Advertisement

Censorship, Condemnations, and the Spread of Cartesianism

  • Roger Ariew
Chapter
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 31)

Abstract

Descartes and the Cartesians suffered a series of condemnations aimed at several fundamental propositions of corpuscularianism and mechanism, such as the denial of substantial forms and real qualities. Also condemned was the theory of matter and place: extension as the principal attribute of matter, the indefinite extension of the world, and the impossibility of the void. With these objections, came an increased critique of hyperbolic doubt. The rejection of hyperbolic doubt caused Cartesians no longer to distinguish between the absolutely and the morally certain—between that which we cannot doubt and that about which we have no doubt although we could doubt it—and to treat all principles on a par with one another. As a result, Cartesians became more empirical and pursued aggressively a limited hypothetical-deductive method. For example, Huygens describes a hypothetico-deductive method that ends up with high probability, not absolute or moral certainty; in this, Huygens follows a path taken by closer followers of Descartes. This chapter will investigate such issues and their consequences for Cartesianism in the works of Cartesians such as Du Roure and Cordemoy.

Keywords

Absolute Certainty Substantial Form Catholic Faith French Edition Moral Certainty 
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. Ariew, Roger. 1994. Quelques condamnations du cartésianisme: 1662–1706. Bulletin cartésien XXII, Archives de Philosophie 57: 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. Ariew, Roger. 2006. Cartesian Empiricism. Revue roumaine de philosophie 50: 71–85.Google Scholar
  3. Ariew, Roger. 2010. The new matter theory and its epistemology: Descartes (and Late Scholastics) on hypotheses and moral certainty. In Vanishing matter and the laws of nature: Descartes and Beyond, ed. D. Jalobeanu and P. Anstey, 31–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ariew, Roger. 2012. Descartes’ correspondence before Clerselier: Du Roure’s La Philosophie. Journal of Early Modern Studies 1(1): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ariew, Roger, and Marjorie Grene (eds.). 1995. Descartes and his contemporaries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ariew, Roger, John Cottingham, and Tom Sorell, (eds. and trans.). 1998. Cambridge texts in context: Descartes’ meditations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Armogathe, Jean-Robert. 1977. Theologia cartesiana: l’explication physique de l’Eucharistie chez Descartes et dom Desgabets. The Hague: M. Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Armogathe, Jean-Robert, and Vincent Carraud. 2003. The first condemnation of Descartes’s Oeuvres: Some unpublished documents from the Vatican archives. Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 1: 67–110.Google Scholar
  9. Babin, François. 1679. Journal ou relation fidele de tout ce qui s’est passé dans l’université d’Angers au sujet de la philosophie de Des Carthes en l’execution des ordres du Roy pendant les années 1675, 1676, 1677, et 1678. Angers.Google Scholar
  10. Bayle, Pierre. 1684. Recueil de quelques pièces curieuses concernant la philosophie de Monsieur Descartes. Amsterdam: Chez H. Desbordes.Google Scholar
  11. Boileau. 1747. Oeuvres de Boileau, ed. Saint-Marc. Paris.Google Scholar
  12. Bouillier, Francisque. 1868. Histoire de la Philosophie cartésienne, 3rd ed. Paris: C. Delgrave.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, Desmond M. 1989. Occult powers and hypotheses: Cartesian natural philosophy under Louis XIV. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  14. Cordemoy, Géraud de. 1666. Le Discernement du Corps et de l’Ame en Six Discours. Pour servir à l’éclaircissement de la Physique. Paris: F. Lambert.Google Scholar
  15. Cousin, Victor. 1866. Fragments Philosophiques pour servir à l’histoire de la philosophie. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
  16. Daniel, Gabriel. 1693. Nouvelles difficultés proposées par un péripatéticien à l’auteur du “Voyage du monde de Descartes”. Paris: Vve de S. Benard.Google Scholar
  17. Daniel, Gabriel. 1690. Voyage du monde de Descartes. Paris: Vve de S. Bernard.Google Scholar
  18. d’Argentré, Charles Duplessis. 1728–1736. Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus. Paris: Cailleau.Google Scholar
  19. de la Grange, Jean-Baptiste. 1682. Les principes de la philosophie contre les nouveaux philosophes, Descartes, Rohault, Regius, Gassendi, le P. Maignan, etc. Paris: J. Couterot.Google Scholar
  20. de L’A, M. G. [Pierre Daniel Huet]. 1692. Nouveaux mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du cartésianisme [n.p.].Google Scholar
  21. de la Ville, Louis [Louis le Valois]. 1680. Sentimens de Monsieur Descartes touchant l’essence et es proprietez du corps opposez à la Doctrine de l’Eglise, et conforme aux erreurs de Calvin sur le sujet de l’Eucharistie. Paris: E. Michalet.Google Scholar
  22. de Launoy, Jean. 1653. De varia Aristotelis in Academia parisiensi fortuna. Paris: E. Martini.Google Scholar
  23. de Rochemonteix, Camille. 1889. Un collège des Jesuites au XIIe et XIIIe siècle: le collège Henri IV de la Flèche. Le Mans: Leguicheux.Google Scholar
  24. Descartes, René. 1996. Oeuvres de Descartes, 2nd ed, ed. C. Adam and P. Tannery. Paris: VrinGoogle Scholar
  25. Du Roure, Jacques. 1654. La Philosophie divisée en toutes ses parties. Paris: Chez Francois Clouzier.Google Scholar
  26. Du Roure, Jacques. 1665. Abrégé de la vraye philosophie. Paris: chez l’auteur.Google Scholar
  27. Duhamel, Jean. 1692. Reflexions critiques sur le système cartesien de la philosophie de mr. Régis. Paris: Edme Couterot.Google Scholar
  28. Duhamel, Jean. 1705. Philosophia universalis, sive commentarius in universam Aristotelis philosophiam, ad usum scholarum comparatam. Paris: apun viduam C. Thiboust et P. Esclassan.Google Scholar
  29. Frassen, Claude. 1668. Philosophia Academica, quam ex selectissimis Aristotelis et Doctoris Subtilis Scoti rationibus…. Paris: Apud E. Couterot.Google Scholar
  30. Garber, Daniel. 2002. Defending Aristotle/Defending Society in early seventeenth century Paris. In Wissensideale und Wissenskulturen in der frühen Neuzeit, ed. C. Zittel and W. Detel, 135–160. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Gassendi, Pierre. 1624. Exercitationes Paradoxicae Adversus Aristoteleos. Gratianopoli: Verdier.Google Scholar
  32. Girbal, François. 1964. Bernard Lamy (1640–1715). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  33. Goudin, Antoine. 1726 [1668]. Philosophia juxta inconcussa tutissimaque Divi Thomae dogmata. Coloniae Agrippinae: T. von Collen and J. Huisch.Google Scholar
  34. Huet, Pierre Daniel. 1689. Censura philosophiae cartesianae, 2nd ed. Paris: Apud Danielem Horthemels. 1695.Google Scholar
  35. Huygens, Christiaan. 1690. Traité de la Lumière. Leiden: van der Aa.Google Scholar
  36. Leibniz, G.W. 1923. Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Leibniz, G. W. 2001. The Labyrinth of the continuum: Writings on the continuum problem, 1672–1686, ed. and trans. Richard Arthur. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mersenne, Marin. 1624. L’impiété des Déistes, Athées, et Libertins de ce temps, combattue, et renversée de point en point par raisons tirée de la Philosophie, et de la Théologie. Paris: P. Bilaine.Google Scholar
  39. Mouy, Paul. 1934. Le développement de la physique cartésienne, 1646–1712. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  40. Oldenburg, Henry. 1965–1986. The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, 13 vols, ed. A. Rupert and Marie Boas Hall. Madison/London: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  41. Prou, Ludovicus. 1665. De Hypothesi Cartesiana positiones physico mathematica. Clermont.Google Scholar
  42. Rapin, René. 1725. Reflexions sur la philosophie, Oeuvres. La Haye: P. Gosse.Google Scholar
  43. Régis, Pierre-Sylvain. 1691. Réponse au livre qui a pour titre P. Danielis Huetii…Censura Philosophiae Cartesianae. Paris: Chez J. Cusson.Google Scholar
  44. Roux, Sophie. 1998. Le scepticisme et les hypothèses de la physique. Revue de synthèse 4: 211–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roux, Sophie. 2000. Descartes atomiste? In Atomismo e continuo nel XVII secolo, ed. R. Gatto and E. Festa, 211–274. Naples: Vivarium.Google Scholar
  46. Roux, Sophie. 2012. An empire divided: French natural philosophy (1670–1690). In The mechanization of natural philosophy, ed. D. Garber and S. Roux, 55–98. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Schmaltz, Tad. 2002. Radical Cartesianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verbeek, Theo. 1992. Descartes and the Dutch. Early reactions to Cartesian philosophy 1637–1650. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  49. Verbeek, Theo (ed. and trans.). 1988. La Querelle d’Utrecht. Paris: Les impressions nouvelles.Google Scholar
  50. Vincent, Jean. 1677. Discussio peripatetica in qua philosophiae cartesianae principia. Toulouse: Ex officina Colomeriana.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations