Descartes: A Biography

c CUNYB/Clarke     December, :

The ScientificEssaysand theDiscourse on Method 

The Worldto make potential critics very uneasy. It was clear, even in these

prefatory remarks about method, that Descartes was explicitly reject-

ing the scholastic tradition of philosophy that was firmly established in

French and Dutch universities, thereby attracting the ire of professors in

both countries. He had developed an account of animal behaviour that

made animal souls redundant, even if he stopped short of its apparent

implications for human beings by including arguments in defence of the

rationality and distinctiveness of the human soul. He said enough about

proving God’s existence to attract the interest of theologians who thought

that his proof was not sufficiently robust or, more likely, who thought that

questions about God should be reserved for religious faith rather than

philosophical argument. In fact, the only concession to vested interests

was to dissemble about his agreement with Galileo, thereby avoiding direct

conflict with the Roman Inquisition.

The cloak of official anonymity did little, either, to protect Descartes

from critics. Every reasonably well-informed reader in France and the

United Provinces knew the identity of the author. The stage was set for

enthusiastic applause from a few devoted fans, and for unrelenting crit-

icism from the learned establishment. Descartes even invited such, by

inserting the following comment toward the conclusion of theDiscourse:

‘I ask all those who may have objections to them [i.e., my writings] to take

the trouble to send them to my publisher. Once the publisher tells me

about them, I shall try to append my response at the same time and, in this

way, readers will see both of them together, and will find it so much easier

to make a judgment about the truth’ (vi.). He promised to admit his

mistakes frankly and, if replies were appropriate, to write them as briefly

as possible. The next two years provided a more stringent test of his sin-

cerity in that regard than he might have assumed was possible when he

first penned the invitation to critics.