Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences pp 1–10Cite as

Cartesianism and Experimental Philosophy

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 118 Accesses

Introduction

The entry offers an overview of the relation between Cartesianism and experimental philosophy in the second part of the seventeenth century. It builds upon recent developments in both the history of early modern experimental philosophy and the history of Cartesianism. The emphasis is on the various forms of Cartesian experimental attitude; yet, the entry does not aim to provide an exhaustive list of this variety. Rather, it provides a possible reading for the interplay between the inner tensions of the Cartesian system (the grounding metaphysics and general physics) and the ongoing contemporary debates and practices (the emergence of other forms of experimentation and experimental practices).

Cartesianism

A long-standing tradition in histories of philosophy and science describes Cartesian philosophy as mainly concerned with ideas and metaphysical issues. Questions pertaining to natural philosophy and the role of experience and observation in Cartesianism were for a long...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For some examples of the recent scholarship on Cartesianism, see Verbeek (1992), Gaukroger et al. (2000), Ariew (2014), Dobre (2017), Schmaltz (2017), and Antoine-Mahut and Roux (2018). For a general discussion of the period, see, for example, Clarke (1989) and Gaukroger (2006).

  2. 2.

    For the expression “experimental philosophy,” see Anstey (2005, 2014) and Feingold (2016).

  3. 3.

    On the role of the Royal Society in the scientific revolution, see Webster (1976), Hunter (1989), and Feingold (2005).

  4. 4.

    The binary category “Rationalism-Empiricism” has been criticized by many recent scholars. For one critical account that focuses on the Cartesian context, see Dobre and Nyden (2013a).

  5. 5.

    Time and again in studies on various early modern Cartesians, empirical elements are highlighted. Here are listed several examples: Lennon and Easton (1992), Ariew (2006), Cook (2008), Dobre and Nyden (2013b), Kolesnik-Antoine (2013), and Antoine-Mahut and Roux (2018).

  6. 6.

    I argue for a complex combination of factors in the development of Cartesian positions in the second half of the seventeenth century. The current entry offers an outline of such reading: I explain how Cartesians approached contemporary experimental practices and how they contributed to such activities; then, I use a particular case study to illustrate the transformations within the Cartesian camp. The reconstruction suggested here takes into account both external aspects (the experimental practices of early modern natural philosophers) and internal constraints (the need to defend some of Descartes’s metaphysical principles in the face of an increased number of condemnations and censure).

  7. 7.

    The recent work on Rohault includes Dobre (2013a) and Spink (2018). This scholarship builds upon prior works by McClaughlin (1996, 2000).

  8. 8.

    For some recent discussions about this, see Dobre (2013a), Roux (2013a), Schmaltz (2017) and Spink (2018).

  9. 9.

    See Garber (1992, pp. 136–143), Palmer (1999), Roux (2000), and Dobre (2016). In what follows, I use the standard abbreviations to refer to Descartes’s works: AT and CSM abbreviations stand for the French and the English editions of Descartes’s writings (Descartes 1964–1974, 1984–1991).

  10. 10.

    For a detailed account of the entire episode, see Dobre (2016).

  11. 11.

    Descartes’s views in medicine and how they relate to contemporary practice have been discussed in several studies, such as Gariepy (1990), Aucante (2006), Ragland (2012), Siraisi (2012), Distelzweig et al. (2016) and Easton and Gholamnejad (2016).

  12. 12.

    For Descartes’s views at the time of the Discourse and how they changed in the mature work (the Meditations and the Principles), see Gaukroger (1997, 2002) and Machamer and McGuire (2009).

  13. 13.

    For recent scholarship on the relation between metaphysics and physics in Cartesian philosophy, see Gaukroger et al. (2000), Dobre (2017), and Antoine-Mahut and Roux (2018).

  14. 14.

    For the purpose of this entry, it is sufficient to refer here only to the two books of the Principles. In terms of disciplines involved, the first part of the book represents the section on metaphysics, and the second deals with the general physics, while the other two cover topics such as celestial and terrestrial phenomena. For some general studies on Descartes’s Principles, see Armogathe and Belgioioso (1996). For a discussion of the system envisaged in the Principles, see Gaukroger (2002).

  15. 15.

    For Descartes’s preface letter to the French edition of the Principles, see AT IXb 1-20; CSM I 179-190.

  16. 16.

    Recent studies on Regius include Bitbol-Hespériès (1993), Verbeek (1994), Bos (2002) and Bellis (2013).

  17. 17.

    Bayle’s views have been discussed by Lennon and Easton (1992).

  18. 18.

    See this discussion in Dobre (2017, pp. 313–320).

  19. 19.

    See, for example, Trevisani (1992) and Distelzweig et al. (2016)

  20. 20.

    Examples can be found in Vanpaemel (2011).

  21. 21.

    See, for example, Roux (2013b) but also the various discussions included in Antoine-Mahut and Gaukroger (2016).

  22. 22.

    See Des Chene (1996, 2000a, b). For application of these explanatory principles in François Bayle, see Easton (2011).

  23. 23.

    The provisional conclusion derived from here is that for many early modern figures, the most important consequence of the Cartesian system results from this general physics, without a necessary recourse to the metaphysical foundation.

  24. 24.

    Some examples of seventeenth-century condemnations of Cartesianism are discussed in McClaughlin (1979), Schmaltz (2002), and Ariew (2013).

  25. 25.

    See Nyden (2013). For the general setting of the University of Leiden, see Ruestow (1973).

  26. 26.

    Samuel Clarke’s notes have been discussed in Hoskin (1961), Schüler (2001), and Dobre (2012, 2014).

  27. 27.

    See Dobre (2014, 2019a). In my view, Rohault’s treatise displayed a method to discuss particular natural phenomena in terms that were familiar to the English tradition.

  28. 28.

    I developed this line of reading in another paper; see Dobre (2013a).

  29. 29.

    See, for example, the discussion of the variety of “Cartesian constructions” in Schmaltz (2017).

  30. 30.

    Another significant trend among early modern Cartesians was to write textbooks; see Ariew (2014).

  31. 31.

    The methodological remark derived from here is grounded on Chang (2004). Similar to the experimental progress in the study of temperature, early modern forms of experimentation have significantly improved the experimental practice in the second part of the seventeenth century.

  32. 32.

    For an extensive argument along these lines, see Dobre (2013a).

  33. 33.

    On glass drops, see Dobre (2013b). Rohault’s letter to Poisson is reproduced in Clair (1978, p. 167).

  34. 34.

    For a reconstruction of this position, see Dobre (2019).

  35. 35.

    Regarding the first, see, for example, the curious case of the headless turtle reported in the Philosophical Transactions of June 3, 1667 (p. 480). For the second case, see the microscopic investigations by Leuwenhook in Vermeir (2011).

  36. 36.

    For the vortex theory, see Aiton (1972).

References

  • Aiton EJ (1972) The vortex theory of planetary motions. MacDonald, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Anstey P (2005) Experimental versus speculative natural philosophy. In: Anstey P, Schuster J (eds) The science of nature in the seventeenth century: patterns of change in early modern natural philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 215–242

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anstey P (2014) Philosophy of experiment in early modern England: the case of Bacon, Boyle and Hooke. Early Sci Med 19:103–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anstey P, Vanzo A (2012) The origins of early modern experimental philosophy. Int Hist Rev 22:499–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2012.725552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoine-Mahut D, Gaukroger S (eds) (2016) Descartes’ Treatise on man and its reception. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoine-Mahut D, Roux S (eds) (2018) Physics and metaphysics in Descartes and in his reception. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew R (2006) Cartesian empiricism. Rev Roum Philos 50:71–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew R (2013) Censorship, condemnations, and the spread of Cartesianism. In: Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) Cartesian empiricisms. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ariew R (2014) Descartes and the first Cartesians. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Armogathe J-R, Belgioioso G (1996) Descartes: Principia Philosophiae (1644–1994). Vivarium, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Aucante V (2006) La philosophie médicale de Descartes. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bellis D (2013) Empiricism without metaphysics: Regius’ Cartesian natural philosophy. In: Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) Cartesian empiricisms. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 151–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bitbol-Hespériès A (1993) Descartes et Regius: leur pensée médicale. In: Verbeek T (ed) Descartes et Regius. Autour de l’Explication de l’esprit humain. Rodopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta, pp 47–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos E-J (2002) The correspondence between Descartes and Henricus Regius. Zeno, The Leiden-Utrecht Research Institute of Philosophy, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang H (2004) Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clair P (1978) Jacques Rohault (1618–1672). Bio-Bibliographie. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke D (1989) Occult powers and hypotheses. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook M (2008) Desgabets as a Cartesian empiricist. J Hist Philos 46:501–5015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Des Chene D (1996) Physiologia. Natural philosophy in late Aristotelian and Cartesian thought. Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Des Chene D (2000a) Life’s form: late Aristotelian conceptions of the soul. Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Des Chene D (2000b) Sprits and clocks. Machine and organism in Descartes. Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes R (1964–1974) Œuvres de Descartes. J. Vrin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes R (1984–1991) The philosophical writings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Desgabets R (1983) Dom Robert Desgabets: Œuvres philosophiques inédites. Quadratures, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Distelzweig P, Goldberg B, Ragland ER (eds) (2016) Early modern medicine and natural philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2012) Rohault’s Traité de physique and its Newtonian reception. In: Roca-Rosell A (ed) The circulation of science and technology: proceedings of the 4th international conference of the ESHS, Barcelona, 18–20 November 2010. SCHCT-IEC, Barcelona, pp 389–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2013a) Rohault’s Cartesian physics. In: Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) Cartesian Empiricisms. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 203–226

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2013b) On glass-drops: a case study of the interplay between experimentation and explanation in seventeenth-century natural philosophy. J Early Mod Stud 2:105–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2014) Mixing Cartesianism and Newtonianism: the reception of Cartesian physics in England. In: Katsiampoura G (ed) Scientific cosmopolitanism and local cultures: religions, ideologies, societies, proceedings of 5th international conference of the European Society for the History of Science. National Hellenic Research Foundation/Institute of Historical Research, Athens, pp 126–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2016) Experimental Cartesianism and the problem of space. In: Vermeir K, Regier J (eds) Boundaries, extents and circulations: space and spatiality in early modern natural philosophy. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 153–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2017) Descartes and early French Cartesianism: between metaphysics and physics. Zeta Books, Bucharest

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2019a) Rohault, Jacques. Encycl Early Mod Philos Sci. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M (2019b) Jacques Rohault and Cartesian experimentalism. In: Nadler S, Antoine-Mahut D, Schmaltz T (eds) Oxford handbook to Descartes and Cartesianism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 388–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M, Nyden T (2013a) Introduction. In: Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) Cartesian empiricisms. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 1–21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) (2013b) Cartesian empiricisms. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton P (2011) The Cartesian doctor, François Bayle (1622–1709), on psychosomatic explanation. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C 42:203–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton P (2013) Robert Desgabets on the physics and metaphysics of blood transfusion. In: Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) Cartesian empiricisms. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 185–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Easton P, Gholamnejad M (2016) Louis de la Forge and the development of Cartesian medical philosophy. In: Distelzweig P, Goldberg B, Ragland ER (eds) Early modern medicine and natural philosophy. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 207–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold M (2005) The origins of the Royal Society revisited. In: Pelling M, Mandelbrote S (eds) The practice of reform in health, medicine, and science, 1500–2000: essays for Charles Webster. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 167–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Feingold M (2016) “Experimental philosophy”: invention and rebirth of a seventeenth-century concept. Early Sci Med 21:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-00211p01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber D (1992) Descartes’ metaphysical physics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gariepy TP (1990) Mechanisms without metaphysics: Henricus Regius and the establishment of Cartesian medicine. Yale University

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger S (1997) Descartes: an intellectual biography. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger S (2002) Descartes’ system of natural philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger S (2006) The emergence of a scientific culture. Science and the shaping of modernity, 1210–1685. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger S, Schuster JA, Sutton J (2000) Descartes’ natural philosophy. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskin M (1961) “Mining all within”: Clarke’s notes to Rohault’s “Traité de physique”. Thomist 24:353–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter MCW (1989) Establishing the new science: the experience of the early Royal Society. Boydell Press, Woodbridge/Suffolk/Wolfeboro

    Google Scholar 

  • Journal des Sçavans (1666) Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolesnik-Antoine D (2013) Le rôle des expériences dans la physiologie d’Henricus Regius: les “pierres lydiennes” du cartésianisme. J Early Mod Stud 2:125–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennon T, Easton P (1992) The Cartesian empiricism of François Bayle. Garland Publishing, New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer PK, McGuire JE (2009) Descartes’s changing mind. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin T (1979) Censorship and defenders of the Cartesian faith in mid-seventeenth century France. J Hist Ideas 40:563–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin T (1996) Was there an empirical movement in mid-seventeenth century France? Experiments in Jacques Rohault’s “Traité de physique”. Rev d’histoire Sci 49:459–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin T (2000) Descartes, experiments, and a first generation Cartesian, Jacques Rohault. In: Gaukroger S, Schuster J, Sutton J (eds) Descartes’ natural philosophy. Routledge, London, pp 330–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouvelles de la République des Lettres (1701) Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyden T (2013) De Volder’s Cartesian physics and experimental pedagogy. In: Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) Cartesian empiricisms. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 227–249

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer E (1999) Descartes on nothing in particular. In: Gennaro RJ, Huenemann C (eds) New essays on the rationalists. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 26–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Philosophical transactions (1667), London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragland E (2012) Experimenting with chemical bodies: science, medicine, and philosophy in the long history of Reiner de Graaf’s experiments on digestion, from Harvey and Descartes to Claude Bernard. Indiana University

    Google Scholar 

  • Roux S (2000) Descartes atomiste? In: Festa E, Gatto R (eds) Atomismo e continuo nel 17. secolo: atti del Convegno internazionale Atomisme et continuum au 17. siècle, Napoli, 28–29–30 aprile 1997. Vivarium, Naples, pp 211–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Roux S (2013a) Was there a Cartesian experimentalism in 1660s France? In: Dobre M, Nyden T (eds) Cartesian empiricisms. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–88

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roux S (2013b) Quelles machines pour quels animaux? Jacques Rohault, Claude Perrault, Giovanni Alfonso Borelli. In: Gaillard A, Goffi J-Y, Roukhomovsky B, Roux S (eds) L’ automate: modèle, métaphore, machine, merveille; actes du colloque international de Grenoble (19–21 mars 2009). Presses universitaires de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, pp 69–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruestow EG (1973) Physics at seventeenth and eighteenth-century Leiden: philosophy and the new science in the university. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmaltz T (2002) Radical Cartesianism. The French reception to Descartes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmaltz T (2017) Early modern Cartesianisms: Dutch and French constructions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schüler V (2001) Samuel Clarke’s annotations in Jacques Rohault’s “Traité de physique”, and how they contributed to popularising Newton’s physics. In: Lefèvre W (ed) Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: philosophy and science in the 18th century. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 95–110

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siraisi NG (2012) Medicine, 1450–1620, and the history of science. Isis 103:491–514. https://doi.org/10.1086/667970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spink A (2018) The experimental physics of Jacques Rohault. Br J Hist Philos 26:850–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2017.1379004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevisani F (1992) Descartes in Germania: la ricezione del cartesianesimo nella facoltà filosofica e medica di Duisburg (1652–1703). FrancoAngeli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanpaemel G (2011) The Louvain printers and the establishment of the Cartesian curriculum. Studium 4:241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek T (1992) Descartes and the Dutch. Early reactions to Cartesian philosophy, 1637–1650. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek T (1994) Regius’s Fundamenta Physices. J Hist Ideas 44:533–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir K (2011) Circulating knowledge or superstition? The Dutch debate on divination. In: Dupré S, Lüthy C (eds) Silent messengers. The circulation of material objects of knowledge in the early modern low countries. Lit Verlag, Berlin, pp 293–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster C (1976) The origins of the Royal Society. Br J Hist Sci 6:106–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICUB, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Mihnea Dobre

Authors
  1. Mihnea Dobre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihnea Dobre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Dana Jalobeanu

  2. Dept. of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University Dept. Philosophy & Moral Sci, Ghent, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium

    Charles T. Wolfe

Section Editor information

  1. Sociology, Philosophy & Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Kirsten Walsh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Dobre, M. (2020). Cartesianism and Experimental Philosophy. In: Jalobeanu, D., Wolfe, C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20791-9_52-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20791-9_52-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20791-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20791-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation