Advertisement

Method

Chapter
  • 201 Downloads

Abstract

Coming out of an investigation of the fable, where it is shown to hold a crucial pedagogical role both in terms of how the world is to be interpreted and how the self can construct itself, it is now possible to examine what effect this fabular structure has on our understanding of the Cartesian method in general. The traditional understanding of the method is, roughly, an intellectual reduction of the complexities of the way things of the world present themselves to the simple essences of those things, whether they be oneself, god, or a piece of wax. Of the material objects of the world, in their materiality, a reduction to their geometric essences, especially expressed in algebraic notation, is the clearest and most distinct expression of their truths, and will be an expression of eternal truths.

Keywords

proofProof thingsThings wordsWords orderOrder ideasIdea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Apostle, Hippocrates G. 1981. Commentaries. In Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, translated by Hippocrates G. Apostle, 74–299. Grinnell, IA: The Peripatetic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ariew, Roger. 2005. “Descartes’s Fable and Scientific Methodology.” Annales Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 55: 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.ARIHS.5.101701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariew, Roger, et al. 2003. Historical Dictionary of Descartes and Cartesian Philosophy. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle. 1981. Posterior Analytics. Translated by Hippocrates G. Apostle. Grinnell, IA: The Peripatetic Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1984. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. In Aristotle, The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle, translated by W. Rhys Roberts and Ingram Bywater, 3–218. New York: Random House, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Bergoffen, Debra B. 1976. “Cartesian Doubt as Methodology: Reflective Imagination and Philosophical Freedom.” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 50: 186–195. https://doi.org/10.5840/acpaproc1976501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blizman, James. 1973. “Models, Analogies, and Degrees of Certainty in Descartes.” The Modern Schoolman 50 (1): 183–208. https://doi.org/10.5840/schoolman19725012.
  8. Brann, Eva T. H. 1991. The World of the Imagination: Sum and Substance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Cavaillé, Jean-Pierre. 1987. “Politics Disavowed: Remarks on the Status of Politics in the Philosophy of Descartes.” Translated by R. Scott Walker. Diogenes 35 (138): 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/039219218703513807.
  10. ———. 1991. Descartes: La Fable du Monde. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  11. Cicero. 2006. De Inventione. In De Inventione, De Optimum Genere Oratorum, and Topica, translated by H. M. Hubbell, 1–346. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Daniel, Stephen H. 1985. “Descartes on Myth and Ingenuity/Ingenium.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (2): 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1985.tb00386.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derrida, Jacques. 1983. “La langue et le discours de la method.” In Recherches sur la philosophie et le langage III, Cahiers du Groupe de recherches sur la philosophie et le langage, 35–51. Grenoble and Paris: Groupe de recherches sur la philosophie et le langage and Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1997. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fink, Eugen. 1988. Sixth Cartesian Meditation: The Idea of a Transcendental Theory of Method. Translated by Ronald Bruzina. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1994. The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  18. Garber, Daniel. 2001. “A Point of Order: Analysis, Synthesis, and Descartes’ Principles.” In Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy Through Cartesian Science, 52–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gaukroger, Stephen. 1995. Descartes: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gilson, Étienne. 1947. Commentaire Historique. In René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode: Texte et Commentaire par Étienne Gilson, pp. 79–477. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  21. Heidegger, Martin. 1992. Parmenides. Translated by André Schuwer and Richard Rojcewicz. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Husserl, Edmund. 1999. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by Dorion Cairns. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, Alexander. 1986. Introduction. In Pappus of Alexandria, Book 7 of the Collection, part 1, edited and translated by Alexander Jones, 66–74. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Kennington, Richard. 1987. “René Descartes.” In History of Political Philosophy, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd edn., 421–439. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. La Fontaine, Jean de. 1997. Selected Fables/Fables Choisies: A Dual-Language Book. Edited and translated by Stanley Applebaum. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Le Bossu, René. 1674. Parallele des Principes de la Physique d’Aristote et de celle de René Des Cartes. Paris: Michel le Petit.Google Scholar
  28. Mahoney, Michael S. 1980. “The Beginnings of Algebraic Thought in the Seventeenth Century.” In Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics, and Physics, edited by Stephen Gaukroger, 141–155. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books.Google Scholar
  29. Marion, Jean-Luc. 1977a. Annexe. In René Descartes, Règles Utiles et Claires pour la Direction de l’Esprit en la Recherche de la Vérité, translated by Jean-Luc Marion, conceptual notes by Jean-Luc Marion, and mathematical Notes by Pierre Costabel, 295–321. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 1977b. Annotations. In René Descartes, Règles Utiles et Claires pour la Direction de l’Esprit en la Recherche de la Vérité, translated by Jean-Luc Marion, conceptual notes by Jean-Luc Marion, and mathematical Notes by Pierre Costabel, 83–294. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 1999. On Descartes’ Metaphysical Prism: The Constitution and the Limits of Onto-theo-logy in Cartesian Thought. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2007a. “The Originary Otherness of the Ego: A Rereading of Descartes’ Second Meditation.” In On the Ego and on God: Further Cartesian Questions, translated by Christina M. Gschwandtner, 3–29. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2007b. “Substance and Subsistence: Suárez and the Treatise on Substantia in the Principles of Philosophy 1, §51–§54.” In On the Ego and on God: Further Cartesian Questions, translated by Christina M. Gschwandtner, 80–99. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1977. “Larvatus Pro Deo.” Translated by Daniel A. Brewer. In Glyph II: Johns Hopkins Textual Studies, edited by Samuel Weber, 14–36. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 1978a. “Dum Scribo.” Translated by Ian McLeod. Oxford Literary Review 3 (2): 6–21. https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.1978.002.
  36. ———. 1978b. “Mundus Est Fabula.” Translated by Daniel Brewer. MLN 93 (4): 635–653. https://doi.org/10.2307/2906598.
  37. ———. 1979. Ego Sum. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  38. Page, Carl. 1996. “Symbolic Mathematics and the Intellect Militant.” Journal of the History of Ideas 57 (2): 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.1996.0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pappus of Alexandria. 1986. Book 7 of the Collection, part 1. Edited and translated by Alexander Jones. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Prendergast, Thomas L. 1975. “Motion, Action, and Tendency in Descartes’ Physics.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 13 (4): 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.0516.
  41. Reif, Sister Patricia. 1969. “The Textbook Tradition in Natural Philosophy, 1600–1650.” Journal of the History of Ideas 30 (1): 17–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rickless, Samuel C. 2005. “The Cartesian Fallacy Fallacy.” Noûs 39 (2): 308–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00503.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ricoeur, Paul. 2004. Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by Kathleen Blamely and David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schmitt, Carl. 1996. The Concept of the Political. Translated by George Schwab. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sepper, Dennis L. 1996. Descartes’s Imagination: Proportion, Images, and the Activity of Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Suárez, Francisco. 2007. On the Various Kinds of Distinction. Translated by Cyril Vollert, S. J. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  47. The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum of 1599. 1970. Translated by Allan P. Farrell, S. J. Washington, DC: Conference of Major Superiors of Jesuits.Google Scholar
  48. The Port-Royal Logic. 1861. Translated by Thomas Spencer Baynes. Edinburgh: James Gordon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bratislava International School of Liberal ArtsBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations