Open main menu

Changes

9,857 bytes added ,  02:04, 15 March 2018
no edit summary
{{Author
|First Name=ReneRené
|Last Name=Descartes
|DOB Era=CE
|DOD Day=10
|DOD Approximate=No
|SummaryBrief='''Rene Descartes''' (1596-1650) was a French mathematician and natural philosopher. ; who is today considered one of the most influential figures in modern philosophy|Summary=Descartes rejected the Aristotelian-scholastic world view medieval mosaic accepted for most of the previous two thousand years, and laid down the foundations of a new foundations for knowledgemechanistic mosaic.[[CiteRef::Russell (1945)|p. 524]][[CiteRef::Newman (2014)]][[CiteRef::Garber (1993)]] In mathematics he developed techniques Aristotelians had maintained that made possible analytic geometry. In natural philosophy, he intuition schooled by experience was co-framer of the sine law of light refraction, developed a theory of the rainbow, and formulated a precursor of the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar systemroute to knowledge.[[CiteRef::Hatfield (2014)]] Rejecting the Aristotelian world of forms, substances, and teleologyDescartes, he posited a mechanical world in which matter possessed only spatial extension and interacted only by contact. In his ''Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences'' (''Discourse on Method''), first published in 1637.,[[CiteRef::Descartes (2007)]] Descartes posited put forward a rationalist scientific methodology whereby in which a proposition is acceptable only if it can be clearly and distinctly perceived by the intellect beyond all reasonable doubt or follows deductively from such propositions.[[CiteRef::Newman (2014)]] This allowed him to advance a mathematical a priorist approach to scientific knowledge and inquiry.[[CiteRef::Garber (1992)]][[CiteRef::Clarke (1992)]] Rejecting the Aristotelian world of forms, substances, and teleology, he posited a mechanical world in which matter possessed only spatial extension and interacted only by contact. In mathematics he developed techniques that made possible analytic geometry. In natural philosophy, he was co-framer of the sine law of light refraction, developed a theory of the rainbow, and formulated a precursor of the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system.[[CiteRef::Hatfield (2016)]]|Historical Context=The [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was based primarily on the works of [[Aristotle ]] and some later Hellenistic natural philosophers, . This was reconciled in various ways with Christian theology by scholars in the High Middle Ages. This '''Aristotelian-scholastic mosaic''' included Christian theologyPtolemaic astronomy, astrology, humoral physiology, astrology, Ptolemaic astronomy, and Christian (Catholic, in many but not all communities contemporaneous with Descartes) theology.[[CiteRef::Haldane (1905)]] Descartes was well educated in this tradition through his attendance at the prestigious Jesuit La Fleche College between the ages of ten and eighteen. He studied a traditional scholastic curriculum of logic, grammar, philosophy, mathematics, and theology. Natural philosophy was taught from the works of Aristotle as interpreted by Christian scholars. Descartes also received an education in mathematics that was unusual for the Aristotelian tradition, and excelled at math. [[CiteRef::Gaukroger (1995)|pp. 38-61]][[CiteRef::Rodis-Lewis (1992)]][[CiteRef::Garber (1992)]]
Descartes’ major writings came in a time of social and intellectual upheaval in Europe. He Before writing his major works, he was a participant in the Thirty Years War before writing his major works and traveled . He travelled extensively around Europe at a time when the continent was embroiled in both reformation and counter-reformation, both of which were both a wellspring of new thought in theology and philosophy. The community of the time was engaged with major challenges to the Aristotelian-scholastic tradition. These came from a variety of varied sources, including various varieties of Platonism, Hermeticism, and the Chemical Philosophy chemical philosophy of Paracelsus, among other movements.[[CiteRef::Garber (1992)]] There were new developments in optics, astronomy, and physiology.[[CiteRef::Cottingham (1992)]] Aristotle's earth-centered cosmology had been challenged by the work of Nicolaus Copernicus(1473-1543), Johannes Kepler(1571-1630), and Galileo Galilei(1564-1642), which Descartes was familiar with.[[CiteRef::Hatfield (2016)]][[CiteRef::Rodis-Lewis (1992)]][[CiteRef::Ariew (1986)]]
The After leaving La Fleche, in 1618,Descartes became involved in a collaboration with the Dutch Calvinist natural philosopher Isaac Beeckman (1588-1687), who valued him for his mathematical skills. They worked together on several mathematical problems in natural philosophy. [[CiteRef::Gaukroger (1995)|p. 68]] Beeckman was a supporter of the '''mechanical natural philosophy''' . This was a [[Theory Pursuit|pursued ]] radical alternative to Aristotelian cosmology, embraced by some supporters of Copernican heliocentrism.[[CiteRef::Luthy, Murdoch, and Newman (2001b)]][[CiteRef::Chalmers (2014)]][[CiteRef::Gaukroger (1995)|p. 69-73]] It rejected the Aristotelian fundamentals of form, substance, and teleology, and the idea that matter is continuous. Instead of explaining the properties of visible bodies in terms of form, it instead maintained that the world consisted of invisibly tiny particles of matter and that all the observable properties of the visible bodies were a consequence of these particles and their interactions with one another. The particles interacted were held to interact mechanically, by contact, and it was often supposed that they this rendered natural phenomena potentially explainable in geometrical and mathematical terms. Unlike Aristotle's physics, it was compatible with a moving planetary Earth. It can be traced to the Ancient Greek '''atomism''' of Democritus (circa 460-370 BCE) and later Epicurean philosophers. Atomism was reintroduced into European thought in the fifteenth century with the rediscovery of the Roman poet Lucretius's ''De rerum natura''. Part of its appeal lay in the fact that unlike Aristotle's physics, the mechanical philosophy was compatible with a moving planetary Earth. In the early seventeenth century, it was championed by Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Nicolas Hill (1570-1610?), Sebastian Basso (1573-1625?), Francis Bacon (1561-1626), and Galileo Galilei.[[CiteRef::Garber (1992)]][[CiteRef::Klein (2012)]][[CiteRef::Gatti (2001)]][[CiteRef::Luthy, Murdoch, and Newman (2001b)]]
After leaving La Fleche, in 1618,Descartes became involved in a collaboration with the Dutch Calvinist natural philosopher Isaac and Beeckman (1588-1687), who valued him for his mathematical skills. They worked together on several mathematical problems in natural philosophy. Beeckman was a corpuscularist. A derivative of atomism, '''corpuscularism''' rejected indivisible atoms and void spaces but nonetheless accounted for the properties of objects in terms of invisibly tiny particles [[CiteRef::Gaukroger (1995)|p. 68]] He is almost certainly the first person in Europe to attempt to explain macro-geometrical regularities in terms of micro-mechanical models. [[CiteRef::Gaukroger (1995)|p. 70]] For the most part, applying mathematics to physical problems was not part of the Aristotelian tradition. Descartes adopted Beeckman's mathematical corpuscularism and became part of a community of corpuscularist thinkers which besides Beeckman and Descartes included Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), Sir Kenelm Digby (1603-1665), and Walter Charleston (1620-1707). They all knew each other and reacted to each other's work.[[CiteRef::Osler (2001)]] The decade after Descartes met Beeckman was the most philosophically productive of his life. [[CiteRef::Garber (1992)]]
In terms of his methodology Descartes was largely responding to what he perceived as the dogmatism and marked lack of progress he saw in the Scholastic tradition, and his excitement with the new mechanical natural philosophy. His weariness with the largely dialectical scholastic method is what led him to develop the highly systematized epistemology and metaphysics for which he would come to be known. The Aristotelian-scholastic mosaic continued to be [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] throughout Descartes's life, with acceptance of his views coming later.|Major Contributions=Descartes new methodology and mechanical natural philosophy were of revolutionary importance. They became accepted at Cambridge University in England by 1680,[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 211]] and in France by about 1700, displacing the Aristotelian-medieval system of theories from that had been central elements of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]for centuries. These theories were ultimately fully displaced throughout Europe by Descartes ' theories and by the later theories of Issac [[Isaac Newton ]] (1642-1726).[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 167]]
===Cartesian MethodMethodology===Under the Aristotelian scholastic method [[Methodology|methodology]] a theory is acceptable “if it grasps the nature of a thing through intuition schooled by experience, or if it is deduced from general intuitive principles”.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 144]] Descartes became frustrated with this tradition and its dialectical approach to knowledge-seeking, which he charged with plunging him into skeptical doubts whereby he could never be sure what was true and what was not. He writes in ''Discourse on the Method'':[[CiteRef::Descartes (2007)]]
<blockquote>“But no sooner had I completed the whole course of study that normally takes one straight into the ranks of the ‘learned’ than I completely changed my mind about what this education could do for me. For I found myself tangled in so many doubts and errors that I came to think that my attempts to become educated had done me no good except to give me a steadily widening view of my ignorance!”</blockquote>
Descartes concluded that if his goal was to attain certain knowledge about the world,the accepted method methodology for doing so must be rejected , and a new one would be requiredformulated. Method Methodology held a central place in his epistemology; in fact, one of Descartes’ criticisms of Galileo was that he failed to produce a fully developed method methodology to justify his discoveries, and had simply explained particular physical phenomena.[[CiteRef::Ariew (1986)]] To that end he embraced his skeptical doubts Rather than experience and devised a method based on intuition, Descartes' '''methodological skepticism'''; a method whereby he rejects all knowledge that he cannot be certain of, accepts only those propositions which he can accept as certain, was based on reason and proceed deductively from those axioms according on the capacity to reasondoubt. By this method Descartes hoped The harder a proposition was to produce a kind of systematized knowledge that, he believed, could be universally acceptable. In his 'Meditations on First Philosophy'doubt, [[CiteRef::Descartes (2004)]] Descartes identified the sole indubitable proposition upon which he would build the entire rest of his philosophical system as his famous '''‘Cogito, Ergo Sum’''' (also styled ‘Dubito, Ergo Cogito, Ergo Sum’ or simply as ‘the Cogito’); “I think, therefore I amgreater its certainty.” From this foundation Descartes deduced that he This was a created thing, his requiring a creator, that creator being God, the benevolent nature of God, and the consequent reliability of his God-given senses and reason, all of which formed the broader foundation of his systematized scientific worldviewan epistemological innovation.[[CiteRef::Newman (2014)]]
Although Descartes maintained some methodological aspects His strategy was, first, to reject all knowledge that he cannot be certain of the Scholastic-Aristotelian mosaic – namely the axiomatic-deductive, epistemic-foundationalist structure and accept only those propositions of investigation – one critical difference in Descartes’ methodology was the shift in the which he is certain. He would deduce other knowledge from such axioms using reason. By this method Descartes hoped to produce a kind of theory choice. It jettisons the Aristotelian expectation systematized knowledge that a theory must could be experientially based and intuitively obvious for it to be acceptable, and although universally accepted. In his system, as it ended up, allowed for knowledge that was both experiential and intuited''Meditations on First Philosophy'',[[CiteRef::Newman Descartes (20142004)]] Descartes identified the ultimate justification for knowledge claims sole indubitable proposition upon which he would build his entire philosophical system: he was human reason. In this way Descartes is both certain of his own existence as a thinking being, or in Latin, ''''rationalist'‘Cogito, Ergo Sum’'' and an ''' (also styled ''‘Dubito, Ergo Cogito, Ergo Sum’'' or simply as ''‘the Cogito’''); “I think, therefore I am.” From the foundation of his own existence, Descartes deduced that he must be a created being, that this requires a prioristcreator, in that creator being God, the benevolent nature of God, and the consequent reliability of his epistemology senses and metaphysics allows for of the God-given ability of his reason to form clear and distinct ideas. It was therefore possible to use his senses and reason to gain knowledge of an external world. This reasoning formed the existence foundation of synthetic a priori propositionshis systematized scientific worldview.[[CiteRef::Newman (2014)]]
===The Cartesian Revolution Descartes maintained some aspects of the Scholastic-Aristotelian methodology – namely an axiomatic-deductive, epistemic-foundationalist structure of investigation. But the critical difference in Natural Philosophy===his methodology was the shift in the method of theory choice. He jettisoned the Aristotelian expectation that a theory must be experientially based and intuitively obvious for it to be acceptable, and although his system, as it ended up, allowed for knowledge that was both experiential and intuited,[[CiteRef::Newman (2014)]] the ultimate justification for knowledge claims was human reason and the absence of doubt. Descartes was both a '''rationalist''' and an '''a priorist''', in that his epistemology and metaphysics allows for the existence of synthetic a priori propositions. Although an argument for God's existence was at the foundation of his system, Descartes' rationalism was nonetheless a formidable challenge to the accepted theological methodology which had been comprehensively expressed by the Catholic saint, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) more than three hundred years earlier. Aquinas saw human reason as limited, and always to be exercised in the context of, and subject to the authority of, the divine revelation of the Bible. Descartes, by contrast, sought to develop his epistemology and theology on the basis of human reason alone. [[CiteRef:: Hyman (2007)]]
{{#evt:service=youtube|id=yFH7i3Lx7IA|alignment=rightCartesian Natural Philosophy===Descartes scientific theories about the natural world were grounded in a metaphysical foundation, in turn deduced by the application of his rationalist methodology. He wrote that "the whole of philosophy is like a tree. The roots are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emerging from the trunk are all the other sciences, which may be reduced to three principle ones, namely medicine, mechanics, and morals".[[CiteRef::Clarke (1992)|description=Hakob Barseghyan's lecture p. 271]] One ought to construct a metaphysics first, based on Cartesian Worldview|container=frame }}criteria independent of observation, and subsequently consider physical theories consistent with the metaphysical foundation. His natural philosophy was in stark contrast to the accepted Aristotelianism. In Aristotelian natural philosophy all objects were a compound of form and matter, a concept called hylomorphism. Form gives material bodies their distinctive properties, and makes them different from one another. It explains why fire rises and stones fall. Matter is what all material bodies share in common. All things have teleological goals or purposes. [[CiteRef::Shields (2016)]]
included physicalIn Descartes' mechanical corpuscular natural philosophy, biologicalby contrast, physiologicalthere are just two kinds of substance that are entirely different from each other in kind: mental substance and physical substance. The fundamental property of '''mental substance''' was thought, and psychological theoriesDescartes equated it with the rational soul of God and humans. The fundamental feature of '''physical substance''' was extension in space. He rejected Aristotle's distinction between form and matter, including Aristotle's four elements.[[CiteRef::Hatfield Ariew (20161992)]]Cartesian mechanics rejects the void posited by atomists; instead matter fills the universe as a plenum. If all matter is extended, Descartes reasoned that there can be no space without extended matter. Also unlike atomism, matter is infinitely divisible, though visible things are composed of tiny corpuscles that interact with one another by physical contact. The corpuscular composition of a material body, rather than its Aristotelian form, determines its properties. Since corpuscles are too small to be directly observed, their size and shape must be hypothesized, though observation can allow us to infer the plausibility of our guesswork. Our senses, Descartes maintained, do not inform us of the mechanical world as it is, but provide us with sensations which are mere signs of their objective causes. Only extended matter and motion exist apart from our minds. [[CiteRef::Garber Clarke (1992)]] That said, Descartes completed a manuscript that was to be a number comprehensive expression of his theories are worth exploring mechanical natural philosophy, called ''The World''. He withdrew his plans to publish it upon learning of the condemnation of Galileo in Rome in brief1633. The work never appeared during his lifetime, but two major fragments, in particular those that were fundamental departures from the accepted mosaic of ''Treatise on Light'', and the early sixteenth century''Treatise on Man'' were published posthumously. The first dealt with physics, and most dramatic the second put forward a theory of these is Descartes’ rejection of hylomorphism physiology, nervous system function, and the form-matter distinction which would be the foundation for Descartes’ rejection of most of the prior physicsmind/brain relationship. [[CiteRef::Garber (1992)]][[CiteRef::Descartes (2003)]]
In Aristotelian natural philosophy all objects were a compound of form and matterDescartes cosmology, a concept called hylomorphismthe universe is essentially mechanical in character. Form gives material bodies their distinctive propertiesCopernican heliocentrism is accepted, and makes them different from one another. It explains why fire rises and stones fall. Matter planetary motion is what they all share explained in commonterms of a swirling '''vortex''' of material particles around the central sun. All things have teleological goals or purposes [[CiteRef::Shields (2016)]]. In Descartes' mechanical corpuscular natural philosophyEarth, by contrastas a moving planet, there are just two kinds is the center of substance that are entirely different from each other in composition and kind: mental substance and physical substanceits own smaller vortex. Descartes equated The particles of the former with vortex push larger bodies towards its center and this explains gravity without supposing, as did Aristotle, that the rational soul sphere of God and humans and earth was at rest in its natural place; the latter with all physical matter, center of the fundamental feature of which he considered universe. It also made it reasonable to be extension. The form/matter distinction is rejectedsuppose that other planets had their own attractive vorticies, as are Aristotle's four elementsand were thus other worlds. [[CiteRef::Ariew Garber (1992)]]
Descartes deduced his scientific theories about also challenged Aristotelian physiology. Aristotle's theory of physiology posited three souls or vital principles; the nutritive soul, responsible for nutrition and reproduction, comprised the natural world from this basically metaphysical foundation (all of which he deduces by application entirety of his method). He wrote that "the whole of philosophy is like a treesoul in plants. The roots are metaphysicssensitive soul, responsible for perception, locomotion, the trunk is physicsimagination, and the branches emerging from the trunk are all the other sciencesdesire, which may be reduced was added to three principle onesthe sensitive soul in animals. A third component, namely medicinethe intellectual soul, mechanics, and morals"was found uniquely in human beings.[[CiteRef::Clarke Shields (2016b)]][[CiteRef::Van der Eijk (19922000)|p. 271]] In Cartesian mechanics, matter fills Descartes rejected the universe as a plenum. If all matter is extended, there can be no space without extended matter. Unlike atomism, matter is infinitely divisible, though visible things are composed of tiny corpuscles that interact with one another by physical contact. Their size nutritive and shape are hypotheticalsensitive souls, and are too small to be determined directly supposing their functions were instead performed by observationcorpuscular mechanisms, though observation can allow us to infer the plausibility nature of our guessworkwhich he outlined in his ''Treatise on Man''. The universe is essentially mechanical in character, except for the [[CiteRef::Descartes (2007)]] Descartes' mental substance of human beingsserved roughly the same role as Aristotle's intellectual soul. Animals, according to Descartes, are complex automata composed of physical substance only and cannot be said to think, feel, or love in the way that human beings or God can; these properties being made possible by mental substance.[[CiteRef::Clarke Des Chene (19922001)]][[CiteRef::Descartes Clarke (20071992)]] Descartes maintained that our senses do not inform us of the mechanical world as it is, but provide us with sensations which may be different from their objective cause. Only extended matter and motion exist apart from our minds. Secondary qualities, such as colors, are created in our minds in response to mechanical stimuli. [[CiteRef::Clarke Descartes (19922007)]]. Descartes completed posited a manuscript that was to be a comprehensive expression of his mechanical natural philosophymental substance for theological, called ''The World''. He withdrew his plans to publish it upon learning of the condemnation of Galileo in Rome in 1633. The work never appeared during his lifetime, but two major fragments, the ''Treatise on Light''metaphysical, and the ''Treatise on Man'' where published posthumouslyscientific reasons. The first dealt with physicsHe supposed that thought could not be mechanized, and since all the second put forward a theory of physiology, nervous system, machines known to him were specialized to perform one particular function, and the mind/brain relationshipbut human reason was a general purpose instrument. [[CiteRef::Garber Hatfield (1992)]][[CiteRef::Descartes Cottingham (20031992)]]
Descartes mechanical natural philosophy fostered a radical change in how natural philosophers gained new knowledge. The Aristotelian-medieval methodology accorded a very limited role for experiments in scientific investigation. This is because a strict distinction was made between natural and artificial things. Every natural thing behaved in accordance with its nature; acorns grow on oak trees, because that is what their nature dictates. Artificial things have an external source of change. The cogs and springs of a clock are constructed so that they no longer behave according to their respective natures (which is simply to fall towards their natural place at the center of the universe, rather than function as parts of a machine that tells time for humans). A thing cannot reveal its true nature under the artificial conditions of experimentation, because the experimental set up necessarily puts things under artificial conditions. To gain knowledge, things must be observed in their natural undisturbed state. Descartes' mechanical natural philosophy rejected the natural/artificial distinction along with its rejection of forms and teleology. Matter always obeyed the same set of mechanical laws regardless of its situation. Thus,under the mechanical natural philosophy experimentation was often a good source of knowledge about nature, and its adherents often became practitioners. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.181-182]]
The challenge to the Aristotelian tradition, even in places where Cartesianism was rejected and the community maintained Aristotelianism, forced the academic community in Europe to reconsider and defend the Aristotelian mosaic in ways that had never before been encountered. Though the dialectical approach to scholarship throughout the medieval period saw scholars constantly questioning various aspects of the Aristotelian worldview, Descartes’ wholesale rejection of huge swaths of the mosaic and its central concepts were unprecedented. Theories like hylomorphism (that being is a compound of matter and form), which had been a given in the mosaic of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and had endured through multitudes of adjustments, reconciliations, and dialectic criticism, but had never before faced complete overhaul that Descartes's mechanical natural philosophy threatened. Although Descartes' theories would eventually be supplanted by those of Newton, he made the critical first steps to replacing the Aristotelian-scholastic mosaic.[[CiteRef::Hatfield (2016)]]
|Criticism=Descartes’ ideas saw widespread criticism in his time and shortly after from all manner of sources, including Scholastic vanguards, religious authorities, and other philosophers. One common early criticism was that his new views were threatening to the Catholic and Christian faith.[[CiteRef::Jolley (1992)]] In 1663, his works were placed on the Catholic Church's ''Index of Forbidden books'', and in 1671 his conception was officially banned from schools in the Catholic world. In the early modern period, theological propositions and natural philosophical propositions were not seen as belonging to separate domains, but rather formed parts of an integrated [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]. Aristotelian natural philosophy had been carefully adapted to render it consistent with Catholic faith. Descartes' novel natural philosophy introduced many inconsistencies that needed to be [[The Zeroth Law|reconciled]] before his theories could be [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]]. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 190-196]]
One specific theological criticism of Cartesian natural philosophy had to do with the Catholic sacrament of the holy Eucharist, in which bread and wine are said to be transformed into the body and blood of Christ. The dogma of the ''Real Presence'' maintained that in this sacrament, Christ is really (as opposed to metaphorically or symbolically) present in the bread and wine. Thomas Aquinas had posited an Aristotelian explanation for the ''Real Presence'' which had become the accepted Catholic ''doctrine of transubstantiation''. The doctrine held that in the Eucharist, the Aristotelian substance of the bread and wine were replaced by the body and blood of Christ, while their forms (that of bread and wine) remaining unchanged. In Descartes' corpuscularism, bread and wine differed from flesh and blood because they had a different arrangement of corpuscles. There is no obvious way that one could appear as the other. The Anglican church, the state church of England following its break with the Catholic papacy in the 1530's did not accept the ''doctrine of transubstantiation''. Thus Cartesianism did not face objections based on it, and became accepted at Cambridge University by 1680. Catholic Paris didn't accept it until 1700. Many solutions reconciling Cartesianism and the ''Real Presence'' had, by then, been proposed. Barseghyan speculates that the one accepted by the Parisian community was that proposed by Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694) in 1671, in which Christ's presence in the Eucharist was due to a miracle beyond human comprehension, and outside the ordinary course of nature described by Cartesianism.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 194]]
The overthrow of the Aristotelian tradition, even Critics in places where Cartesianism was rejected and the community maintained AristotelianismDecartes' era were also concerned that corpuscular explanation involved hypothetical unobservable entities, forced the academic community in Europe to reconsider and defend the Aristotelian mosaic supposition that this invisibly small world could be understood by analogy with larger objects. Descartes countered that "there is nothing more in ways keeping with reason that had never before been encountered. Though the dialectical approach to scholarship throughout the medieval period saw scholars constantly questioning various aspects of the Aristotelian worldview, Descartes’ wholesale rejection of huge swaths of the mosaic and its central concepts were unprecedented. Theories like hylomorphismwe judge about those things that we do not perceive, which had been a given in the mosaic because of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and had endured through multitudes of adjustmentstheir small size, reconciliations by comparison and dialectic criticism had never before faced complete overhaul as Descartes threatened. Although Descartes theories would eventually be supplanted by contrast with those of Newton, he made the critical first steps to replacing the Aristotelian-scholastic mosaic.that we see" [[CiteRef::Hatfield Clarke (20161992)|p. 267]]|Criticism=Descartes’ ideas saw widespread criticism in his time and shortly after from all manner He felt that a plausible model, though potentially incorrect due to the unobservability of sourcesits fundamental parts, including Scholastic vanguards, religious authorities, and other philosopherswas better than none at all. By 2016 almost all The role of Descartes’ ideas have been consigned unobservably small entities in the physical sciences was to the graveyard remain a matter of ideasprolonged debate. In modern science, but it is worth noting some criticisms Descartes faced in his lifetime or shortly thereafter that are of historical interestan accepted and central practice. The most notable objection Descartes would end up facing would be the more mathematically precise and more explanatorily powerful physical theory given by Newton half a century later, but there existed objection to Descartes even earlier. One particularly Another notable objection came from Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia(1618-1680), who questioned Descartes’ theory of substance in a letter dated the tenth of May, 1643. In it, she asks “Given that the soul of a human being is only a thinking substance, how can it affect the bodily spirits, in order to bring about voluntary actions?”[[CiteRef::Descartes (2009)]] Descartes would never gives a satisfactory answer to this central question over the course of the correspondence. In 1747, in his ''L'Homme machine''(''Machine Man'') Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709-1751) raised another simple, but devastating objection to Descartes' supposition that human reason must be due to an immaterial mental substance. He noted that reason can become impaired by material causes such as drunkenness and fever. [[CiteRef::De La Mettrie (1996)]]. In the nineteenth century, Princess Elizabeth's objection became far more poignant with the single example highlights how troubling formulation of the law of the conservation of energy, which implied causal closure of the issues left open physical world to influence by Descartes’ system are for a mental substance. In the early twentieth century, the integrity mathematician Alan Turing (1912-1954) showed that it was possible to construct a general purpose machine capable of performing any possible mathematical computation, thereby demonstrating that systema general purpose machine was possible and refuting Descartes' core argument against a mechanical understanding of human reason. Elizabeth’s objection raises reasonable (significantBy the end of the twentieth century, even) doubts about whether or not the theory relevant scientific communities of neuroscience and cognitive science had rejected the idea of a mental substance around which Descartes bases and sought a significant portion of his scientific theories can hold watermechanistic physical explanation for the mind [[CiteRef::Bechtel (2008)]], though there was still no agreement as to whether consciousness could be explained in this fashion. [[CiteRef::Chalmers (1996)]]
One Descartes' physical natural philosophy did not fare nearly so well. Within fifty years, Isaac Newton (1642-1726) formulated a more mathematically precise and explanatorily powerful physical theory, which became the accepted theory of the most powerful objections to arise after Descartes’ death in 1650 came physical world. It rejected a generation later with the emergence major tenet of the philosophy Descartes' corpuscularism by positing a gravitational force that acted at a distance. Newton's laws of John Locke motion, however, bore important similarities to those formulated earlier by Descartes. [[CiteRef::Clarke (1992)]] As practicing scientists, researchers like Newton and the British Empiricists. LockeRobert Boyle (1627-1691) did not, despite being an admirer of as did Descartes, was highly critical seek certain knowledge of his methodology and in particular was critical the real essences of his methodological scepticismmaterial objects. Instead, they sought an ordering of phenomenal experience which Locke regarded as a non-starterwould enable them to predict nature's course with the best available theory.[[CiteRef::Uzgalis Osler (20161970)]]
Other objections were political, theological, Descartes' method itself was criticized by two sympathetic figures; Antoine Arnauld and personal objections brought by various interest groups who Marin Mersenne. Their criticism had some stake in to do with Descartes demonstration of the existence of God, which is the academic status quolinchpin of his method. In many places Descartes’ work was banned, Descartes claimed that our belief in more even discussion the reliability of the clear and distinct perceptions of the human intellect depends on our knowledge of the existence of God as the source of Descartes’ work was bannedthat capacity. Official condemnations came down But how could that knowledge be established in the first place? If we answer that we can prove God's existence from Universities premises we clearly and Church authoritiesdistinctly perceive, none then the argument collapses into circularity. Descartes' argument that it is possible for us to have certain scientific knowledge of which were effective at stopping the spread world fails with it, since it depends on God to underwrite the reliability of our senses and intellect. This criticism, called the '''Cartesian ideasCircle''', was never successfully countered. Within a generation, Descartes quest for certainty in scientific knowledge was widely recognized to have failed.[[CiteRef::Jolley Cottingham (1992)]] In 1650, [[John Locke]] and the British Empiricists brought forth a new conception of scientific knowledge that was more modest than Descartes' failed quest for certainty. The empiricists argued for experience, rather than a priori reason, as the basis for human knowledge, and sought a philosophy of science more in keeping with scientific practice. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)]][[CiteRef::Osler (1970)]]
|Related Topics=Method, Methodology,
|Page Status=Needs EditingEditor Approved}}{{YouTube Video|VideoID=yFH7i3Lx7IA|VideoDescription=Hakob Barseghyan's lecture on Cartesian Worldview|VideoEmbedSection=Major Contributions
}}