Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T10:19:27.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was Cartesian Science ever Meant to be a Priori? A Comment on Hatfield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Athanasse Raftopoulos
Athanasse Raftopoulos*
Affiliation:
New York College at Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent article G. Hatfield claims that Descartes for a certain time thought a purely a priori science to be possible. Hatfield's evidence consists of his reading of the Cartesian method in the Regulae and of a letter to Mersenne, written in May 1632. I argue that Hatfield misinterprets the Cartesian method and Descartes' claim in the letter to Mersenne. I first show that the latter does not argue for an a priori science. Then, I show that the method of the Regulae is not a priori. Finally, I propose a reading of Descartes' letter.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 150 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This paper is the result of a long discussion with Dennis Des Chene, whose contribution, thus, is invaluable. I would like also to thank Stephen Barker for reading a draft of this paper and making some very helpful remarks.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, 18–20 Anthias Street, Ano Kypseli, Athens, 11364, Greece.

References

Adam, C. and Tannery, P., (eds.) (1974), Oeuvres de Descartes, vol. 1. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. (1982), Descartes: Philosophy of Science. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Cottingham, J.; Stoothoff, R.; and Murdoch, D., (eds.) (1985), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vols. 1–3. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garber, D. (1978), “Science and Certainty in Descartes”, in Hooker, M., (ed.), M. Hooker, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 114–151.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, S., (ed.) (1980), Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics. Totowa, NJ: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. C. (1989), “Science, Certainty, and Descartes”, in Fine, A. and Leplin, J., (eds.), A. Fine and J. Leplin, vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 249–262.Google Scholar
Kenny, A., (ed. and trans.) (1970), Descartes: Philosophical Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Larmore, C. (1980), “Descartes' Empirical Epistemology”, in Gaukroger, S., (ed.), Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics. Totowa, NJ: Harvester Press, pp. 6–22.Google Scholar