Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:11:00.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cartesianism and Political Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

James V. Schall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political theory never stands by itself. Any theoretical explanation of politics depends on attitudes and positions which stem from metaphysics, theology, ethics, or science. An understanding of the political thought of a man, then, will require some insight into the relationship between his politics and the presuppositions on which it is based. To write about the political theory of Descartes, however, presents special difficulties, for Descartes cannot be considered an important political thinker in his own right. His actual references to politics are scant. His influence on later thinkers did not arise from his thought about politics. Nevertheless, in political theory Descartes must be considered, for it was Descartes who set the patterns of speculative thought after him, including thought about politics. After Descartes the scientific and mechanical orientations of thought replaced the traditional Christian and Aristotelian molds in which politics had been considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 1962 , pp. 260 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1962

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.)

References

1 Laberthonnière, P., Oeuvres de Laberthonnière: T. II, Études sur Descartes (Paris, 1935), 102–116Google Scholar.

2 Hess, M. Whitcome, “A Note on the Individualism of Descartes,” The Journal of Philosophy, XXXV (1938), 186–88Google Scholar.

3 Cf. Gouhier, Henri, “Le nouvel Humanisme selon. Descartes et la Politique,” in Christianesimo è Ragion di Stato, ed. Castelli, Enrico (Roma, 1952), pp. 82 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 82. Cf. also Gouhier, Henri, Essais sur Descartes (Paris, 1949), pp. 271–80Google Scholar.

5 Maritain, Jacques, The Dream of Descartes, trans. Anderson, M. L. (New York, 1944), p. 167Google Scholar.

6 Ibid., pp. 182–83.

7 de Jouvenel, Bertrand, Sovereignty, trans. Huntington, J. F. (Chicago, 1957), pp. 227–30Google Scholar.

8 Gilson, Éitienne, “The Distinctiveness of the Philosophic Order,” A Gilson Reader, ed. Pegis, Anton C. (Garden City, N.Y., 1957), pp. 55–56Google Scholar.

9 Descartes, René, “À Élisabeth, 9 Octobre 1649,” Descartes Lettres, textes choisis par Michel Alexandre (Paris, 1954), p. 196Google Scholar.(Hereafter, this edition will be cited as follows: date of letter, DL, page. All translations unless otherwise indicated are the author's.)

10 February 22, 1649, DL, p. 191. Cf. also the following similar examples: October, 1648, DL, p. 190; June or July, 1648, DL, p. 187; January 15, 1650, DL, p. 191.

11 December 27, 1647, DL, p. 182.

12 May 5, 1631, DL, p. 19. Descartes says in another letter that in the state we should rule by experience and not by reason since men do not act as they should. Cf. “Descartes à Élisabeth, Mai, 1646,” Oeuvres Descartes. Publiées par Charles Adam and Paul Tannery (Paris, 1901), IV, 412Google Scholar. (Hereafter this work will be cited as AT.)

13 AT, IV, 486. For an extended discussion of this letter, cf. Mesnard, Pierre, “Excursus, la Morale et la Politique: Le prétendu Machiavelisme de Descartes,” Essai sur la Morale de Descartes (Paris, 1936), pp. 190–212Google Scholar.

14 AT, IV, 487. Italics added.

15 Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics i. 6Google Scholar, The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. McKeon, Richard (New York: Random House, 1941), 987bl–10, p. 701Google Scholar. (Hereafter, reference to Aristotle will be as follows: Aristotle Title of Work Book Number. Chapter Number. Bekker Number. Page number of this edition.)

16 Plato, The Republic 517, trans. Lee, H. D. P. (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1955), p. 282Google Scholar. (Hereafter references to Plato will be cited as follows: Plato Title, page number of classical edition, page of translation being used.) Cf. also Plato, Laws 965b, Loeb, II, p. 555Google Scholar; 903c and d, ibid., pp. 363–65.

17 Plato, Republic 590–92. 367–69Google Scholar.

18 Plato, Republic 380–81. 118–19Google Scholar.

19 Aristotle, Metaphysics vii. 8. 1033b19–34a8. 794–95Google Scholar.

20 Aristotle, De Anima iii. 7. 431al–b19. 593–95Google Scholar; Politics vii. 14. 1333a17–34all. 1297–99Google Scholar; Politics i. 5. 1254bl–36.1132–33Google Scholar.

21 Cf. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics i. 2. 71b14–16. 111Google Scholar.

22 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics vi. 7. 1141a16–b12. 1027–28Google Scholar.

23 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics x. 7. 1177b16–78a9. 1105Google Scholar. Cf. also Charles McCoy, N. R., “The Turning Point in Political Philosophy,” The American Political Science Review, XLVI (1950), 683Google Scholar.

24 Aristotle, De Anima ii. 5. 416b32 ff. 564 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics vi. 7. 1141b16–23. 1027–28Google Scholar.

26 Aristotle, Metaphysics i. 2. 982b28–32. 692Google Scholar.

27 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics ii. 4. 1105a27–b4. 956Google Scholar.

28 McCoy, , The American Political Science Review, p. 681Google Scholar.

29 Ibid., p. 682.

30 Cassirer, Ernst, An Essay on Man (Garden City, 1944), p. 24Google Scholar.

31 Cf. SirBarker, Ernest, “Mediaeval Political Thought,” The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Mediaeval Thinkers, ed. Hearnshaw, F. J. C. (London, 1923), p. 12Google Scholar; Dawson, Christopher, The Making of Europe (New York, 1957), p. 228Google Scholar.

32 Cassirer, Ernst, The Myth of the State (Garden City, 1955), p. 162Google Scholar.

33 Ibid.

34 Cf. Markus, R. I., “Method and Metaphysics: The Origins of Some Cartesian Presuppositions in the Philosophy of the Renaissance,” Dominican Studies, II (1949), 376Google Scholar; McCoy, Charles N. R., “The Logical and the Real in Political Theory: Plato, Aristotle, and Marx,” The American Political Science Review, XLVIII (1954), 1066Google Scholar. One of the first thinkers to take note of this trend was Karl Marx. Cf. Marx, Karl, “Difference de la Philosophic de la Nature chez Democrite et chez Epicure,” Oeuvres Philosophiques, traduites Moliter, par J. (Paris, 1952), I, pp. 1–5Google Scholar.

35 Burtt, E. A., The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (Garden City, 1954), pp. 18–19Google Scholar. Cf. also McTighe, Thomas P., “The Meaning of the Couple, Complicatio-Explicatio in the Philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association (1958), pp. 206–14Google Scholar.

36 Burtt, , op. cit., p. 26Google Scholar.

37 Ibid., p. 29.

38 Ibid., pp. 30, 303.

39 Cassirer, , op. cit., p. 169Google Scholar.

40 Machiavelli, Niccoló, The Prince and Discourses (New York, 1950), p. 56Google Scholar.

41 Ibid., p. 64.

42 McCoy, Charles N. R., “The Place of Machiavelli in the History of Political Thought,” The American Political Science Review, XXXVII (1943), 634Google Scholar.

43 Machiavelli, , op. cit., p. 117Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., pp. 118, 112.

45 Ibid., pp. 530, 103.

46 Aquinatis, S. Thomae, Summa Theologiae (Taurini, 1950), I–II, q. 91, a. 6Google Scholar.

47 Ibid.

48 The most instructive studies of this relationship are the following:

1) Cassirer, Ernst, Chapt. iii, “La Renaissance du Stoīcisme dans la Morale des XVIe et XVIIe Siècles,” Descartes, Corneille, Christine de Suède, traduit par Madeleine Francés et Paul Schroecker (Paris, 1942), pp. 72–85Google Scholar.

2) d'Angers, Julien-Eymard, “Sénèque, Epictète et le Stoïcisme dans l'Oeuvre de René Descartes,” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, III (1954), 169–96Google Scholar.

3) Brochard, V., “Descartes stoïcien,” Études de Philosophie ancienne et de Philosophie moderne (Paris, 1954), pp. 320–26Google Scholar.

49 Descartes, René, Le Monde, AT, XI, 3. Cf. also Meditation III, The Philosophical Works of Descartes, trans. Haldane, Elizabeth S. and Ross, G. R. T. (New York, 1955), I, 161Google Scholar.(Hereafter this translation will be cited as The Philosophical Works.)

50 Descartes, , Le Monde, AT, XI, 4–10Google Scholar. Cf. also Meditation I, The Philosophical Works, I, 145.

51 Descartes, , Le Monde, AT, XI, 31 ffGoogle Scholar.

52 “Car il est certain qu'il [God] peut créer toutes les choses que nous pouvons imaginer.” Ibid., 36. The same principle is also found in Meditation VI, The Philosophical Works, I, 185, 190.

53 Descartes, , Le Monde, AT, XI, 119 ffGoogle Scholar.

54 Ibid., 120, 202.

55 Ibid., 202.

56 Descartes, , La Déscription du Corps humain, AT, XI, 224–27Google Scholar.

57 Ibid., 227.

58 René Descartes, The Passions of the Soul, Pt. I, art. ix, The Philosophical Works, I, 331.

59 Ibid., Pt. I, arts, iv–xxi, 332–41.

60 Ibid., Pt. I, art. xxxii, 346. Cf. also ibid., Pt. I, arts., xxxiv–1, 347–56; Pt. III, arts., ccxi–ccxii, 425–27.

61 This general elimination of any real givenness in Descartes, I realize, seems to go counter to such significant passages as the Sixth Meditation in which he attempts to demonstrate the existence of bodies — which demonstration apparently demands some existential givenness. Yet, it seems to me the key passages in the Sixth Meditation are the following which parallel Le Monde: “For there is no doubt that God possesses the power to produce everything that I am capable of perceiving with distinctness, and I have never deemed that anything was impossible for Him, unless I found a contradiction in attempting to conceive it clearly.” (Philosophical Works, I, 185Google Scholar.) “ … I know that all things which I apprehend clearly and distinctly can be created by God as I apprehend them …” (Ibid., 190).

Now logically, it might seem that the power of God is broader than the conceptions of Descartes. But in practice, as our discussion of liberty in Descartes implies, everything that appears to be given is ultimately reduced to a God whose powers and actions are controlled by Descartes' mind. I am inclined to think that the so-called “rationalism” of Descartes which would seem to argue to a real givenness always finds its objects reduced to a theory of divine liberty which empties any real stability or solidity in a given object. Finally, what God freely creates somehow turns out to be what Descartes freely imagines or thinks. In other words, I find it difficult to see any specific instance where a “given” is really and radically independent of Descartes himself.

62 Cf. Brochard, , op. cit., p. 330Google Scholar. Cf. also Meditation II, The Philosophical Works, I, 151Google Scholar.

63 Descartes, René, “Notes Directed against a Certain Programme,” The Philosophical Works, I, 442–43Google Scholar. Cf. also Meditation II, ibid., 157.

64 Cf. Cassirer, , Descartes, p. 97Google Scholar.

65 Ibid., p. 96.

66 Cf. Boutroux, Emile, “Du Rapport de la Morale à la Science dans la Philosophic de Descartes,” Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale, IV (1896), 505Google Scholar.

67 Cassirer, , Descartes, p. 99Google Scholar.

68 del Noce, Augusto, “Cartesio è la Politica,” Riuista di Filosofia, V (1950), 15Google Scholar.

69 Wild, John, “The Cartesian Deformation of the Structure of Change and its Influence on Modern Thought,” Philosophical Review, L (1941), 51Google Scholar. Cf. also Meditation III, The Philosophical Works, I, 160.

70 del Noce, , op. cit., 8–9Google Scholar.

71 Descartes, René, Discourse on Method, The Philosophical Works, Pt. II, I, 94Google Scholar.

72 Ibid., Pt. II, 89. Cf. also ibid., 81.

73 Ibid., 89.

74 Ibid., 90.

75 For discussions of provisional morality, cf. dimming, Robert, “Descartes' Provisional Morality,” The Review of Metaphysics, IX (1955), 207–35Google Scholar; Mesnard, , op. cit., pp. 215–30Google Scholar; Gouhier, Henri, La Pensée religieuse de Descartes (Paris, 1924), pp. 148–51Google Scholar; Comaresco, Petru, “The Social and Ethical Conceptions of Descartes,” Ethics, LII (1942), 493–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Descartes, , Discourse, Pt. VI, p 119. Italics addedGoogle Scholar.

77 May 27, 1630, DL, p. 13.

78 September 30, 1640, DL, p. 66.

79 April 15, 1630, DL, p. 12.

80 Descartes, , Meditation IV, The Philosophical Works, I, 171–79Google Scholar; Objections, ibid., II, 248–49.

81 Cf. Wolff, Edgar, “Conscience et Liberté chez Descartes et chez M. Sartre,” Revue philosophique de la France et de I'Etranger, CXLV (1955), 343–48Google Scholar.

82 Descartes, , Objections, “Reply to Objection VI,” The Philosophical Works, II, 248Google Scholar.

83 Ibid.

84 Wild, , op. cit., 48–49Google Scholar.

85 Cf. Philippe, M-D, “Réflexions sur la Nature et I'Importance de la Liberté dans la Philosophie de Descartes,” Revue thomiste, LX (1952), 596Google Scholar.

86 November 20, 1647, DL, pp. 181–82. Cf. also Serano, R., “De la Liberté chez Descartes,” Les Études philosophiques (1950), 201–22Google Scholar; J. Segond, “La Liberté divine et humaine, Prélude cartésien à l'Existentialisme,” ibid., 223–32; Keeling, S. V., Descartes (London, 1934), pp. 186 ffGoogle Scholar.

87 For a brilliant discussion of this whole issue in political theory, cf. McCoy, Charles N. R., “Ludwig Feuerbach and the Formation of the Marxian Revolutionary Idea,” Laval théologique et philosophique, VII (1951), 218–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Descartes, , Discourse, Pt. V, p. 108Google Scholar. Cf. also Preface to Reader, p. 138.

89 del Noce, , op. cit., 13Google Scholar.