Descartes

[jfoges]

I am reading Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and I am fascinated by his argument, especially his argument for the existence of God. For those who are unfamiliar with the argument it is essentially that the fact that we have the idea of God is evidence that God must exist. We couldn’t have the idea if it didn’t exist in reality. I just want to say I do not want to discuss the validity of the argument or debate it, because I don’t have the time to fully explain the argument in the forum. If you want to learn more about the argument I would suggest reading Descartes himself. The argument is very thorough and comprehensive.

The reason I am posting this message is to ask a question. Descartes’ book was placed on the index of forbidden books by the Catholic church. My question is, why did the Catholic church have such a problem with Descartes?

Thanks.

 

[Detales]

from: web.mac.com/howittsend/iWeb/Descartes/Descartes%20Blog/8EFCC616-C231-408D-95A3-2E9901EA2ADC.html

Descartes told Mersenne, in a letter dated 11 November 1640, that ‘the little book on metaphysics that I sent you contains all the principles of my physics’ [CSMK p.159]. He returned to the point on 28 January 1641:
… I may tell you between ourselves, that these six Meditations contain all the foundations of my physics. But please do not tell people, for that might make it harder for supporters of Aristotle to approve them. I hope that readers will gradually get used to my principles, and recognize their truth, before they notice that they destroy the principles of Aristotle. [CSMK p.173]
Caution was called for. The foundations of physics of which Descartes speaks were not only opposed to those of the scholastic establishment, ‘the Aristotelians’ as Descartes refers to them, but the act of defending the foundations of physics threatened to bring him into conflict with the Church. Descartes blamed the Aristotelians for the condemnation of Galileo: he wrote, again to Mersenne in March 1640, of ‘the people who confound Aristotle with the Bible, and abuse the authority of the Church in order to vent their passions – I mean the people who had Galileo condemned.’ [CSMK p.177.] In the Meditations, he undertook the task of defending science against the attack that had culminated in the condemnation of Galileo.
[edited]
And so on…

 

[Touchstone]

I am reading Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and I am fascinated by his argument, especially his argument for the existence of God. For those who are unfamiliar with the argument it is essentially that the fact that we have the idea of God is evidence that God must exist. We couldn’t have the idea if it didn’t exist in reality. I just want to say I do not want to discuss the validity of the argument or debate it, because I don’t have the time to fully explain the argument in the forum. If you want to learn more about the argument I would suggest reading Descartes himself. The argument is very thorough and comprehensive.

The reason I am posting this message is to ask a question. Descartes’ book was placed on the index of forbidden books by the Catholic church. My question is, why did the Catholic church have such a problem with Descartes?

Thanks.

Descartes was the “Father of Methodical Doubt”, and his advocacy of rigorous agnosticism spelled the end of scholastic phillosophy (outside of the Church, anyway), and heralded the advent of modern philosophy. Descartes, by his own reckoning, represented the downfall of metaphysics of “the Aristotelians” (his term), which had not previously been subjected to rigorous, methodical doubt. Descartes was one of the foundation-layers for the idea that doubt is the basis for real knowledge, rather than faith, or “brute logic”.

That was seen as problematic by the Church, understandably. Descartes launched a revolution against Thomist and scholastic epistemology.

-TS

 

[jfoges]

Sounds like it was more a matter of Descartes challenging the other intellectuals of his day, rather then that he was any kind of heretic.

 

[RobbyS]

Descartes was the “Father of Methodical Doubt”, and his advocacy of rigorous agnosticism spelled the end of scholastic phillosophy (outside of the Church, anyway), and heralded the advent of modern philosophy. Descartes, by his own reckoning, represented the downfall of metaphysics of “the Aristotelians” (his term), which had not previously been subjected to rigorous, methodical doubt. Descartes was one of the foundation-layers for the idea that doubt is the basis for real knowledge, rather than faith, or “brute logic”.

That was seen as problematic by the Church, understandably. Descartes launched a revolution against Thomist and scholastic epistemology.

-TS

Descarters was a metaphysician, but an idealist, a kind of reversion to neo-Platonism, or maybe Augustinianism. He seems to have thought of his insight as a kind of revelation, and describes it as coming to him in a flash.

 

[Touchstone]

Descarters was a metaphysician, but an idealist, a kind of reversion to neo-Platonism, or maybe Augustinianism. He seems to have thought of his insight as a kind of revelation, and describes it as coming to him in a flash.

Hmmm. That doesn’t remind me of Descartes. His physics were (notoriously) mechanistic, which of course wasn’t even an option centuries before. And his metaphysics eschewed the obscure and baroque notions of “essence” and “form” that had characterized scholastic philosophy’s metaphyscis for a millenium. Neo-Platonist or Augustinian just don’t register for me with Descartes, though. Maybe I’ve missed a connection in there.

Cartesian metaphysics were/are influential, but dualism aint what it used to be, particularly with respect to Descartes’ flavor of it. The lasting, world-shaping effects of Descartes’ methodical doubt and the epistemology that went with it were a departure from any of the ancients, something quite new and innovative.

-TS

 

[jfoges]

I am not finished reading Descartes Meditations but I think I can see at least one similarity between Descartes and Plato. Descartes idea of God as a being that is infinite and perfect in all respects, a unity of all perfections, reminds me a lot of Plato’s idea of the good. For Plato, the good, or the true, or the beautiful were all one perfect unity that was the source of all ideals and of all perfect forms, and subsequently all individual things. At least, that is my understanding.