul, I argue that he developed a purely mechanistic (or material) ‘psychology’ of sensory, motor, and low-level cognitive functions. In effect, he sought to mechanize the offices of the Aristotelian sensitive soul. He described the basic mechanisms in the Treatise on man, which he summarized in the Discourse. (...) However, the Passions of the soul contains his most ambitious claims for purely material brain processes. These claims arise in abstract discussions of the functions of the passions and in illustrations of those functions. Accordingly, after providing an intellectual context for Descartes’s theory of the passions, especially by comparison with that of Tho- mas Aquinas, I examine its ‘machine psychology’, including the role of habituation and association. I contend that Descartes put forth what may reasonably be called a ‘psychology’ of the unensouled animal body and, correspondingly, of the human body when the soul does not intervene. He thus conceptually distinguished a mechanistically explicable sensory and motor psychology, common to nonhuman and human animals, from true mentality involving higher cognition and volition and requiring (in his view) an immaterial mind. (shrink)

Descartes’ epistemologies of meditation and sense imply that we cannot know anything about the mind-body union, either in the Cartesian sense of having scientia or, more interestingly, in terms of any other concept of knowledge available to Descartes. After considering the implications of this conclusion for what we may know about mind-body interaction, it becomes clear that, on Descartes’ view, we at best can be said to know that mind-body interaction, if it does in fact take place, (...) does not violate a set of causal principles, without knowing how mind and body interact, or even if they interact at all. (This article is the winner of the 2010 Rockefeller Prize awarded by the American Philosophical Association.). (shrink)

Descartes’ account of emotion conflict in the Passions of the Soul has recently been the subject of Shapiro’s essay (2003), who claims that agent evaluation of the human good operates as an explanatory factor for the reformation of existing mind-body associations. On the contrary, it is here argued that this passion reformation involves explicit reasoning processes, and that the tendency to promote the good of the human being either denotes the cause and not the reason for the original passion (...) formation or is a specific reasoning method. Passion reformation does not seem to be essentially related to the problem of mind-body union. (shrink)

A Catholic philosophy requires an account of God as the first cause of all being. Descartes provides this, but he does so at a high price, for his Creator of ontologically and causally independent moments of creaturely existence precludes all secondary causes. Descartes’s philosophy thus results in occasionalism, which I try to show is the unhappy result of errors in natural philosophy concerning material forms and duration. Suarez provides a contrasting scholastic account of creation, showing how novel, and (...) problematic, Descartes’s position is. (shrink)

El presente trabajo investiga las tesis sobre el poder civil de Alonso de la Veracruz que buscan incorporar en la comunidad política española a los habitantes autóctonos del Nuevo Mundo, tesis que suelen relacionarse con F. de Vitoria y el tomismo español, y que últimamente son consideradas parte del republicanismo novohispano elaborado desde la periferia americana. Se busca demostrar que su propósito era aplicar una teoría de derechos naturales, sin que ello implique participación política de los indios americanos. Se analiza (...) la postura del fraile frente a la diversidad cultural y la guerra contra los indios. The paper explores Alonso de la Veracruz's theses on civil power, which sought to integrate the native inhabitants of the New World into the Spanish political community. These theses, which have usually been associated with F. de Vitoria and Spanish Thomism, have recently come to be considered part of a Novohispanic republicanism developed in the American periphery. The article seeks to show that the purpose of such theses was to apply a theory of natural rights that did not entail the political participation of the indigenous population, as well as to analyze Veracruz's position regarding cultural diversity and the war against the indigenous peoples. (shrink)

Dans cet ouvrage, la philosophie de Rene Descartes nous apporte un discours nouveau sur le probleme relatif au rapport permanent entre la raison et la foi a partir de ses Meditations metaphysiques. Cette philosophie nous invite a nous questionner sur la necessite d un choix entre l engagement de croire et la liberte de savoir. Ce livre nous permet de mieux comprendre les enjeux d une telle problematique. Alla Marcellin Konin a partage l experience de plusieurs annees d enseignement (...) de la philosophie dans les Academies de Poitiers, de Nantes, de Caen et de Rouen en France. a l Universite de Poitiers et de Bordeaux 3, il a travaille sur la philosophie de la Nature et sur l Idealisme allemand. Mediateur dans les Organisations et Membre associe a MAPP (Metaphysique Allemande et Philosophie Pratique) de l Universite de Poitiers, il enseigne la philosophie a l Universite Felix Houphouet-Boigny de Cocody. Il poursuit actuellement ses recherches en philosophie de l histoire, en metaphysique, en philosophie morale et politique. Alla Marcellin Konin a partage l experience de plusieurs annees d enseignement de la philosophie dans les Academies de Poitiers, de Nantes, de Caen et de Rouen en France. a l Universite de Poitiers et de Bordeaux 3, il a travaille sur la philosophie de la Nature et sur l Idealisme allemand. Mediateur dans les Organisations et Membre associe a MAPP (Metaphysique Allemande et Philosophie Pratique) de l Universite de Poitiers, il enseigne la philosophie a l Universite Felix Houphouet-Boigny de Cocody. Il poursuit actuellement ses recherches en philosophie de l histoire, en metaphysique, en philosophie morale et politique.". (shrink)

모리스는 그의 논문 “Descartes’ Natural Light”에서, 지성을 ‘power of conceiving’ 과 ‘power of cognition’((vis cognoscens 혹은 puissance de connaitre)으로 구분하 고, 후자만을 데카르트의 자연의 빛으로 간주한다. 그는 그 근거로 『철학의 원리』 1부 30 항, 정신지도규칙 의 제12규칙 그리고 『성찰』의 제3성찰의 몇몇 문장들을 제시한다. 그 래서 이렇게 규정된 자연의 빛에 의해 인식되는 공통개념의 진리성은 애당초 데카르트적 의심에서 배제되어 있고, 그는 이러한 의미에서 데카르트가 악순환에서 자유로울 것이라 고 주장한다. 나는 데카르트적 악순환에 관한 그의 주장을 긍정한다. 그러나 모리스와는 달리, 나는 제3성찰에서 공통개념(notiones (...) communes)과 관련된 자연의 빛은 인식력 (vis cognoscendi) 혹은 이해력(vis intelligendi)이 아니라 자연적 충동(impetus naturales)과 짝을 이루는 ‘지적 본능’이며, 데카르트는 이 본능을 제3성찰에서 신의 존재 증명을 시도할 때 공통개념의 진리성의 보증자로 끌어들였다고 믿는다. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Descartes developed an early theory of happiness, which he rhetorically claimed to have stemmed from his choice of vocation in 1619. I provide a sketch of his theory in the Discours, noting, however, some problems with the historicity of the text. I then turn to his Olympica and associated writings that date from this period, where he literally asked, “What way in life shall I follow?” I take Descartes’ dreams as allegorical and (...) provide an interpretation of his curious claim that poets are better equipped to discover truth than philosophers, made at a time when he chose to become a philosopher and not a poet. My way out of this conundrum is to identify in this text a philosophical psychology that I argue is consistent with the Regulae and the Discours, is part of what he took to be his “foundation of the wonderful science,” and is the essence of his early theory of happiness. (shrink)

Although Descartes has often been portrayed as the father of the modern concept of mind, his approach to consciousness is notoriously problematic. What makes it particularly hard to assess his role in the development of the theories of consciousness is the difficulty of clarifying the kind of consciousness he might have in mind when using the associated Latin terms (conscius, cogitatio, conscium esse, etc.). In this article, I analyse Antoine Arnauld’s early interpretation of the passages in Descartes that (...) refer to the issue of consciousness. I argue for two separate but interconnected claims. Firstly, I show that when Arnauld sets out to make a case for Descartes’ concept of cogitatio, he reads the central passages in light of some scholastic theories of cognition, in particular, the concept of ‘reflexio virtualis’ which, far from being a Cartesian invention, comes from the late scholastic discourse. Secondly, I argue that by talking about virtual reflection Arnauld provides an interpretation of Descartes’ views in terms of the intrinsic structure of the first-order thought – a reading which is still plausible, even by our contemporary standards. (shrink)

During the 1630s Descartes recognized that he could not expect all legitimate claims in natural science to meet the standard of absolute certainty. The realization resulted from a change in his physics, which itself arose not through methodological reflections, but through developments in his substantive metaphysical doctrines. Descartes discovered the metaphysical foundations of his physics in 1629-30; as a consequence, the style of explanation employed in his physical writings changed. His early methodological conceptions, as preserved in the Rules (...) and sketched in Part Two of the Discourse, pertained primarily to his early work in optics. By the early 1630s, Descartes was concerned with new methodological problems pertaining to the postulation of micro-mechanisms. Recognition of the need to employ a method of hypothesis led him to lower the standard of certainty required of particular explanations in his mature physics. (shrink)

La philosophie cartésienne, en dépit des efforts souvent tentés pour l'exposer suivant une dialectique unilinéaire, n'est point à strictement parler, un système. On la nommerait assez bien, un pluralisme, en ce sens que son contenu ne se laisse ni dériver d'un seul principe ni enfermer dans une seule formule. Pluralisme cohérent, faudrait-il ajouter : non seulement parce que les oppositions qui s'y révèlent ne sont pas (quoi qu'on en ait dit) de formelles contradictions, mais surtout parce que chacun des termes (...) opposés n'y a été admis qu'en vertu d'une même attitude d'esprit, la docilité à l'évidence. Se plier en toutes choses à ce qu'on voit ; l'enregistrer comme on le voit, à quelque ordre qu'il appartienne, sans y rien mêler de sa sensibilité propre : voilà l'attitude cartésienne, telle qu'elle se manifeste dans la théorie de la méthode, comme aussi dans le Cogito et dans les démarches qui en procèdent. C'est l'attitude empirique, au sens premier et authentique du mot : ceux-là seuls répugnent à en convenir que des associations invétérées conduisent toujours à confondre empirique et sensualiste. En sorte que, si nous voulons à toute force caractériser la philosophie de Descartes par un nom, le nom qui lui siérait le mieux serait, tout paradoxe à part, celui d'empirisme - empirisme radical et intégral. (shrink)

Widespread scholarly agreement has it that Descartes' theory of judgment favors a compatibilist interpretation. This essay explains and rebuts the standard arguments made on behalf of compatibilist readings, while explaining and defending a libertarian interpretation. Along with relevant Fourth Meditation doctrines and texts, my analysis encompasses a much discussed 1645 letter discussing his account. Although some scholars view the letter as departing from the account of theMeditations, I argue that the two works present a consistent view – allowing us (...) to take at face value that the letter purports to elaborate Descartes' intended meaning in the associated Fourth Meditation passage. (shrink)

This paper attempts to characterize the method that Descartes put forward in the Discours de la methode of 1637 and the earlier Regulae ad Directionem Ingenii. It is argued that because if important changes in Descartes ' scientific and epistemological programs, Descartes abandons the method of his earlier years at just the moment that he makes it public in the Discours.

Despite holding to the essential distinction between mind and body, Descartes did not adopt a life-body dualism. Though humans are the only creatures which can reason, as they are the only creatures whose body is in an intimate union with a soul, they are not the only finite beings who are alive. In the present note, I attempt to determine Descartes'' criteria for something to be ''living.'' Though certain passages associate such a principle with the presence of a (...) properly functioning heart, I show that there are important reasons for also understanding life in terms of a degree of complexity of design. (shrink)

In the early modern period, many authors held that sensation or sensory reception is in some way passive and that perception is in some way active. The notion of a more passive and a more active aspect of perception is already present in Aristotle: the senses receive forms without matter more or less passively, but the “primary sense” also recognizes the salience of present objects. Ibn al-Haytham distinguished “pure sensation” from other aspects of sense perception, achieved by “discernment, inference and (...) recognition,” which included perception of properties such as size and distance as well as similarity, difference, and beauty. Descartes regarded light and color as experiences passively caused in the mind by bodily processes, but he also included distance, perceived through accommodation and convergence, as an immediately caused sensory idea. On the perception side, most theorists held that size and distance perception occurs through unnoticed psychological operations, whether mediated by judgment or associative processes. Association is, in a sense, passive, as it occurs through nonreflective habit formation. But such habits mark a contribution of the subject to perception and are in that way active. The decision of whether sensation and perception are active or passive is highly sensitive to what counts as activity and to what is included as sensation or perception. There is no simple formula, but the generalization that sensation is for the most part passive and perception for the most part active may stand as an imprecise summary of early modern thought on the topic. (shrink)

This article develops some of the many ways in which Leonardo and Descartes, throughout the prolific period of human valuation from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, seem to have approached and anchored their seminal contributions on the Cartesian body and metaphysical mind. While Leonardo masterfully developed an iterative thinking system of visual design applied to nature and artifacts, Descartes laid the groundwork for methodical critical thinking in dimensions that ironically ranged from dreams to the controlled narrative, from (...) a deceptive body to a rational man. In an interdisciplinary articulation of historical and neurobiological leanings, contemporary concepts of the cognitive emotional brain, led by Damasio as the basis for his conclusions about the "Descartes Error", as well as a torrent of growing evidence that supports high cognitive abilities in associative processes mediated by action/body lead us to a re-evaluation today of the legacies of Leonardo and Descartes, rescuing a scientific mind/brain/body process that underlies the human mastering of a universal technology of discourse that would revolutionize science. (shrink)

컬리는 『회의주의자에 대항한 데카르트』(Descartes against the Skeptics)에서 데카르트의 코 키토 명제에 대해 매우 논쟁적인 주장을 제시한다. 그의 논제는 『성찰』(Meditationes de prima philosophia)의 반론과 답변에서 메르센과 데카르트가 주고받은 반론과 답변을 중심으로 이루어 지고 있지만, 그 범위는 데카르트의 형이상학 전반에 미치고 있다. 그는 메르센의 반론에는 논란 의 여지가 있는 해석을, 데카르트의 답변에는 신랄한 비판을 가한다. 나는 이 논문에서 그의 해 석과 비판이 과연 타당한지를 비판적으로 검토하려고 한다. 우선, 메르센에 대한 컬리의 독해는 “quod sis”를 잘못 이해하고, 이와 아울려 “quod sis res cogitans”를 (...) 컬리가 데카르트 코키토 논 증의 소전제로 간주한 “I think”와 동일시한 것이 그의 결정적인 오류라고 생각한다. 그리고 데 카르트에 대한 컬리의 비판은 관점의 편협성과 데카르트의 코키토 명제에 대한 그의 선입견에 서 출발해서, “sed tanquam rem per se notam simplici mentis intuitu agnoscit”에 대한 오독에 서 절정에 도달한다고 생각한다. 이는 메르센과 데카르트가 나눈 문답을 그 자체로 이해하려는 것이 아니라, 자신의 입장에서 재단하려는 그의 접근 태도에 근본적인 원인이 있다고 생각한다. (shrink)

After Gassendi and Descartes, thinkers who tried to explain and study the association of ideas first saw in this phenomenon a cause of error and madness. Progressively, though, whether it was described as “association” or as “connection” of ideas, it began to be seen as one principle of knowledge among others, until Condillac and Hume thought of it as the only principle of all our knowledge, and until xixth century psychology made it its fundamental law. But prior (...) to the full appropriation of this principle by xixth century psychology, early modern thinkers and philosophers have argued and hesitated about the nature of this phenomenon and its correct explanation. The papers edited here intend to study different kinds of problems that arise when one tries to define and give an account of this connection, as well of its various effects. Indeed, the connection of ideas disturbs some well-entrenched oppositions – between subject and object, nature and custom, or mechanical and spiritual – and urges us to reconsider the faculties of the mind. (shrink)

L’article situe Disproportion de l’Homme dans le prolongement de la discussion entre Descartes et Christine de Suède (1647), la jeune reine objectant à la cosmologie des Principia Philosophiae que son infinitisme blesse les « fondements de la religion », là où, répond Descartes, on ne devrait pas, si l’on avait une idée juste de la puissance divine, « enfermer le monde dans une boule ». Bien que la discussion ne porte à aucun moment sur Copernic, elle n’a de (...) sens que parce que l’immensité du monde et la distance indéfinie des étoiles fixes sont, chez Copernic, une conséquence nécessaire des nouvelles hypothèses astronomiques. Mais Descartes, au lieu de conclure à cette immensité sur la base d’une hypothèse physique ou astronomique, part d’une déduction métaphysique de la grandeur – grandeur telle qu’un système héliocentrique y devient possible sans contradiction. Pascal, forçant encore le trait, va jusqu’à faire de la disproportion comme telle la prémisse d’un raisonnement physico-théologique associant de manière inédite et originale théologie négative et théologie naturelle. (shrink)

데카르트는 자신이 『정념론(Les passions de l’âme)』을 쓴 목적은 정념을 지배하는(maîtriser) 것이라고 여러 차례 말한다. 그렇다면 우리는 어떻게 정념을 제어하고 통제할 수 있을까? 데카르트는 송과선 안의 생리적 운동을 그것과 연결되어 있는 정념으로부터 분리함으로써 정념을 교정할 수 있다고 말한다. 즉 정념을 제어하는 방법은 신체 안의 생리적 운동과 그것과 연결되어 있는 영혼(정신)의 정념을 ‘우리 자신 안에서’ 분리하는 것이다. 그렇게 함으로써 우리에게 해가 되는 정념과 연결된 우리 신체 안의 정기의 운동을 우리에게 유익한 정념과 연결시키는 것이다. 이 논문의 목적은 데카르트 철학에서 어떻게 정념을 통제하고 지배할 (...) 수 있을지를 구체적으로 해명하는 것이다. 우선 첫 번째 절에서는 데카르트 이원론에서 신체의 운동과 정신의 정념이 어떻게 연결되어 있는지를 살펴볼 것이다. 두번째 절에서는 이러한 연결이 인간이 의지를 통해서 새롭게 연결시킬 수 있다는 주장을 살펴볼 것이다. 세 번째 절에서는 신체의 생리적 운동과 정신의 정념의 연결은 개인마다 차이가 있다는 주장을 살펴볼 것이다. 마지막 절에서는 데카르트의 주장에 대한 하나의 반박을 살펴볼 것이다. (shrink)

As of the early seventeenth century, the collapse of the hylomorphic conception of nature offers the opportunity for an association - which was unthinkable in the Aristotelo-scholastic context - between the notions of 'body' and matter. In this paper, I endeavor to show that Descartes is among the emblematic cases of this conceptual switch, dwelling on his sources, as well as on the metaphysical and physical correlates of this option.

Cette étude a pour objet d’examiner la place et le rôle de l’indifférence au sein de la conception cartésienne de la liberté humaine. Notre analyse est principalement gouvernée par la distinction, au sein des affirmations cartésiennes au sujet de la liberté humaine entre 1641 et 1645, de deux dimensions conceptuelles qui déploient respectivement, d’une part, les notions relatives au libre arbitre, d’autre part, celles qui ont trait au rapport de la volonté à l’entendement et qui concernent donc les différents degrés (...) de la liberté. Cette distinction permet d’éclairer les rapports des termes « liberté » et « indifférence » au sein de la pensée de Descartes et de comparer sa position avec celles des courants théologiques majeurs de son époque. En outre, l’examen des diverses corrélations possibles entre les éléments de ces deux axes nous sert à analyser en quoi consistent les différents sens du « bien » que Descartes associe à la liberté, ainsi que les diverses formes du « bon usage » du libre arbitre. (shrink)

이 논문은 데카르트의 『음악입문』(Compendium Musicae)에서 대상(objectum)의 개념을 근대성의 관점에서 분석한 연구이다. 데카르트가 근대적 주체의 이념을 선구적으로 제시한 철학자라는 것은 일반적으로 받아들여지고 있으나 그가 근대적 의미에서 대상의 개념을 처음으로 제시한 철학자인지 어떤지는 그렇게 분명치는 않다. 하지만 철학자이면서 음악학자였던 요한네스 로만은 데카르트의 『음악입문』에서 근대적 대상의 개념이 처음으로 등장한다고 주장한다. 그러나 그는 자신의 주장에 대해 아무런 근거도 제시하지 않았다. 이 논문은 먼저 로만의 주장을 제시하고 그 타당성을 검토하기 위해 토마스 아퀴나스에게서 학문의 주제와 능력의 대상의 구별을 살펴보고 그것이 후기 중세에서 근대에 이르는 과정에서 어떻게 (...) 변화되어 왔는지를 살펴본다. 그런 뒤에 음악 자체의 변화로 눈길을 돌려 차를리노에서부터 데카르트 직전의 칼비시우스에 이르기까지 음악의 주제가 변해온 과정을 살펴본다. 그리고 『음악입문』에서 데카르트가 대상 개념을 사용하는 용례를 검토한 뒤에 최종적으로 데카르트가 이 저작에서 새로운 대상 개념을 사용하기 시작하면서 고대와 중세에 자명하게 받아들여진 존재의 지평을 넘어서는 대상의 지평을 새롭게 제시했음을 밝힌다. (shrink)

"Au cœur de la Révolution scientifique, philosophes et naturalistes tentent de concevoir les modèles les plus aptes à rendre compte du vivant. Les schèmes hérités de l'Antiquité médicale et philosophique sous-tendent encore les théories originales de Van Helmont et de Harvey. Si le mécanisme s'instaure avec le modèle de l'animal-machine chez Descartes, les audaces et les limites du projet cartésien infléchiront toute démarche ultérieure, comme en témoigne la notion spinoziste d'intégration corporelle. Gassendi suggère, pour sa part, d'associer la modélisation (...) mécaniste et la téléologie immanente des processus. Les néo-platoniciens More et Cudworth évoquent le 'principe hylarchique' ou la 'nature plastique', afin de traduire, por delà les insuffisances du mécanisme, l'émergence des organisations vitales. Lorsque le débat se transpose aux microstructures, Malpighi promeut l'analyse physiologique selon le modèle de 'petites machines' diversement combinées et emboîtées ; Glisson attribue la perception et la réactivité aux fibres élémentaires. Les phénomènes de la génération, que l'on a d'abord expliqués par l'épigenèse, s'interprètent principalement en termes de préformation et de préexistence des germes. Mais, à l'encontre de toute construction hypothétique, Locke privilégie une médecine limitée à l'observation des seuls phénomènes vitaux. La critique de mécanisme suscite en outre les modèles 'animistes' de Perrault et de Stahl. En une remarquable tentative, Leibniz repense alors les concepts fondamentaux de la théorie physiologique et suggère les voies d'analyse pur une science de l'organisme'."--taken from back cover. (shrink)

Presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association for Core Texts and Courses, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, April 2010. -/- René Descartes’ Discourse on Method is paradoxical in several respects: it was published anonymously, yet is rich in autobiographical detail; further, Descartes insists that “the power of judging well and of distinguishing the true from the false…is naturally equal in all men,” and also that “the world consists almost exclusively of … minds for whom [his (...) method of reasoning] is not at all suitable” (1, 9). The Discourse indicates both that the identity of a particular reasoning subject (such as the author of the text itself) does not matter—because all rational beings could come to the same conclusion if using their reason correctly—and yet also that who one is does indeed matter to showing that one counts as one of the select group of subjects who possess knowledge. The method and its results do not speak for themselves; rather, the author must speak for them, and legitimize his authority in the process. If it were the case that Descartes’ plan did not go beyond “trying to reform [his] own thoughts and building upon a foundation which is completely [his] own” (9), then he might rest content with his own convictions regarding the truth of his conclusions, but if he wants to be recognized by others as possessing knowledge then he must either appeal to existing standards of authority to legitimize his method and its conclusions, or argue for the validity of new ones. Either way, the Discourse demonstrates Michel Foucault’s claims that knowledge production is bound up in a social context that determines what counts as true knowledge and who has the authority to speak about it. Descartes’s text shows an author both boldly presenting revolutionary arguments and methods and revealing his awareness of the difficulties and dangers of resisting the accepted standards of knowledge. It can be used to spark discussion amongst students about whether, even if we believe anyone’s reason might produce knowledge, it is still the case today that only some count as “knowers” according to criteria that are socially determined (e.g., institutional affiliation, status within an institution, the acceptability of certain sorts of projects and methods as legitimate for knowledge). (shrink)

Descartes’s arguments about the certainty of mathematics in the Rules for the Direction of the Mind cannot be understood independently of his attack on the authority of ancient authors. The author maintains this view by reading Descartes’s claims about mathematics through the lens of status theory, a framework for disputation revived by Renaissance dialecticians. Within status theory, “certainty” was closely associated with consensus. The essay shows how Descartes used status to attack the authority of the ancient authors (...) and elevate mathematics as an alternative. Descartes’s arguments about the certainty of mathematics are colored by his effort to make mathematics satisfy the demands of status-based disputation. Specifically, in order to elevate the status of mathematics, Descartes portrayed it as more common—prone to consensus—than he really believed it was. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Originality of Descartes’s Conception of Analysis as DiscoveryBenoît TimmermansAccording to Descartes, his Meditations employ the method of analysis. This method of proof, says Descartes, “shows the true way by means of which the thing in question was discovered methodically and as it were a priori.” 1 Such a definition of analysis poses a problem that seems to have attracted little attention among commentators until now, (...) namely, why Descartes considers analysis a method of discovery whereas the Scholastic tradition asserts just the contrary, that synthesis allows the discovery of new things, whereas analysis is a method for judging findings or verifying them a posteriori. What is more, the definition that Descartes gives of his analysis contains another divergence, this time brought up by the commentators, 2 for he curiously considers analysis an a priori movement and not an a posteriori movement as dictated by tradition.These issues are all the more important as the analytical method acquired particular prestige in the seventeenth century. This prestige concerned not only philosophy (Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, etc.) but science as well. Thus algebra lost some of its rough edges and gradually took on the name of “analysis.” 3 Descartes created a type of geometry that was soon dubbed “analytic,” and Leibniz developed his analysis infinitorum or differential and integral calculus. If the scientific revolution and the new philosophies that were associated with it attached so much importance to a method that had already been known in ancient Greece, was it not due to a change of the meaning of analysis or at least a rearranging of some of its functions? This is the question that we propose to [End Page 433] tackle while trying to determine to what extent Cartesian analysis breaks with the forms of analysis that preceded it. 4To do this we shall first examine the teachings of Scholastic philosophy concerning the connections between analysis and discovery in general and then study the logical possibilities of discovery through analysis that draw their inspiration from Aristotle’s Analytics and that were developed extensively by the School of Padua in the sixteenth century. Finally, we shall attempt to determine whether the mathematical definition of analysis derived from the works of Euclid and Pappus gives grounds for the correlation with discovery.The Link Between Analysis and Discovery According to the ScholasticsOne might well think that Descartes was completely unaware of the contradiction between his definition of analysis and the teachings of the Scholastics. Had not he always exhibited a true disdain for the latter? However, in September 1640, that is, four months before writing his text on analysis, Descartes began girding for the Jesuit Fathers’ objections to his Meditations. This involved looking for an “abstract of the whole of scholastic philosophy, this would save the time it would take to read their huge tomes.” 5 He finally found what he was looking for in the shops of Leiden, namely, Eustachius a Sancto Paulo’s Summa Philosophiae. There is reason to believe that Descartes read this opus with interest, for two months later he referred to it as “the best book of its kind ever made.” 6 Later he said that he would definitely have chosen the Summa Philosophiae as the basis for refuting the School’s doctrine if he had not given up such a project. 7 Now, Eustachius a Sancto Paulo’s Summa Philosophiae is categorical on the subject of analysis versus synthesis. Analysis of a definition “is perfectly compatible with the doctrines for teaching and learning; as for the other disciplines of discovery, the other method, that is the composite or synthetic method, must be used.” 8According to the Scholastic doctrine as stated by Eustachius a Sancto Paulo, analysis thus plays a part in the teaching of well-known things and in all processes of appraisal, assessment, or judgment. This is easy to explain if one considers that, etymologically, analysis breaks links (ana-luein), goes backward, or climbs back up from the consequences to the principles. Starting from an observation, proposition, or question, it wends its way back to the simplest, [End Page 434] surest items of knowledge that shed light on and verify said starting... (shrink)

L'etude historique du principe de vie dans l'oeuvre de Descartes et dans celle de ses predecesseurs souligne notamment l'enjeu de la scission cartesienne entre l'ame et les phenomenes biologiques. Elle permet de comprendre, dans sa nouveaute radicale, la notion de principe de vie chez Descartes, qui associe la decouverte recente de la circulation du sang par W. Harvey, a une explication mecanique de la chaleur du coeur. Du traite de L'Homme aux Passions de l'ame, Descartes identifie en (...) effet la notion de principe de vie a la chaleur contenue dans le coeur, nourrie par la circulation du sang. Une telle conception s'oppose a la vision aristotelicienne, ou la biologie et la psychologie sont etroitement liees, ainsi qu'aux adeptes du panpsychisme que Descartes a critiques: Campanella et Henry More. (shrink)