Abstract
This introduction opens a discussion about what we call here “Cartesian Empiricisms.” Under this label we place some of the complex transformations of Descartes’ ideas in the second half of the seventeenth century. Our aim is to highlight the use of experiment within the Cartesian framework, which—with the exception of a few scattered studies on seventeenth-century Cartesians—was largely neglected in the literature. In this introduction, we provide an overview of Cartesian scholarship and the use of the rationalist-empiricist distinction in both the history of philosophy and the history of science; we show that the rationalist-empiricist narrative is in crisis and contend that examining figures who do not neatly fit the dichotomy is a useful approach to a re-evaluation of the period. We end with a summary of the chapters, which cover a number of Cartesians strongly committed to the importance of experimental natural philosophy and further our understanding of how Cartesians in the second half of the seventeenth century understood and utilized knowledge from observation, experience, and experiment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For some examples see: Gaukroger 1980, 2002; Osler 1985, 1994; Hatfield 1985, 1988; Clarke 1989; Nadler 1990; Garber 1992, 2001b, 2002; Grene 1995; Armogathe and Belgioioso 1996; Gabbey 1998; Des Chene 2000; Gaukroger et al. 2000; Roux and Garber 2013 (especially Chap. 3 by Roux 2013); Kolesnik-Antoine 2013.
- 2.
There is a difference between the English and French literature on this topic. French scholars pointed out Descartes’ interest in experiments and empirical knowledge much earlier. See for example Liard 1882; Milhaud 1921; Mouy 1934; Laporte 1945 [1988]. English scholars discovered it quite late—and, in some sense, with great surprise—as it is the case of Clarke 1982, where Descartes is largely presented as an Empiricist.
- 3.
- 4.
Butterfield 1949; Koyré 1957. This twentieth-century historiography of science assumed the Rationalist-Empiricist distinction and re-instantiated Newtonian propaganda from the eighteenth century. See Chap. 4 by Van Bunge. See also Cohen 1985; Christie 1990; Shank 2008. On the history of the “big picture” see Cunningham and Williams 1993. The scientific revolution narrative espoused in Butterfield and Koyré was replicated and further developed by their students and other scholars throughout the twentieth century. For examples, see Hall 19074; Kuhn 1957; Gillispie 1960; Dijksterjuis 1961; Westfall 1971. Note that these works were re-released in new editions or versions throughout the twentieth century, holding an impressive influence.
- 5.
Kuhn 1962 (see 1996 edition, 48, 148).
- 6.
- 7.
Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I in Locke 1975.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
For examples, see Popkin 1959a; Ryle 1960; Matson 1968; Buchdahl 1969; Bracken 1974; Mandelbaum 1976, 1977; Loeb 1981; Norton 1981; Brown 1985; Holland 1983; Ishiguro 1986; Kenny 1986; Sorell 1993; Haakonssen 2006; Fraenkel et al. 2011. There were some exceptions. Ayers 1984, 2005. Perler 1998, for instance, argued for categorizing philosophers as Continental Rationalist or British Empiricists.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
For a discussion of an alternative approach, see Corneanu 2011.
- 15.
- 16.
See D’Alembert 1995.
- 17.
Voltaire 1741, 98.
- 18.
For a discussion of this uneasy relation between Cartesians and Newtonians, see Shank 2008.
- 19.
Loeb 1981, 28 and 30. Not unlike Hanratty, who will soon be discussed, Loeb makes the point that even though the Rationalist-Empiricist distinction is “fatally flawed” he is not saying that it is impossible to come up with other criterion that result in the same six canonical figures, placing Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza in one category and Locke, Berkeley and Hume in another (see pp. 70–71).
- 20.
Hanratty 1995, 10.
- 21.
Hanratty 1995, 11.
- 22.
Loeb 1981, 363, emphasis is ours.
- 23.
Lennon 1993.
- 24.
In their manifesto for the use of this new terminology, the Otago team claim “Philosophers from the early modern period (from Descartes to Hume) are normally divided into Rationalists and Empiricists. Yet this distinction was developed by neo-Kantian philosophers from the late 18th century. In this research project we are exploring the hypothesis that there is a far better way of approaching early modern philosophers. Our central thesis is that the most common and the most important distinction in early modern philosophy is that between Experimental and Speculative Philosophy. This is a distinction that many of the actors actually used, and, we claim, it can explain all that the traditional distinction can explain and more besides” (See Anstey et al. 2010).
- 25.
See Anstey 2005, 237.
- 26.
See Anstey and Vanzo 2012, 20 (our emphasis).
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
Note that Roger Ariew makes the stronger claim that empiricism was the predominant view among Cartesians in the second half of the seventeenth century. Ariew 2006, 73.
- 30.
AT IXb 20, CSM I 189.
- 31.
Letter from Balthasar Bekker, S.T.D. and Minister of Amsterdam, to the two honorable pastors D. Joannes Alstius, from Hoornaar, and D. Paulus Steenwinkel, from Schelluinen, concerning their remarks on the first part of his work, De Betoverde Weereld (The World Bewitched). Quoted in Thijssen-Schoute 1989, 515: “Al waar ik met hem ga, word ik van U gepresen, maar daar ik van hem wijke, acht gij dat ik doole. Doch dus hard Cartesiaansch te zijn is niet Cartesiaansch.” Interestingly, a few decades later Willem ‘s Gravesande responded to similar charges for not being Newtonian enough because he abandoned Newton’s views on living force. His defense is similar to Bekker’s: “He only, who in Physics reasons from Phenomena, rejecting all feign’d Hypothes, and pursues this Method inviolably to the best of his Power, endeavours to follow the Steps of Sir Isaac Newton, and very justly declares that he is a Newtonian Philosopher; and not he, who implicitly follows the Opinion of any particular Person.” ‘s Gravesande 1747, xi.
- 32.
- 33.
See Desgabets 1983–1985, V, 156 (OPD 5, 156). We shall return shortly to this passage.
- 34.
See the Philosophical Transactions 1667, 480. For Descartes, the pineal gland is the central place where all the nerves meet; hence, it mediates the capacity of humans and animals to move.
- 35.
See Cordemoy 1668. An example of the literature generated on the problem of the animal-machines is Pardies 1672. It is worth citing here the attempts to provide mechanical explanations to different bodily functions, including the human body. While these attempts originate in Descartes’ manuscript of L’homme, a greater influence on the reception of Descartes’ ideas is due to Clerselier’s edition of 1664. For the importance of this edition, see Zittel 2011.
- 36.
See Desgabets (1983–1985), V, 156 (OPD 5, 156): “C’est là proprement le sujet des Méditations de M. Descartes touchant la première philosophie qu’il a toujours regardées comme son chef d’œuvre, et où néanmoins je trouve des défauts considérables qu’on ne peut corriger qu’à la gloire de ce grand philosophe qui fournit lui-même les moyens de leur donner leur dernière perfection et les remèdes au mal qu’il a fait. Je me suis donc proposé de travailler à une chose si nécessaire, dans cet ouvrage que j’appelle le premier supplément de sa philosophie, d’autant que je tâche d’y rectifier ses propres pensée dans les choses où il me semble qu’il a quitté le droit chemin qui conduit à la vérité; au lieu qu’on pourrait appeler second supplément, l’application nouvelle que l’on ferait de ses principes incontestables à des phénomènes qu’il n’a pas connus, ou à des vérités dont il n’a point parlé; et c’est à cette sorte de second supplément que MM. de Cordemoy, Rohault, de la Forge, Clauberg et autres ont travaillé dans les beaux ouvrages qu’il ont donnés au public, où l’on voit de quelle manière nous pourrons étendre nos connaissances à des choses également belles et utiles.”
- 37.
These are not well-defined categories and each philosopher discussed in this volume will use experiments in their own way. For example of discussions of experience and experiment in the early modern period see Garber 2001b, Chap. 14, 296–328. For a recent account of the multiple transformations in the meaning of the terms associated with empirical practice, such as “observation” or “experiment,” see Daston and Lünbeck 2011.
- 38.
Schmaltz 2002, 11: “Given this variety in opinions among Descartes’ followers in France, there is reason to speak not of a single movement, French Cartesianism, but rather a variety of French Cartesianisms.”
- 39.
Gary Hatfield offers a similar argument about the use of “scientific revolution,” which is infused with our contemporary notion of “science,” a notion that does not map on to seventeenth-century language and thought. Hatfield 1996b, 512: “Yet in learning to focus on the’scientific’ facets of seventeenth-century natural philosophy and mathematical science, we learn to slice away the parts of the texts we read or the institutions we study that do not constitute a proper part of the development of science as we now understand it.”
- 40.
- 41.
Chapter 7 by Bellis, 181.
- 42.
Chapter 8 by Easton, 199.
References
Aiton, E.J. 1972. The Vortex theory of planetary motions. New York: American Elsevier.
Anstey, Peter. 2005. Experimental versus speculative natural philosophy. In The science of nature in the seventeenth century: Patterns of change in early modern natural philosophy, ed. John A. Schuster and Peter R. Anstey, 215–242. Dordrecht: Springer.
Anstey, Peter, and Alberto Vanzo. 2012. The origins of early modern experimental philosophy. Intellectual History Review 22(4): 499–518.
Anstey, Peter, Juan Manual Gomez, Alberto Vanzo, and Kirsten Walsh. August 23, 2010 (7:00 a.m.) Experimental Philosophy and the Origins of Empiricism, Early Modern Experimental Philosophy Blog. https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/emxphi/2010/08/experimental-philosophy-and-the-origins-of-empiricism/.
Ariew, Roger. 2006. Cartesian empiricism. Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 50(1–2): 71–84.
Armogathe, Jean-Robert, and Giulia Belgioioso (eds.). 1996. Descartes: Principia Philosophiae (1644–1994). Napoli: Vivarium.
Ayers, Michael. 1984. Berkeley and Hume: A question of influence. In Philosophy in history, ed. Richard Rorty, J.B. Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner, 303–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ayers, Michael. 2005. Was Berkeley an empiricist or a rationalist? In The Cambridge companion to Berkeley, ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, 34–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barker, Peter, and Roger Ariew (eds.). 1991. Revolution and continuity: Essays in the history and philosophy of early modern science, Studies in philosophy and history of philosophy, vol. 24. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Bennett, Jonathan. 2001. Learning from six philosophers: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blackwell, Richard J. 1966. Descartes’ laws of motion. Isis 57: 220–234.
Bracken, Harry. 1974. Berkeley. London: Macmillan.
Brown, Stuart. 1985. Leibniz’s break with Cartesian ‘Rationalism’. In Philosophy, its history and historiography, ed. Alan J. Holland, 195–208. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Buchdahl, Gerd. 1969. Metaphysics and the philosophy of science: The classical origins, Descartes to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burtt, E.A. 1924. The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science. London: Routledge.
Butterfield, Herbert. 1949. The origins of modern science: 1300–1800. London: G. Bell and Sons LTD.
Buzon, Frédéric de and Vincent Carraud. 1994. Descartes et les ‘Principia’ II. Corps et mouvement. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Christie, John R.R. 1990. The development of the historiography of science. In Companion to the history of modern science, ed. R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, and M.J.S. Hodge, 5–22. London: Routledge.
Clarke, Desmond M. 1982. Descartes’ philosophy of science. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Clarke, Desmond M. 1983. Cartesian science in France, 1660–1700. In Philosophy, its history and historiography, ed. Alan J. Holland, 165–178. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Clarke, Desmond M. 1989. Occult powers and hypotheses: Cartesian natural philosophy Under Louis XIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cohen, I. Bernard. 1985. Revolution in science. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Collins, James. 1972. Interpreting modern philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cook, Monte. 2008. Desgabets as Cartesian Empiricist. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46(4): 501–516.
Copleston, Frederick S.J. 1958. A history of philosophy. Vol. IV: Descartes to Leibniz. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne.
Copleston, Frederick S.J. 1959. A history of philosophy. Vol. V: Hobbes to Hume. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne.
Cordemoy, de Géraud. 1668. Discours physique de la parole. Paris: J. Lambert.
Corneanu, Sorana. 2011. Regimens of the mind: Boyle, Locke, and the early modern cultura animi tradition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cottingham, John. 1984. Rationalism. London: Paladin Books.
Cottingham, John. 1988. The rationalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, Andrew, and Perry Williams. 1993. De-Centering the ‘Big Picture’. British Journal for the History of Science 24(4): 407–432.
D’Alembert, Jean. 1995. Preliminary discourse to the encyclopedia of Diderot. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Daston, Lorraine, and Elizabeth Lünbeck (eds.). 2011. Histories of scientific observation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Des Chene, Dennis. 2000. Physiologia: Natural philosophy in late Aristotelian and Cartesian thought. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Desgabets, Dom Robert. 1983–1985. Oeuvres philosophiques inedités de Desgabets. Introduction by Géneviève Rodis-Lewis, Texts and annotations by Joseph Beaude, 7 Vols. Paris: CNRS.
Dijksterhuis, Eduard. 1961 January. The mechanization of the world picture. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Translation of the Dutch De Mechanisering van het Wereldbeeld, Amsterdam 1950).
Easton, Patricia. 2000. Desgabets. In Concise Routledge encylopedia of philosophy. New York: Routledge. 205.
Fischer, Kuno. 1854–1877. Geschichte der neueren Philosophie. 6 Vols. Stuttgart/Mannheim/Heidelberg.
Fraenkel, Carlos, Dario Perinetti, and Justin E.H. Smith (eds.). 2011. The rationalists: Between tradition and innovation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Francks, Richard. 1985. Caricatures in the history of philosophy: The case of Spinoza. In Philosophy, its history and historiography, ed. Alan J. Holland, 179–194. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Friedman, Michael. 1992. Kant and the exact sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Friedman, Michael. 1993. Remarks on the history of science and the history of philosophy. In World changes: Thomas Kuhn and the nature of science, ed. Paul Horwich, 31–54. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Friedman, Michael. 2010. A post-Kuhnian approach to the history and philosophy of science. The Monist 93(4): 497–517.
Gabbey, Alan. 1998. Descartes’ Physics and Descartes’ Mechanics: Chicken and egg? In Essays on the philosophy of science of René Descartes, ed. Steven Voss, 311–323. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garber, Daniel. 1992. Descartes’ metaphysical physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garber, Daniel. 1998. New doctrines of body and its powers, place and space. In The Cambridge history of seventeenth-century philosophy: Two volumes, ed. Daniel Garber, 553–623. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garber, Daniel. 2001a. Descartes and the scientific revolution: Some Kuhnian reflections. Perspectives on Science: Historical, Philosophical, Social 9(4): 405–422.
Garber, Daniel. 2001b. Descartes embodied. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garber, Daniel. 2002. Descartes, mechanics, and the mechanical philosophy. In Midwest studies in philosophy: Renaissance and early modern philosophy, vol. 26, ed. Peter French and Howard K. Wettstein, 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garrett, Don, and Edward Barbanell (eds.). 1997. Encyclopedia of empiricism. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Gaukroger, Stephen (ed.). 1980. Descartes: Philosophy, mathematics and physics. Sussex: Harvester Press.
Gaukroger, Stephen. 2002. Descartes’ system of natural philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaukroger, Stephen, John Schuster, and John Sutton (eds.). 2000. Descartes’ natural philosophy. New York: Routledge.
Gillispie, Charles Coulston. 1960. The edge of objectivity: An essay in the history of scientific ideas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gilson, Etienne, and Thomas Langan. 1963. Modern philosophy: Descartes to Kant. New York: Random House.
Gravesande, Willem J. ‘s. 1747. Mathematical elements of natural philosophy confirmed by experiments: Or, an introduction to Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy. Trans. J. T. Desaguiliers. London: W. Innys.
Grene, Marjorie. 1995. Animal mechanism and the Cartesian vision of nature. In Physics, philosophy, and the scientific community, ed. K. Gavroglu, John Stachel, and Marx W. Wartofsky, 189–204. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Haakonssen, Knud. 2006. The history of eighteenth-century philosophy: History or philosophy? In The Cambridge history of eighteenth-century philosophy, ed. Knud Haakonssen, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, Alfred Rupert. 1954. The scientific revolution: 1500–1800, The formation of the modern scientific attitude. Boston: Beacon Press. (Second edition 1962; published as The Revolution in Science 1500–1750 by Longman Group Ltd. In 1983.)
Hanratty, Gerald. 1995. Locke, Hume, Berkeley revisited. Dublin: Four Courts Press.
Hatfield, Gary. 1979. Force (God) in Descartes’ Physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 113–140.
Hatfield, Gary. 1985. First philosophy and natural philosophy in Descartes. In Philosophy: Its history and historiography, ed. Alan J. Holland, 149–164. Boston: Kluwer.
Hatfield, Gary. 1992. Metaphysics and the new science. In Reappraisals of the scientific revolution, ed. D.C. Lindberg and R.S. Westman, 93–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatfield, Gary. 1996a. The importance of the history of science for philosophy in general. Synthese 106(1): 113–138.
Hatfield, Gary. 1996b. Was the scientific revolution really a revolution in Science? In tradition, transmission, transformation. In Proceedings of two conferences on Pre-Modern Science, University of Oklahoma, eds. F. Jamil Ragep and Sally P. Ragep and Steven Livesey, 489–523. Leiden: Brill.
Hatfield, Gary. 1988. Science, certainty, and Descartes. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, Vol. 2, eds. A. Fine and J. Leplin, 249–262. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
Holland, Alan J. (ed.). 1983. Philosophy, its history and historiography. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ishiguro, Hidé. 1986. Pre-established harmony versus constant conjunction: A reconsideration of the distinction between rationalism and empiricism. In Rationalism, empiricism, and idealism, ed. Anthony Kenny, 61–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keeling, S.V. 1934. Descartes. London: Ernest Benn.
Kenny, Anthony. 1986. Rationalism, empiricism, and idealism. Oxford: Clarendon.
Kolesnik–Antoine, Delphine (ed.). 2013. Qu’est-ce qu’être cartésien? Lyon: ENS Editions.
Koyré, Alexandre. 1957. From the closed world to the infinite universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Koyré, Alexandre. 1968. Newtonian studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1957. The Copernican revolution: Planetary astronomy in the development of western thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laporte, Jean. 1988. Le rationalisme de Descartes. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. First published in 1945.
Lennon, Thomas M. 1993. The battle of the Gods and Giants: The legacies of Descartes and Gassendi 1655–1715. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lennon, Thomas, and Patricia Easton. 1992. The Cartesian empiricism of François Bayle. New York: Garland Publishing.
Liard, L. 1882, Du rôle de l’expérience dans la physique cartésienne. In Descartes, 111–138. Paris, Germer-Bailliere. Reprinted in Rodis-Lewis, Geneviève, ed. 1987. La science chez Descartes, 333–360. New York/London: Garland Publishing Inc.
Locke, John. 1975. An essay concerning human understanding. Ed. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Loeb, Louis E. 1981. From Descartes to Hume: Continental metaphysics and the development of modern philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Machamer, Peter, and J.E. McGuire. 2009. Descartes’ changing mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mandelbaum, Maurice. 1976. On the historiography of philosophy. Philosophy Research Archives 2: 708–744.
Mandelbaum, Maurice. 1977. The history of philosophy: Some methodological issues. Journal of Philosophy 74: 561–572.
Matson, Wallace I. 1968. A history of philosophy. New York: American Book Company.
Milhaud, Gaston. 1921. Descartes savant. Paris: F. Alcon.
Mouy, Paul. 1934. Le développement de la physique cartésienne: 1646–1712. Paris: J. Vrin.
Nadler, Steven. 1990. Deduction, confirmation, and the laws of nature in Descartes’s Principia Philosophiae. Journal of the History of Philosophy 28: 359–383.
Norton, David. 1981. The myth of British empiricism. History of European Ideas 1: 331–344.
Osler, Margaret J. 1985. Eternal truths and the laws of nature: The theological foundations of Descartes’ philosophy of nature. Journal of the History of Ideas 46: 349–362.
Osler, Margeret J. 1994. Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on contingency and necessity in the created world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pap, Arthur. 1958. Semantics and necessary truth: An inquiry into the foundations of analytic philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pardies, Ignace Gaston. 1672. Discours de la connoissance des bestes. Paris: Sebastien Mabre-Cramoisy.
Perler, Dominik. 1998. René Descartes. Münich: Beck.
Philosophical Transactions 1667.
Popkin, Richard. 1959a. Review of Dominant themes of modern philosophy, by George Boas. Journal of Philosophy 61: 773–778.
Popkin, Richard. 1959b. Did Hume ever read Berkeley? Journal of Philosophy 56(12): 535–545.
Popkin, Richard. 1964. So, Hume did read Berkeley. Journal of Philosophy 61(24): 773–778.
Prendergast, Thomas L. 1972–1973. Descartes and the relativity of motion. Modern Schoolman 50: 64–72.
Prendergast, Thomas L. 1975. Motion, action, and tendency in Descartes’ physics. Journal of the History of Philosophy 13: 453–462.
Priest, Stephen. 1990. The British empiricists: Hobbes to Ayer. London: Penguin.
Randall, J.H. 1940. The making of the modern mind. Cambridge: Houghten Mifflin Co.
Roux, Sophie. 2013. An Empire Divided: French natural philosophy (1670–1690). In The mechanization of natural philosophy, Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science, vol. 282, ed. Daniel Garber and Sophie Roux, 55–95. Dordrecht: Springer.
Roux, Sophie, and Daniel Garber (eds.). 2013. The mechanization of natural philosophy, Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science, vol. 282. Dordrecht: Springer.
Russell, Bertrand. 1912. The problems of philosophy. New York: Holt.
Ryle, Gilbert. 1960. Epistemology. In Encylopedia of western philosophy, ed. J.O. Urmson. London: Hutchison.
Schmaltz, Tad M. 2002. Radical Cartesianism: The French reception of Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneewind, Jerome B. 2004. Teaching new histories of philosophy. In Proceedings of a Conference, University Center for Human Values. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schuster, John. 2012. Descartes-Agonistes: Physico-mathematics, method & corpuscular mechanism 1618–33. Dordrecht: Springer.
Scott, J.F. 1952. The scientific work of René Descartes (1596–1650). London: Taylor & Francis.
Scruton, Roger. 1982. Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shank, J.B. 2008. The Newton wars and the beginning of the French enlightenment. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Smith, N.K. 1953. New studies in the philosophy of Descartes. London: Macmillan.
Sorell, Tom (ed.). 1993. The rise of modern philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stewart, M.A. 1985. Hume and the “Metaphysical Argument A Priori”. In Philosophy, its history and historiography, ed. Alan J. Holland, 243–270. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Stewart, Matthew. 2007. The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza and the fate of God in the modern world. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Tennemann, William Gottlieb. 1852. Manuel of the history of philosophy, trans. Arthur Johnson, ed, J. R. Morell. London: Henry G. Bohn.
Verbeek, Theo (ed.). 1993. Descartes et Regius. Autour de l’Explication de l’esprit humain. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Voltaire. 1741. Lettres concerning the English nation, 2nd ed. London: C. Davis.
von Leyden, W. 1968. Seventeenth-century metaphysics. London: Duckworth.
Westfall, Richard S. 1971. The construction of modern science. New York: Wiley.
Williams, Bernard. 1978. Descartes: The project of pure inquiry. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Woolhouse, Roger. 1971. Locke’s philosophy of science and knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell.
Woolhouse, R.S. 1998. The empiricists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zittel, Claus. 2011. Conflicting pictures: Illustrating Descartes’ Traite de l’homme. In Silent messengers. The circulation of material objects of knowledge in the early modern low countries, ed. Sven Dupré and Christoph Lüthy, 217–260. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dobre, M., Nyden, T. (2013). Introduction. In: Dobre, M., Nyden, T. (eds) Cartesian Empiricisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7690-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7690-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7689-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7690-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)