Key Letter By Descartes Found After 170 Years

Schiphol writes of a long-lost letter by René Descartes to Marin Mersenne that has come to light at Haverford College, in Pennsylvania, where it had lain buried in the archives for more than a century. The discovery could revolutionize our view of one of the 17th-century French philosopher's major works. "[T]housands of treasured documents... vanished from the Institut de France in the mid-1800s, stolen by an Italian mathematician. Among them were 72 letters by René Descartes... Now one of those purloined letters has turned up at a small private college in eastern Pennsylvania... The letter, dated May 27, 1641, concerns the publication of Meditations on First Philosophy, a celebrated work whose use of reason and scientific methods helped to ignite a revolution in thought."

Re:heresy

[rarel]

http://www.actualitte.com/actualite/17013-Descartes-assassine-universitaire-allemand-hypothese.htm [actualitte.com]

(I'm really unlucky with tags around here :/ ...)

Re:Meditations on First Philosophy

[SpeedyDX]

Descartes might have been wrong, but that's kind of missing the point. During an era when scepticism was viewed as being inherently blasphemous and absurd, he embraced scepticism as a practical philosophy. Descartes, along with Hume and several others during the early modern period, began to establish moderate scepticism as the basis for a practical philosophy of scientific enquiry.

There's no doubting that Descartes made many mistakes in Meditations. But from the fact that the work isn't perfect, it doesn't entail that it wasn't a great and influential work that's brought us one step closer to understanding the nature of reason. One step of many, to be sure, but one step nonetheless.

Also, he didn't say that he can't trust the existence of the world without God. Rather, he gave an ontological argument for God, established His existence, and then, because God exists and He doesn't deceive, Descartes no longer had to justify the existence of the world (without a God). Of course, this is what led to the famed Cartesian circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_circle), but your short analysis showed that you didn't really understand the text. As I replied in another thread, Jonathan Bennett is translating early modern works to more modern language, resulting in more clear and accessible works (available: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html [earlymoderntexts.com]). I highly encourage that you read it over again and try to get more out of it.

While I'm at it, it seems that a more empirical philosophy would interest you more. Descartes had some influence on Hume's work. Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is one of the best treatments of the philosophy of science in the early modern era, and definitely my favourite work out of that era. if you're interested, you should definitely check it out: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/he.html [earlymoderntexts.com]

Re:Haverford?

[buttersnout]

I graduated from Haverford in 2005. It's a fairly prestigious small liberal arts college outside of Philadelphia (it was ranked 4th when I got in in 2001 but much of its endowment in 9/11 and is now ranked 8th by us news). It's a very liberal college with a quaker history though I believe it no longer has an official religious affiliation. The college is strong in the sciences which is the reason I went there. My faculty advisor, Gerry Gollub, for example, is recognized as a leader in the field of fluid dynamics. It takes pride in its campus and arboretum and I've heard many people with no affiliation with the college say it has the most beautiful campus in the US. Most students take about a quarter of their courses at Bryn Mawr college which is a similar but all girls college. Most events are shared between the colleges and there's considered to be little difference between a Haverford student and a Bryn Mawr student in terms of what they have permission to do. There is also a lesser relationship with Swarthmore college and the University of Pennsylvania. The college also is very proud of its honor code. Students, for example, may take tests home and are trusted not to open their text books while taking them. I would guess the college's pride in their honesty and trustworthiness was a major motivation in their decision to return the letter.

Re:Meditations on First Philosophy

[digitig]

"I think therefore I am" sounds a bit bold an affirmation.

Descartes was aware of that, and tried to resolve it, although his resolution is probably not satisfactory [wikipedia.org]. I suspect that there isn't a resolution.

Re:Haverford?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm currently a junior at Haverford College, majoring in Computer Science with possible minors in Physics and/or Astronomy (depending on how the rest of my time here works out).

It's definitely a small school -- 1200 kids or so -- but I've found this to be quite beneficial. I'll frequently walk in on CS department meetings (unknowingly; it's just the three professors meeting in an office) and they'll ask for input on what classes they should offer in the next few semesters. I couldn't imagine this individual attention existing at a larger institution.

Haverford's Quaker roots also lend it a sense of strong community and positive social involvement. It is not officially affiliated with the Quakers any longer, but certain traditions still exist: consensus on any group decision, moments of silence before serious discussion, etc. My older brother, a graduate from another Northeastern Liberal Arts College, most notably was surprised at "how nice everyone at your school is."

All in all, a wonderful place. Very happy I go there, and sad to be leaving it soon.

Re:Meditations on First Philosophy

[Critical Facilities]

Sounds familiar [buddhanet.net].

Re:meh, philosophy is dead

[DragonWriter]

Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.

No, they haven't.

Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.

That's not really a "basic philosophy question".

If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.

That's also not a basic philosophy question (and what the result you refer to would tell us is not "yes, if you do that, you will get there", it is "you can't do that"; if there is a quantum distance and you can't move a smaller amount, then you can't halve any distance that is equal to or smaller than that quantum distance -- in fact, you can't have any distance that isn't an even-number multiple of the quantum distance.)

Actual basic philosophical questions are usually not simple fact questions (though sometimes these are posed as illustrations of philosophical issues), but things like "what does it mean to say 'I know X'". (Actually, that's not just a basic philosophical question, its an entire subfield of philosophy known as epistemology.)

And basic philosophical questions mostly aren't questions that can be definitively "answered", because they aren't fact questions; they are questions to which answers can be proposed and the logical implications explored.

Re:You got to be kidding!

[Chosen Reject]

Then you might appreciate this. [wisc.edu]