It was only because of what the Church did to Galileo, Descartes withdrew his essay on physics, "The World" from publication — counterpunch

Is that so? I didn't realise Descartes was cowed by the thought of upsetting religious authority. But I also fail to see the relevance to the philosophical point at issue, and I'm sure he wasn't a villian. Surely you must agree that Descartes' invention of algebraic geometery was one of the major foundations of the 'Scientific Revoluion'? It allowed the application of the newly-discovered laws of motion and general scientific method across a universal range.

All the while, for example, the Church burned people alive for witchcraft right through to 1792. — counterpunch

Is that so? I wouldn't actually lay the blame wholly and solely at the feet of 'the Church', which actually by that time was already split into competing denominations. Persecution of witches was a global phenomenon in pre-modern cultures - which is, of course, not to condone such barbarism. (There's a pretty good in-depth article on the subject on Catholic Education!)

What if, instead of finding Galileo grievously suspect of heresy, the Church had welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so afforded a scientific understanding of reality - the moral authority of God's word? — counterpunch

Of course they should have. And in reality, there was a progressive sect inside the Church who was horrified by Galileo's treatment, and who argued strongly against the proceedings. Regretably, the ultra-conservatives won the day - and not only on religious grounds. There were many factors driving the whole affair, some of which were political in nature.

I'm not at all sure modern scientific materialism is quite the virtue you seem to think it is! — counterpunch

Whether it is or is not a virtue - it has enormous strengths, on the one hand, but also has its blind spots, which I still don't think you've acknowledged - quite apart from the historical issue of the Trial of Galileo.

Surely you must agree that Descartes' invention of algebraic geometry was one of the major foundations of the 'Scientific Revolution'? It allowed the application of the newly-discovered laws of motion and general scientific method across a universal range. — Wayfarer

I really couldn't say. I'm not so well versed in math that I could judge the significance of Descartes algebraic geometry in the history of mathematics. A quick wiki suggests: "Some of the roots of algebraic geometry date back to the work of the Hellenistic Greeks from the 5th century BC."

Is that so? — Wayfarer

Yes, it is so. Anna Goddi was the last witch burned alive by the Church in 1792 - 60 years into the Industrial Revolution. I mention this, not to cast moral aspersions, but to illustrate the disparity of reason between science and religiosity.

Of course they should have. And in reality, there was a progressive sect inside the Church who was horrified by Galileo's treatment, and who argued strongly against the proceedings. Regretably, the ultra-conservatives won the day - and not only on religious grounds. There were many factors driving the whole affair, some of which were political in nature. — Wayfarer

The only reason I indulge in 'should have' is to illustrate the mistake, and show how it plays out in relation to our mistaken relationship to science, now, as we approach upon the climate and ecological crisis. I have argued elsewhere that it's futile to project one's modern day moral sensibilities onto the past. I cannot doubt the piety of the Church. I was an understandable mistake - but with massive, unforeseen consequences we need now, to get to grips with.

Whether it is or is not a virtue - it has enormous strengths, on the one hand, but also has its blind spots, which I still don't think you've acknowledged — Wayfarer

I'm trying. You're not making it easy. You distinguish between subject and object. I'm making a distinction between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality - and suggesting that the latter is the real blind-spot.

I'm trying. You're not making it easy. You distinguish between subject and object. — counterpunch

I know it's a big topic. Before this thread, were you aware of Thomas Nagel and the subjects he writes about? Have you read philosophy of science? Kuhn, Polanyi, those types of things?

The argument about objectivity is a central issue. I think that scientific realism presumes that a kind of ultimate objectivity is possible, at least in principle. That there is 'the way things truly are', and we're gradually enlarging our knowledge of it through the scientific method. That is deeply ingrained in the modern outlook. What I'm arguing is that the subject retains an essential role even in the strictly objective sciences, so called, but that this role is not in itself perceptible to those sciences. Yes, it is a controversial view, because it calls into question scientific realism - but this is a philosophy forum, and it's a philosophical criticism.

I'm making a distinction between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality - and suggesting that the latter is the real blind-spot. — counterpunch

You mean, failing to appreciate the role of science in the understanding of reality is the blind spot?

You mean, failing to appreciate the role of science in the understanding of reality is the blind spot? — Wayfarer

Not quite. I mean failing to appreciate that science is a valid understanding of reality, relative to overlapping religious, political and economic ideologies - is the blind spot, and it's a mistake held in place by subjectivism.

‘Subjectivism’ being.....?

In the hands of Descartes, a means of asserting the primacy of the subjective - to undermine the significance of the objective, such that science could be used without being recognised as truth.

Well, that’s an interesting reading, as I say. I will think about that one.

Yeah, you do that. I'll be thinking about being reduced to words of one syllable to get past your apparent incomprehension - and then being told, that's an interesting reading, goodbye!

From my perspective, you don’t understand what I’m talking about, whilst I think I have at least an inkling of your point. In any case, please don’t let this stop you from reading Thomas Nagel, because he is one of the leading philosophers in the English-speaking world, and very well worth reading.

From my perspective, you don’t understand what I’m talking about, whilst I think I have at least an inkling of your point. In any case, please don’t let this stop you from reading Thomas Nagel, because he is one of the leading philosophers in the English-speaking world, and very well worth reading. — Wayfarer

I could just read Descartes - and extrapolate slightly. It's not like any subjectivist could ever have anything new to say, is it really? That's the problem with the haunted butthole hypothesis. It's something of a dead end philosophically speaking. What's it like to have nothing new to say in 400 years?

Meanwhile, science is taking photos of craters on mars, discovered the stones of Stonehenge are from Wales, 300km away, is tackling climate change, has built the world's biggest telescope - a square kilometre across, has plans to visit Europa, has discovered the world's smallest reptile, awwww, found new bat coronavirus evidence - and so on. What's Nagel gazer on about? Ah yes, his haunted butthole!

well, as you have no interest in philosophy, I can only conclude you’re trolling. So long.

It depends on what you mean by philosophy! My interest; in correcting our relationship to science in order to secure the continued existence of humankind is in my view, entirely consistent with a literal translation of the word philosophy: love of wisdom.

I don't see the wisdom in undermining the truth value of scientific knowledge with philosophical ghost stories, to maintain religious belief. I think your love is self love; not a love of philosophy of itself, but rather your philosophy stems from a desire to construe yourself as spirit, above and beyond the mere physical and objective.

I think you're mistaken. You are not the centre of Creation. Science is not here to flatter you. But if you attend closely, and act accordingly, it will save your life.

It begins with Galileo - who formulated scientific method in order to prove the earth orbits the sun, and was threatened with torture and forced to recant, was found grievously suspect of heresy and held under house arrest for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, his contemporary, Descartes - using an argument that can only be described as sophistry, asserted the primacy of the subject - in a manner consistent with emphasising the spiritual and reviling the profane, and he was appointed to the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. — counterpunch

If we are to use history as a source of philosophical insight, it might be useful to recall a few important points. One is that Queen Christina was well versed about the heliocentric system. Her favorite philosopher was Gassendi, an heliocentric. Another is that, while Galileo did live under house arrest, he died in his bed at the respectable age of 77, while Descartes died at the tender age of 53, of pneumonia, four months after accepting the queen's invitation to come to Stockholm. According to Wiki, neither the weather nor the queen agreed much with him. Should have stayed in his bed...

Descartes arrived on 4 October 1649. [...] With Christina's strict schedule he was invited to the cold and draughty castle at 5:00 AM daily to discuss philosophy and religion. Soon it became clear they did not like each other; she disapproved of his mechanical view, and he did not appreciate her interest in Ancient Greek.[40] On 15 January Descartes wrote he had seen Christina only four or five times.[41] On 1 February 1650 Descartes caught a cold. He died ten days later, early in the morning on 11 February 1650, and according to Chanut the cause of his death was pneumonia.[42][note 6]

If we are to use history as a source of philosophical insight, it might be useful to recall a few important points. One is that Queen Christian was well versed about the heliocentric system. Her favorite philosopher was Gassendi, an heliocentric. Another is that, while Galileo did live under house arrest, he died in his bed at the respectable age of 77, while Descartes died at the tender age of 53, of pneumonia, four months after accepting the queen's invitation to come to Stockholm. According to Wiki, neither the weather nor the queen agreed with him. Should have stayed in his bed... — Olivier5

Important in what regard? It remains, Galileo was grievously suspect of heresy - which is about a hair's breadth from being burned alive, while Descartes was rubbing shoulders with European aristocracy. And so it remains that science as an understanding of reality was potentially heretical - while subjectivism was potentially a ticket to the big show!

Are you suggesting that had no effect on the subsequent development of philosophy?

I cringed reading the introduction to Rousseau's Inquiry into the Causes of Inequality 1755 - a brilliant piece of writing that foreshadows Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations 1775, and Darwin's evolutionary theory, 1859. It begins with a crawling apologetic to the Church for even daring to think in rational terms.

Funny, I thought it said ‘scientist’. Silly me! — Wayfarer

:ok:

Important in what regard? It remains, Galileo was grievously suspect of heresy - which is about a hair's breadth from being burned alive, while Descartes was rubbing shoulders with European aristocracy. And so it remains that science as an understanding of reality was potentially heretical - while subjectivism was potentially a ticket to the big show! — counterpunch

Important in that Descartes was invited to what was then a pretty horrible place, and he was reluctant to go, and when he went there, he died of cold. That the extent to which he ‘rubbed shoulders with aristocracy’, as you say. Descartes was also a believer in heliocentrism and a scientist, who invented the cartesian coordinates. You are the FAUX News of philosophers.

I don't deny facts, ever. But the fact Descartes died is somewhat incidental - (unless he really was poisoned by a Catholic missionary, as apparently, Theodor Ebert suggests.)

I have read the 'cogito ergo sum' argument many times, and cannot believe it a credible argument from a man, whom - as you say, was a scientist and a philosopher and invented Cartesian coordinates.

As he was a gifted, rational man, how could he have not realised his 'evil demon' argument was sceptical doubt, as opposed to rational doubt? How could he have doubted that the world exists, and that his own body exists, and not cared if it was credible doubt?

In an argument that ostensibly seeks to establish knowledge that is certain, he moves past physical experience, like pain - a primary sensation prior to cogito, without so much as an acknowledgement. Why? Because he already had a conclusion in mind - that, thrusting his hand into the fire and finding 'I'm in pain, therefore I am' - would rule out, by implying the undeniable existence of an objective reality, it was his intent to undermine.

In relation to the withdrawal of a work on physics from publication, in direct response to Galileo's trial - we can very reasonably conclude that Descartes wrote the 'cogito ergo sum' argument to accord with Church doctrine - using a dubious method to find certain knowledge in the subjective/soul, rather than, find meaning in the physical world through hypotheses tested by the evidence of the senses - and maybe find himself on trial for his life.

I don't deny facts, ever. But the fact Descartes died is somewhat incidental — counterpunch

You presented his being invited to the court of Queen Christina as a reward for his supposedly 'subjectivist' philosophy, which the powerful would have some interest in promoting... In truth Christina didn't like Descartes's philosophy, which she found too mechanistic, and he fell sick and died as a direct result of accepting her invitation to Stockholm. So your nice conspiration theory crumbles.

How could he have doubted that the world exists, and that his own body exists, and not cared if it was credible doubt? — counterpunch

It was a thought experiment about doubting the world, not a real doubt. He was just playing with the idea of radical doubt.

Because he already had a conclusion in mind - that, thrusting his hand into the fire and finding 'I'm in pain, therefore I am' - would rule out, by implying the undeniable existence of an objective reality, it was his intent to undermine. — counterpunch

You don't get it. Pain can sometimes be an illusion. Descartes cogito's point is that one cannot doubt the doubter himself. Descartes was well aware of the existence of an objective reality, and his cogito is an attempt to prove that it does exist.

we can very reasonably conclude that Descartes wrote the 'cogito ergo sum' argument to accord with Church doctrine - using a dubious method to find certain knowledge in the subjective/soul, rather than, find meaning in the physical world through hypotheses tested by the evidence of the senses - and maybe find himself on trial for his life. — counterpunch

Descartes did scrap a book almost ready to publish on heliocentrism, after the second Galileo trial, because he was afraid of being jailed. So he was prudent. But he was not the mouthpiece of the Church. After his death all his books landed on the Church index of prohibited works.

You presented his being invited to the court of Queen Christina as a reward for his supposedly 'subjectivist' philosophy, which the powerful would have some interest in promoting... In truth Christina didn't like Descartes's philosophy, which she found too mechanistic, and he fell sick and died as a direct result of accepting her invitation to Stockholm. So your nice conspiration theory crumbles. — Olivier5

You're right, I did. When all I can realistically defend is, that unlike Galileo - Descartes was at liberty to accept such an invitation, and not on trial for his life and soul, his works banned from publication. It's puzzling though - why Descartes would be invited to the Royal Court of Sweden, if Queen Christina so objected to his ideas?

It was a thought experiment about doubting the world, not a real doubt. He was just playing with the idea of radical doubt. — Olivier5

Rather puzzling again. Do you suppose then - that, in search of certain knowledge, a philosopher of Descartes calibre, was simply unaware of Galileo's hypothetico-deductive methodology?

You don't get it. — Olivier5

What don't I get?

Pain can sometimes be an illusion. Descartes cogito's point is that one cannot doubt the doubter himself. — Olivier5

You think I don't understand Descartes conclusion? You jest, surely!

Descartes was well aware of the existence of an objective reality, and his cogito is an attempt to prove that it does exist. — Olivier5

No, his argument was ostensibly, a search for certain knowledge. But Descartes method of doubt boxes him into a solipsistic corner; where all he can assert is that he exists - a point with no implication because the world has been doubted away. He relies upon an appeal to the existence of God to rescue his argument from this oblivion.

Thus I see plainly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends strictly on my awareness of the true God. So much so that until I became aware of him I couldn’t perfectly know anything. Now I can achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters,

Descartes did scrap a book almost ready to publish on heliocentrism, after the second Galileo trial, because he was afraid of being jailed. So he was prudent. But he was not the mouthpiece of the Church. After his death all his books landed on the Church index of prohibited works. — Olivier5

Jailed? Do you mean damned and tortured to death? Galileo's imprisonment was lenient. The Church was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. And it was by these means - science as an understanding of reality was divorced from science as a tool used by industry from 1730, to drive the Industrial Revolution. Sure, there's more to the story of Descartes than appears in the headlines, but isn't there always. Nonetheless, it remains that the argument for subjectivism was written in terror of the Church, to accord with religious doctrine - to the exclusion of scientific method as a means to certain knowledge.

What is the importance of Descartes?
Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) French philosopher and mathematician. Descartes is considered the founder of modern philosophy

Should have been Galileo!

It's puzzling though - why Descartes would be invited to the Royal Court of Sweden, if Queen Christina so objected to his ideas? — counterpunch

He was perhaps the most famous philosopher in Europe at the time. She spoke excellent French and surrounded herself with luminaries, many of them French. She was just curious to know him, I guess.

You are imagining a kind of cosmic battle between science and religion, in which Galileo was a hero of science and Descartes a kind of traitor, while the 'aristocracy' and the Church are on the other side, fighting for obscurantism. But my contention is that the historical facts paint a far more complex and less manichean picture.

For instance, Queen Christina was not any aristocrat. She had a rather peculiar life, had a few lovers, men and women, and thought of herself as no less a philosopher than Descartes.

Galileo is my own hero too, more so than Descartes, so no dispute on his contribution. But he, like Descartes and all the others, was a devot Christian educated by the Church and tied to it in many other ways, including financially. Galileo seriously considered the priesthood as a young man. The very name 'Galileus' originally means 'Christian'. The Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems was commissioned by no other than Pope Urban VIII, who had supported Galileo during his first trial.

So this battle between science and religious tradition was happening within the Church. It was not pitting the Church vs the scientists, but splitting the Church and her flock in two camps: those who believed that scripture was the only certain source of knowledge, and those who thought that human reason and observation were God-given faculties that, if used well, could help get a glimpse of the glory of God through the study of His creation.

Your guesses hide a multitude of sins. It beggars belief that Descartes would uproot his life and move to another country, were he not assured of a welcome reception. And yet, you guess - she knew nothing of the works of the most famous philosopher in Europe until he arrived? You said:

In truth Christina didn't like Descartes's philosophy, which she found too mechanistic, — Olivier5

A surprise to all, then? Something doesn't add up.

You are imagining a kind of cosmic battle between science and religion, — Olivier5

If you mean to say, that I'm illustrating the suppression of science as an understanding of reality in order to maintain the overlapping authorities of religious, political and economic ideology, you might argue that I'm colouring carelessly outside the lines, but the outline is not imagined.

...in which Galileo was a hero of science and Descartes a kind of traitor, while the 'aristocracy' and the Church are on the other side, fighting for obscurantism. But my contention is that the historical facts paint a far more complex and less manichean picture. — Olivier5

"Manichaeism was a major religion founded in the 3rd century AD by the Persian or Parthian prophet Mani (c. 216–274 AD) in the Sasanian Empire."

That is one obscure reference. The only person I've ever known use it is former Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams! It's incredibly apt because of the dualistic cosmology of Manichaeism. I am arguing that Descartes was intellectually dishonest - or what you would call prudent; while Galileo was intellectually honest, and condemned for it.

Galileo is my own hero too, more so than Descartes, so no dispute on his contribution. But he, like Descartes and all the others, was a devout Christian educated by the Church and tied to it in many other ways, including financially. — Olivier5

No doubt. Newton, 150 years later, in England - had to hide his unconventional religious beliefs in order to advance in his academic career. That's rather the point. Our relationship to science was set 400 years ago, in the context of religious oppression, and has never been revisited. I am arguing that relationship is mistaken - and that science now paints an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, to which it behoves us to attend.

So this battle between science and religious tradition was happening within the Church. It was not pitting the Church vs the scientists, but splitting the Church and her flock in two camps: those who believed that scripture was the only certain source of knowledge, and those who thought that human reason and observation were God-given faculties that, if used well, could help get a glimpse of the glory of God through the study of His creation. — Olivier5

I have argued that the Church might have welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so imbued scientific knowledge with authority, such that politics - justified in some part by the authority of God, would necessarily have had much more regard for science as an understanding of reality, particularly in the application of technology. Had that been so, perhaps now, we would not be facing a climate and ecological crisis that threatens the stability of civilisation, and perhaps thereby, the existence of humankind. Instead, we are faced with something of a grinding of the gears to survive, or a smooth ride into oblivion.

the outline is not imagined. — counterpunch

The general outline, as I explained, is that the debate happened within the Church as much as it did outside of it. Copernicus was probably a priest. Giordano Bruno was a Dominican friar. Kepler attended seminary and wanted to be a priest.

I am arguing that Descartes was intellectually dishonest - or what you would call prudent; while Galileo was intellectually honest, and condemned for it. — counterpunch

Galileo too was prudent. After his first trial he stayed put about heliocentrism for two decades. It's only after the new pope, a body of his, encouraged him to write about it that he did... Hobbes too was prudent. He accepted a pension from his king, who just asked him in return never to publish anything about religion or politics again... It's quite facile to condemn past philosophers for being prudent, from the comfort of the present, when you ain't gonna burn for anything you say...

Had that been so, perhaps now, we would not be facing a climate and ecological crisis that threatens the stability of civilisation — counterpunch

The Catholic Church is 100% committed to ecology and fighting climate change. It's the anglo-saxon Protestants, the anti-papists who deny climate change today. So something doesn't work in your story.

The Catholic Church is 100% committed to ecology and fighting climate change. — Olivier5

Good to hear. I need £10bn to start with, and a further £20bn over 10 years. The plan is to drill through hot volcanic rock, and pump water through, to produce steam, to drive turbines, to produce massive base load clean electricity. This electrical energy will be converted into hydrogen for distribution, to be burnt in traditional power stations, and used as fuel for transport. I also aim to develop large scale desalination and irrigation technology, carbon capture and storage, and recycling technologies - only viable given a virtually limitless supply of clean energy. DM me with the details! Thank you!

Fine, IF you don't try and pin down climate change on pope Urban VIII ever again.

I like the idea of a prize. I think a prize like these can give philosophie more famous and can help "smal" people to find answers for theirself

I want to solve climate change. That will be my life's work. I'll have no time for theory.

There is no such thing as subjectivity. There are only subjective thoughts. All thoughts exist as living matter. All thoughts are tangible. All subjectivity is tangible.

There is no such thing as objectivity. There are only objective thoughts. All thoughts exist as living matter. All thoughts are tangible. All objectivity is tangible.

I just want to stick an oar in here for Descartes. Regardless of what anyone might have to say about his motivations and personal hygiene, he has and has earned two monikers: "father of modern philosophy", "father of modern mathematics". To those who want to criticise him frivolously, I"m inclined to say "well, let's hear one of your ideas". Almost single handedely he managed to divert the Aristotelean intellectual obsession with with the contrast between matter and form, to focus attention instead on the distinction between matter and thought. In the final analysis there may be no such metaphysical distinction to be made of course, and here I doff a cap to Spinoza. Nevertheless, Descartes works liberated mathematics and empirical science from the chains of the church, and we all owe a debt to that man, even if we do not agree with everything he claimed to be true.

Good. He really deserves it. One of the few who isn't afraid to go after evo devo dogma. And just writes really well on interesting topics, doesn't get bogged down in technicalities, which is somewhat rare in philosophy these days.

:up: Agree. Descartes was the first author I studied in philosophy, under the heading The First Modern Philosopher.