This essay presents Descartes’s anti-hylomorphism in The Meteors published in 1637 and in the unpublished works that precede it, The World (Treatise on Light) and the Rules for the Direction of the Mind.

I argue that Descartes uses his method as evidence in the Discours and Les Météores. I begin by establishing there is a single method in Descartes’ works, using his meteorology as a case study. First, I hold that the method of the Regulae is best explained by two examples: one scientific, his proof of the anaclastic curve (1626), and one metaphysical, his question of the essence and scope of human knowledge (1628). Based on this account, I suggest that the form (...) of his early metaphysics (not its content) is similar to the method of doubt of the Meditationes. Second, I argue that Descartes’ explanation of the cause of parhelia (1629) likewise contains a formulation of this procedure. I provide a novel reading of Les Météores, where, following Descartes’ guidance in the Discours and Correspondance, I interpret his meteorology by reasoning from effects to causes, in this case, from Christoph Scheiner’s 1626 observation of parhelia to his meteorological foundation. This backwards orientation to Les Météores, I argue, reveals an instance of Descartes’ scientific method. I conclude with remarks on Descartes’ concept of evidentia, in which I explain how he incorporates a posteriori evidence and an apparent hypothetical foundation into his rationalist epistemology where he uses his method as evidence for his claims. (shrink)

Philosophy, it is said, has always been concerned with space and nature. Since Aristotle, even since the pre-Socratics, and up to Descartes and Leibniz at least, no one was worthy of the title of philosopher if he had not written something about meteors. And not only about meteors: observations on the movements of the Earth and changes in nature, changes of state or speed, transitions and contacts between strange elements, spatial geometrical properties, the order of coexistences - their (...) limits - and the correspondences between scales; force and matter, constructive typologies and geomorphology were an indissoluble part of the philosophical field. It is not that philosophy reflected on these external themes, but that these themes formed the fabric of the philosophical body. What happened, then, between the end of the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth century? How did the themes related to space and nature become diluted and disappear from philosophical discourses? It is not a question of the split between man and nature, ancient and incommensurable, but of the separation of nature itself, modern and discontinuous, by means of which it was placed alongside the barren, the inert, as a category. -/- La filosofía, se dice, se ocupó siempre de los espacios y de la naturaleza. Desde Aristóteles, incluso desde los presocráticos, y hasta Descartes y Leibniz por lo menos, nadie era digno del título de filósofo si no había escrito algo sobre los meteoros. Y no sólo sobre los meteoros: las observaciones sobre los movimientos de la Tierra y la mudanza en la naturaleza, los cambios de estado o de velocidad, las transiciones y los contactos entre elementos extraños, las propiedades geométricas espaciales, el orden de las coexistencias —sus límites— y las correspondencias entre las escalas; la fuerza y la materia, las tipologías constructivas y la geomorfología formaban parte indisoluble del campo filosófico. No es que la filosofía reflexionase sobre esos temas externos, sino que esos temas formaban el tejido del cuerpo filosófico. ¿Qué sucedió, entonces, entre el final del siglo XVII y la primera mitad del siglo XVIII? ¿Cómo fue que los temas relacionados con el espacio y la naturaleza se diluyeron y desaparecieron de los discursos filosóficos? No se trata de la escisión entre hombre y naturaleza, antigua e inconmensurable, sino de la separación de sí de la naturaleza misma, moderna y discontinua, por medio de la cual fue puesta al lado de lo yerto, lo inerte, como una categoría. (shrink)

My thesis is that Descartes wrote the Discours as a plan for a universal science, as he originally entitled it. I provide an interpretation of his letters that suggests that after Descartes began drafting his Dioptrics, he started developing a system that incorporated his early treatises from the 1630s: Les Méteores, Le Monde, L’Homme, and his 1629 Traité de métaphysique. I argue against the mosaic and autobiographic interpretations that claim these were independent treatises or stages in Descartes’ life. Rather, I (...) hold that threat of condemnation concerning his heliocentric thesis resulted in him suppressing his larger project and, instead, he published a plan where he outlined his ongoing system of philosophy. (shrink)

Recenzie: Francis Dvornik: Începuturile serviciilor de informații – Orientul Apropiat antic, Persia, Grecia, Roma, Bizanț, Imperiile musulmane arabe, Imperiul Mongol, China, Cnezatul Moscovei, Meteor Press, 2021 -/- INTELLIGENCE INFO, Vol. 1, Nr. 1, Septembrie 2022, pp. 72-75 ISSN 2821 – 8159, ISSN – L 2821 – 8159.

Jean-Paul Sartre is often seen as the quintessential public intellectual, but this was not always the case. Until the mid-1940s he was not so well-known, even in France. Then suddenly, in a very short period of time, Sartre became an intellectual celebrity. How can we explain this remarkable transformation? The Existentialist Moment retraces Sartre s career and provides a compelling new explanation of his meteoric rise to fame. Baert takes the reader back to the confusing and traumatic period of the (...) Second World War and its immediate aftermath and shows how the unique political and intellectual landscape in France at this time helped to propel Sartre and existentialist philosophy to the fore. The book also explores why, from the early 1960s onwards, in France and elsewhere, the interest in Sartre and existentialism eventually waned. The Existentialist Moment ends with a bold new theory for the study of intellectuals and a provocative challenge to the widespread belief that the public intellectual is a species now on the brink of extinction. (shrink)

Descartes claimed that he thought he could deduce the assumptions of his Meteorology by the contents of the Discourse. He actually began the Meteorology with assumptions. The content of the Discourse, moreover, does not indicate how he deduced the assumptions of the Meteorology. We seem to be left in a precarious position. We can examine the text as it was published, independent of Descartes’ claims, which suggests that he incorporated a presumptive or hypothetical method. On the other hand, we can (...) take Descartes’ claims as our guide and search for the epistemic foundations of the Meteorology independent of the Discourse. In this paper, I will pursue the latter route. My aim is to explain why, and how, Descartes thought that he had deduced the assumptions of the Meteorology. My interest, in this case, is solely Descartes’ physical foundation for the Meteorology, in the physics and physiology that resulted in Descartes’ explanation. With this aim, I provide an interpretation of Descartes’ World where many of its conclusions serve as evidence for the assumptions of the Meteorology. I provisionally conclude that Descartes thought that his World was the epistemic foundation for his Meteorology. (shrink)