{"id":2823,"date":"2012-10-08T09:00:51","date_gmt":"2012-10-07T21:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/?p=2823"},"modified":"2012-10-15T09:29:43","modified_gmt":"2012-10-14T21:29:43","slug":"cartesian-empiricisms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/cartesian-empiricisms\/","title":{"rendered":"Cartesian empiricisms"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mihnea Dobre from the universities of Bucharest<\/a> and Nijmegen<\/a> writes…<\/strong><\/p>\n

As readers of this blog know, the classic division between continental Rationalists and British Empiricists fails to provide an accurate picture of the early modern period. The Otago team has already offered extensive evidence of the complexity of seventeenth-century natural philosophy. Replacing the traditional-historiographical distinction between Rationalism and Empiricism (RED) with actor-category division of experimental versus speculative philosophy<\/a> (ESD) is one step ahead in getting a more meaningful image of the philosophical debates that marked the formation of modern philosophy and science.<\/p>\n

However, in this post, I would like to focus on a different aspect, which seems to escape the ESD distinction and further complicates our image of the late-seventeenth century. At the same time, I take this opportunity to announce a forthcoming volume, Cartesian Empiricisms<\/em>, which Tammy Nyden<\/a> and I are co-editing in the Springer series on the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science.<\/p>\n

While this juxtaposition between \u201cCartesianism\u201d (which for a long time has been associated with rationalism, armchair philosophizing, speculative thinking, or a purely theoretically driven philosophical approach) and \u201cEmpiricism\u201d (which besides its traditional opposition to \u201cRationalism\u201d is still preferred by many to describe an approach based on experiment and experimentation) might look odd at first, it sheds, in fact, a completely new light upon the development of natural philosophy in the second half of the seventeenth century.<\/p>\n

Descartes\u2019s philosophy has been discussed, interpreted and revaluated constantly in our histories of both philosophy and science. Yet, a more in-depth study of what happens after Descartes\u2019s death is missing. We hope Cartesian Empiricisms <\/em>will fill this gap, contributing to the exploration of some now-forgotten philosophical figures, which were not only prime representatives of the philosophical debates of their time but were opening the possibility of a more experimentally oriented natural philosophy.<\/p>\n

After Descartes\u2019s death in 1650, his philosophy was challenged in various ways and one of the most common forms of attack was to disprove it with empirical evidence.\u00a0 Take, for example, this curious case from the Philosophical Transactions<\/a>,<\/em> one of the first scientific journals. On June 3, 1667, an observational report described the puzzling case of a turtle that was still able to move even with her head missing:<\/p>\n

there came a Letter from Florence<\/em>, Written by M. Steno<\/em>, which has also somewhat perplext the followers of Des Cartes<\/em>. A Tortoise had its head cut off, and yet was found to move its foot three days after. Here was no Communication with the Conarium<\/em> [i.e. the pineal gland]. As this seems to have given a sore blow to the Cartesian<\/em> Doctrine, so the Disciples thereof are here endeavouring to heal the Wound (p. 480).<\/p>\n

Such instances that do not cohere with Descartes\u2019s natural philosophy can be found in various places in the new scientific journals, as well as in public debates and philosophical treatises. A well-known case is that of the collision rules that went through a number of critical evaluations during the 1660s. Physics, anatomy, and psychology are among the most heated areas of contestation for Descartes\u2019s natural philosophy. Cartesians reacted to the new challenges by both trying to complement or correct Descartes\u2019s philosophical corpus with needed additions, but also by incorporating into their practices new methods. Cartesian Empiricisms <\/em>will highlight such attempts:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ch. 1. Introduction<\/p>\n

Section I: Cartesian Philosophy: Receptions and Context<\/p>\n

Ch. 2. \u201cCensorship, Condemnations, and the Spread of Cartesianism\u201d by Roger Ariew<\/p>\n

Ch. 3. \u201cWas there a Cartesian Experimentalism in the 1660\u2019s France?\u201d by Sophie Roux<\/p>\n

Ch. 4. \u201cDutch Cartesian Empiricism and the Advent of Newtonianism\u201d by Wiep van Bunge<\/p>\n

Ch. 5. \u201cHeat, Action, Perception: Models of Living Beings in German Medical Cartesianism\u201d by Justin Smith<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Section II: Cartesian Disciplines<\/p>\n

Ch. 6. \u201cThe Cartesian Psychology of Antoine Le Grand\u201d by Gary Hatfield<\/p>\n

Ch. 7. \u201cExperimental Cartesianism and the Occult (1675-1720)\u201d by Koen Vermeir<\/p>\n

Ch. 8. \u201cRohault\u2019s Cartesian Physics\u201d by Mihnea Dobre<\/p>\n

Ch. 9. \u201cDe Volder\u2019s Cartesian Physics and Experimental Pedagogy\u201d by Tammy Nyden<\/p>\n

Ch. 10. \u201cEmpiricism without Metaphysics: Regius\u2019 Cartesian Natural Philosophy\u201d by Delphine Bellis<\/p>\n

Ch. 11. \u201cRobert Desgabets on the Physics and Metaphysics of Blood Transfusion\u201d by Patricia Easton<\/p>\n

Ch. 12. \u201cRohault, Regis and Cartesian Medicine\u201d by Dennis Des Chene<\/p>\n

Ch. 13. \u201cCould a Practicing Chemical Philosopher be a Cartesian?\u201d by Bernard Joly<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is particularly interesting how many of the individual Cartesians discussed in this volume blend theoretical and experimental elements. Experience and experimentation become \u2013 for some of them \u2013 constitutive parts of their Cartesian natural philosophies, thus making it harder to classify them with our current historiographical categories. We hope that our volume will open new discussions about such categories and will encourage the exploration of other branches of Cartesian philosophy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mihnea Dobre from the universities of Bucharest and Nijmegen writes… As readers of this blog know, the classic division between continental Rationalists and British Empiricists fails to provide an accurate picture of the early modern period. The Otago team has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113],"tags":[4411,229],"class_list":["post-2823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ideas","tag-descartes","tag-empiricism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2823"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2823\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}