27.10.2014 Views

Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV

Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV

Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

DESCARTES: METAPHYSICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND 213<br />

56 Second and Fourth Objections respectively: AT VII 125; CSM II 89 and AT VII<br />

214; CSM II 150.<br />

57 AT VII 62; CSM II 43.<br />

58 Fifth Meditation: AT VII 71; CSM II 49.<br />

59 cf. Second Replies, AT VII 140ff.; CSM II 100ff.; Fourth Replies, AT VII 246;<br />

CSM II 171; Conversation with Burman, AT V 148; CB 6. For more on the circle<br />

objection and Descartes’s reply to it, see especially A.Gewirth, ‘The Cartesian<br />

Circle’ [6.45] and L.Loeb, ‘The Cartesian Circle’, in J.Cottingham (ed.) Cambridge<br />

Companions: Descartes [6.32].<br />

60 AT VII 526; CSM II 419.<br />

61 Conversation with Burman (1648): AT V 160; CSMK 343.<br />

62 Letter to Mersenne <strong>of</strong> 15 April 1630, AT I 145; CSMK 23; cf. Sixth Replies: ‘God<br />

did not will that the three angles <strong>of</strong> a triangle should be equal to two right angles<br />

because he recognized that it could not be otherwise;…it is because he wills that<br />

the three angles <strong>of</strong> a triangle should necessarily equal two right angles that this is<br />

true and cannot be otherwise’ (AT VII 432; CSM II 291).<br />

63 See, for example, Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia, 25, 3. See further A.Kenny,<br />

Descartes [6.20], 37f.<br />

64 Letter to Mersenne <strong>of</strong> 27 May 1630; AT I 152; CSMK 25.<br />

65 Notre âme, étant finie, ne le puisse comprendre ni concevoir (ibid.). For further<br />

discussion <strong>of</strong> this theme, cf. J.-M.Beyssade, ‘The Idea <strong>of</strong> God’ [6.38].<br />

66 For an interesting development <strong>of</strong> this point, see S.Gaukroger, Cartesian Logic [6.<br />

15], ch. 2.<br />

67 See Principles, Book II, art. 64.<br />

68 I use the term ‘post-Humean’ in accordance with what may be called the traditional<br />

interpretation <strong>of</strong> Hume as a philosopher who undermined the idea <strong>of</strong> science as the<br />

discovery <strong>of</strong> necessary connections in the world. For an alternative interpretation,<br />

see J.Wright, The Sceptical Realism <strong>of</strong> David Hume (Cambridge, Cambridge<br />

University Press, 1983).<br />

69 For the simplicity and economy claimed by Descartes for his system see the letter<br />

to Huygens <strong>of</strong> 10 October 1642 (AT II 797; CSMK 216) and Principles, Part <strong>IV</strong>,<br />

arts 199 and 206.<br />

70 For the breaking down <strong>of</strong> the barriers between terrestrial and celestial, see<br />

Principles, Part <strong>IV</strong>, passim; for the barrier between organic and inorganic, see<br />

Description <strong>of</strong> the Human Body (AT XI 226; CSM I 315); for that between natural<br />

and artificial, see Treatise on Man (AT XI 120f., CSM I 99f.).<br />

71 Treatise on Man: AT XI 120; CSM I 99. Though published (after Descartes’s<br />

death) as a separate work, the Treatise on Man was originally conceived by<br />

Descartes as part <strong>of</strong> Le Monde. See further CSM I 79.<br />

72 He lived for a time in Kalverstraat in Amsterdam, where he obtained carcasses for<br />

dissection from the butcher; some <strong>of</strong> his later experiments in vivisection are<br />

described in the Description <strong>of</strong> the Human Body (AT XI 242f.; CSM I 317f.).<br />

73 AT VII 230; CSM II 161.<br />

74 AT VII 426; CSM I 288.<br />

75 Description <strong>of</strong> the Human Body: AT XI 226; CSM I 315.<br />

76 Discourse, Part Five, AT VI 56f.; CSM I 140.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!