Teaching & Learning Guide for: What is at Stake in the Cartesian Debates on the Eternal Truths?
Authors: Easton Patricia 
Published: August 2009

Author’s IntroductionAny study of the ‘Scientific Revolution’ and particularly Descartes’ role in the debates surrounding the conception of nature (atoms and the void v. plenum theory, the role of mathematics and experiment in natural knowledge, the status and derivation of the laws of nature, the eternality and necessity of eternal truths, etc.) should be placed in the philosophical, scientific, theological, and sociological context of its time. Seventeenth‐century debates concerning the nature of the eternal truths such as ‘2 + 2 = 4’ or the law of inertia turn on the question of whether these truths were created along with nature, or were uncreated and subsisting in God’s mind. One’s answer to that question has direct consequences for conceptions of the necessity/contingency of mathematical and natural knowledge, how knowledge of such truths is accomplished by humans, and what grounds these truths. In this paper, I review the positions of four successors to Descartes’ philosophy on the question of the eternal truths to illustrate how in specific ways that question with its theological, metaphysical, modal, and epistemological dimensions concerned the objectivity and certainty of the discoveries of the new science.Author RecommendsClarke, Desmond. Descartes’ Philosophy of Science. University Park, Penn State Press, 1982.This work provides an account of Descartes as a practicing scientist whose rationalism is mitigated by reliance on experiment and experience. Author re‐examines Descartes’ philosophical and scientific works in this new light.Dear, Peter. Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and its Ambitions, 1500–1700. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001.This work provides a useful overview of the issues and thinkers of the Scientific Revolution. Of particular relevance is chapter 8 on Cartesian and Newtonian science.Funkenstein, Amos. Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1986.This work is an advanced study of the theological and metaphysical foundations of early modern science. Discussions include questions of God’s nature, God’s knowledge in relation to human knowledge, providence, the laws of nature, and the truths of mathematics. In particular, chapter 3 discusses Descartes’ account of the eternal truths and divine omnipotence.Garber, Daniel. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992.This work examines how Descartes’ metaphysical doctrines of God, soul, and body set the groundwork for his physics. It includes a study of God and the grounds for the laws of physics (chapter 9).Henry, John. The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science. 3rd ed. New York, Palgrave, Macmillan Press, 2008.This work provides a brief, general, and informative overview of the Scientific Revolution, including the themes of method, magic, religion, and culture.Osler, Margaret J. Divine Will and the Mechanical Philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on Contingency and Necessity in the Created World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994.This work is an examination and comparison of the mechanical philosophies of Gassendi and Descartes. It offers in‐depth discussion of the issue of voluntarism and intellectualism in the period and how that related to conceptions of laws of nature and the eternal truths.Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996.This work provides a critical synthesis of as well as a guide to recent scholarship in the history of science for a general readership.Online MaterialsDr. Robert A. Hatch’s Scientific Revolution Website: http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03‐Sci‐Rev/SCI‐REV‐Home/ A compendium of resources for the study of Scientific Revolution.Early English Books Online: http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home Early English Books Online (EEBO) contains digital facsimile page images of virtually every work printed in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and British North America and works in English printed elsewhere from 1473 to 1700.Early Modern Resources: http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emr/ Early Modern Resources is a gateway for all those interested in finding electronic resources relating to the early modern period in history.Gallica, the Digital Library of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ An ever‐growing digital library which includes numerous primary and secondary texts of relevance to Descartes and his role in Scientific Revolution.Hatfield, Gary, ‘René Descartes’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2009 ed. Ed. Edward N. Zalta; URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/descartes/Slowik, Edward, ‘Descartes’ Physics’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2008 ed. Ed. Edward N. Zalta; URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/descartes‐physics/SyllabusSample Syllabus: Cartesian ScienceThe following is five weeks covering Cartesian Science in a course on Descartes or the Scientific Revolution, or 17th‐century theories of matter, or related themes on early modern truth and method, especially on the continent. This material is best suited to a graduate level audience, but it could be modified to suit an upper‐division undergraduate course, as the readings are basically primary texts whose context and background can be explained in lectures. Week 1: Cartesian Revolution in France Scientific methodRole of mathematics and experimentCertainty of scientific knowledgeReadings:Hatfield, Gary, ‘René Descartes’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2009 ed.Ed. Edward N. Zalta; URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/descartes/Descartes, Discourse on Method, Parts 1–3Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, First Meditation. Week 2: Descartes’ Scientific Treatises Mechanization and mathematization of naturePrimary–secondary quality distinctionReadings:Discourse on Method, Parts 4–6Selections from Descartes’ Scientific Essays: The World or Treatise on Light (ATXI 3–48); Treatise on Man (ATXI 119–202); Optics (ATVI 82–147).Slowik, Edward, ‘Descartes’ Physics’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2008 ed. Ed. Edward N. Zalta; URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/descartes‐physics/Henry, John, ‘The Mechanical Philosophy,’ chapter 5. The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science. 3rd ed. Macmillan, 2008. Week 3: Descartes’ Theory of Nature Descartes’ derivation of the law of conservation and the three laws of motionGod’s role in the metaphysics and physics of natureReadings:Selections from Principles of Philosophy, Preface (all); Letter to Elizabeth; Part I: 1–8; Part II: 1–45, 55, 64; Part III: 1–4, 15–19, 45–47; Part IV: 187–207.John Henry, ‘Religion and Science,’ chapter 6. The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science. 3rd ed. Macmillan, 2008. Week 4: Post‐1650 Cartesian Science: Necessity and Contingency in Nature Debates on God, Creation, and CausesReadings:Easton, Patricia, ‘What is at Stake in the Cartesian Debates on the Eternal Truths?’ Philosophy Compass 4.2 (2009): 348–62.Malebranche, Nicolas, ‘Elucidation 10’, from The Search after Truth (1674). Note: All selections available in Nicolas Malebranche (1992). Philosophical Selections, edited by S. Nadler, Hackett.Gottfried Leibniz (1714) Monadology. Week 5: Causes in Nature and Morals Theodicy as an explanation of defect and evil in a lawful universe: Malebranche v. LeibnizReadings:Nicolas Malebranche, Elucidation XVI (on occasionalism), and Treatise on Nature and Grace, Discourse One, Part 1.Gottfried Leibniz (1706), Theodicy.Focus QuestionsWeekly questions can be used to focus the readings. This can be done in a web or e‐mail discussion thread, as a weekly assignment, or for in class discussion. I require students to post a short paragraph in response to the question or some posting by a classmate on the question. Students are required to post by 10 a.m. the day before we meet for class on a course website.Week 1: According to Descartes, what role does skepticism play in scientific reasoning?Week 2: Comment on the following: ‘But I am supposing this machine to be made by the hands of God, and so I think you may reasonably think it capable of a greater variety of movements than I could possibly imagine in it, and of exhibiting more artistry than I could possibly ascribe to it’ [Treatise on Man; ATXI 120].Week 3: What is Descartes’ conception of the relation between the metaphysics and physics of nature?Week 4: Critically discuss the positions of Descartes, Malebranche, and Leibniz on what provides the foundation for the certitude of natural knowledge?Week 5: Explain why both Malebranche and Leibniz consider moral sin to be analogous to natural defect?Seminar/Project IdeaHold a debate on the question of the status of the eternal truths. The proposition will be Descartes’ position: ‘Eternal truths must be both created and necessary if certainty in science is to be possible’.Format:

At the beginning of the 5‐week module, students will be assigned to one of three roles: Team A, Team B, and judge’s panel. Students will be given the debate proposition, but will not be told which team will take the affirmative and which team the negative until the time of the debate.
Recommend a variation on the Classic Debate Format to encourage the development of argument: sequence begins with affirmative construction (8 minutes), negative construction (8 minutes), second affirmative construction (8 minutes), second negative construction (8 minutes), first negative rebuttal (4 minutes), first affirmative rebuttal (4 minutes), final negative rebuttal (4 minutes) and final affirmative rebuttal (4 minutes).
Judges Panel: will consist of 3–4 judges who will assess the performance of Teams A and B. Judgment should be based on the persuasiveness of the team position.
Debate will be held at the end of the fifth week, or semester, whichever makes most sense given the course length and structure.

AcknowledgementsThe author gratefully acknowledges the immensely helpful comments and suggestions by the participants in her graduate seminar on the Scientific Revolution: Benjamin Chicka, Sarah Jacques‐Ross, Richard Ross, Marcella Stockstill, and Zohra Wolters.