Advertisement

Descartes Opticien: The Optical Triumph of the 1620s

  • John SchusterEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 27)

Abstract

This chapter reconstructs the genealogy of Descartes’ discovery of the law of refraction; initial development of a theory of lenses; and first attempts, in the years 1626–1628, to explain the law through a mechanistic theory of light. These events of the mid to late 1620s constitute the greatest of Descartes’ achievements in mixed- and physico-mathematics. They were also of the utmost importance for his emergence, from the late 1620s, as a systematic corpuscular-mechanical natural philosopher. He would use the discovery of the law of refraction as a putative example of his supposedly all conquering method. More importantly, the optical work led him to the mature formulation of the central concepts of his dynamics—the causal register of his emerging system of corpuscular-mechanism, when he later came to write Le Monde. Thus, his optical triumph of the 1620s was both the climax of his early physico-mathematical agenda, as well as the exemplar for important parts of his mature, systematic natural philosophical work to come.

Keywords

Real Theory Parallel Component Tennis Ball Optical Work Dynamical Assumption 
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

Works of Descartes and Their Abbreviations

  1. AT  =  Oeuvres de Descartes (revised edition, 12 vols.), edited by C. Adam and P. Tannery (Paris, 1964–76). References are by volume number (in roman) and page number (in Arabic).Google Scholar
  2. SG  =  The World and Other Writings, edited and translated by Stephen Gaukroger (Cambridge,1998).Google Scholar
  3. MM  =  René Descartes, The Principles of Philosophy, translated by V. R. Miller and R. P. Miller (Dordrecht, 1991)Google Scholar
  4. MSM  =  Rene Descartes, Le Monde, ou Traité de la lumière, translated by Michael S. Mahoney (New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  5. CSM(K)  =  The Philosophical Writings Of Descartes, 3 vols., translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, and (for vol. 3) Anthony Kenny, (Cambridge, 1988) References are by volume number (in roman) and page number (in arabic).Google Scholar
  6. HR  =  The Philosophical Works of Descartes, vol I translated by E.S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (Cambridge, 1968 [1st ed. 1911])Google Scholar

Other

  1. Alquié, F. (ed.). 1963. Oeuvres philosophiques de Descartes, t.1. Paris, Garnier Frères.Google Scholar
  2. Barthes, Roland. 1957, 1973. Mythologies. Paris, Editions du Seuil. English Trans. St. Albans: A.Lavers.Google Scholar
  3. Beeckman, I. 1939–53 Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 à 1634, 4 vols. ed. C. de Waard. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  4. Bossha, J. 1908. ‘Annexe note’, Archives Neerlandaises des Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, ser 2 t. 13, pp.xii–xiv.Google Scholar
  5. Buchdahl, G. 1972. Methodological aspects of Kepler’s theory of refraction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3: 265–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchwald, Jed Z. 2008. Descartes’s experimental journey past the prism and through the invisible world to the rainbow. Annals of Science 65: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, Desmond. 2006. Descartes, a biography. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. deWaard, C. 1935–6. Le manuscrit perdu de Snellius sur la refraction. Janus 39–40: 51–73.Google Scholar
  9. Dijksterhuis, F.J. 2004. Once Snell breaks down: From geometrical to physical optics in the seventeenth century. Annals of Science 61: 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fermat, Pierre de. 1891–1922. Oeuvres de Fermat., 5 vols. eds. Charles Henry and Paul Tannery. Paris: Gauthier-Villars et fils.Google Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, P.K. 1970. Classical empiricism. In The Newtonian heritage, ed. R.E. Butts and J.W. Davis, 150–170. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Gabbey, A. 1980. Force and Inertia in the seventeenth century: Descartes and Newton. In Descartes: Philosophy, mathematics and physics, ed. S. Gaukroger, 230–320. Sussex: Harvester.Google Scholar
  13. Gaukroger, S. 1976. Bachelard and the problem of epistemological analysis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 7: 189–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaukroger, S. 1995. Descartes: An intellectual biography. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. Gaukroger, S. (ed.) and Trans. 1998. Descartes, the world and other writings. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gaukroger, S. 2000. The foundational role of hydrostatics and statics in Descartes’ natural philosophy. In Descartes’ natural philosophy, ed. S. Gaukroger, J.A. Schuster, and J. Sutton, 60–80. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Gaukroger, S., and J.A. Schuster. 2002. The hydrostatic paradox and the origins of Cartesian dynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33: 535–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korteweg, D–.J. 1896. Descartes et les manuscrits de Snellius d’après quelques documents nouveau. Révue de Métaphysique et de Morale 4: 489–501.Google Scholar
  19. Kramer, P. 1882. Descartes und das Brechungsgesetz des Lichtes. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematischer (Natur) Wissenschaften 4: 235–278.Google Scholar
  20. Knudsen, O., and K.M. Pedersen. 1968. The link between “Determination” and conservation of motion in Descartes’ dynamics. Centaurus 13: 183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1972. Structural anthropology. Trans. C. Jacobson and B.G. Schoepf. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Lohne, J. 1959. Thomas Harriot (1560–1621) The Tycho Brahe of optics. Centaurus 6: 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lohne, J. 1963. Zur Geschichte des Brechungsgesetzes. Sudhoffs Archiv 47: 152–172.Google Scholar
  24. McLaughlin, P. 2000. Force determination and impact. In Descartes’ natural philosophy, ed. S. Gaukroger, J.A. Schuster, and J. Sutton, 81–112. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mahoney, M. 1973. The mathematical career of Pierre de Fermat 1601–1665. Princeton University Press: Princeton.Google Scholar
  26. Mersenne, M. 1932–88. Correspondence du P. Marin Mersenne, 17 vols. eds. C. de Waard, R. Pintard, B. Rochot and A. Baelieu. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
  27. Milhaud, Gaston. 1921. Descartes savant. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
  28. Mouy, Paul. 1934. Le développement de la physique Cartésienne. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  29. Prendergast, T.L. 1975. Motion, action and tendency in Descartes’ physics. Journal of the History of Philosophy 13: 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richards, E., and J.A. Schuster. 1989. The myth of feminine method: A challenge for gender studies and the social studies of science. Social Studies of Science 19: 697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sabra, A.I. 1967. Theories of light from Descartes to Newton. London: Oldbourne.Google Scholar
  32. Schuster, J.A. 1977. Descartes and the scientific revolution 1618–1634: An Interpretation, 2 vols. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  33. Schuster, J.A. 1980. Descartes’ Mathesis Universalis: 1619–28. In Descartes: Philosophy, mathematics and physics, ed. S. Gaukroger, 41–96. Sussex: Harvester.Google Scholar
  34. Schuster, John. 1984. Methodologies as mythic structures: A preface to the future historiography of method. Metascience: Review of the Australasian Assoc. for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science 1–2: 15–36.Google Scholar
  35. Schuster, J.A. 1986. Cartesian method as mythic speech: A diachronic and structural analysis. In The politics and rhetoric of scientific method, ed. J.A. Schuster and R.R. Yeo, 33–95. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schuster, J.A. 1993. Whatever should we do with Cartesian method: Reclaiming Descartes for the history of science. In Essays on the philosophy and science of René Descartes, ed. S. Voss, 195–223. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schuster, J.A. 2000. Descartes Opticien: The construction of the law of refraction and the manufacture of its physical rationales, 1618–29. In Descartes’ natural philosophy, ed. S. Gaukroger, J.A. Schuster, and J. Sutton, 258–312. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Schuster, J.A. 2005. “Waterworld”: Descartes’ cortical celestial mechanics: A gambit in the natural philosophical contest of the early seventeenth century. In The science of nature in the seventeenth century: Changing patterns of early modern natural philosophy, ed. Anstey Peter and Schuster John, 35–79. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Schuster, J.A. 2012. ‘Physico-mathematics and the Search for Causes in Descartes’ Optics—1619–37’, Synthèse 185: 467–499. [published online Dec. 2011 DOI  10.1007/s11229-011-9979-4].
  40. Shea, W. 1991. The magic of motion and numbers: The scientific career of René Descartes. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, Russell. 2008a. ‘Optical reflection and mechanical rebound: The shift from analogy to axiomatisation in the seventeenth century’, Part 2. British Journal for the History of Science 41(2): 187–207.Google Scholar
  42. Stevin, Simon. 1955–66. The principal works of Simon Stevin, 5 vols. eds. Ernst Cronie et al. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  43. Turbayne, C. 1959. Grosseteste and an ancient optical principle. Isis 50: 467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vollgraff, J.A. 1913. Pierre de la Ramée (1515–1572) et Willebrord Snel van Royen (1580–1626). Janus 18: 595–625.Google Scholar
  45. Vollgraff, J.A. 1936. Snellius notes on the reflection and refraction of rays. Osiris 1: 718–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Westfall, Richard. 1971. Force in Newton’s physics: The science of dynamics in the seventeenth century. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Campion CollegeSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Unit for History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations