sign in sign up
<<
Home , Early modern philosophy, Modern philosophy, Nicolas Malebranche

“Modern” : Introduction

[from Debates in by Stewart Duncan and Antonia LoLordo (Routledge, 2013)]

This course discusses the views of various European of his contemporaries (e.g. ) did see of the seventeenth century. Along with themselves as engaged in a new project in philosophy the thinkers of the eighteenth century, they are con- and the , which somehow contained a new sidered “modern” philosophers. That might not seem way of explaining how the world worked. So, what terribly modern. René Descartes was writing in the was this new project? And what, if anything, did all and 1640s, and died in 1804. these modern philosophers have in common? By many standards, that was a long ago. So, why is the work of Descartes, Kant, and their contempor- Two themes emerge when you read what Des- aries called modern philosophy? cartes and Hobbes say about their new . First, they think that earlier philosophers, particu- In one way this question has a trivial answer. larly so-called Scholastic Aristotelians—medieval “Modern” is used here to describe a period of European philosophers who were influenced by time, and to contrast it with other periods of time. So, —were mistaken about many issues, and modern philosophy is not the philosophy of today as that the new, modern way is better. (They say nicer contrasted with the philosophy of the 2020s or even things about Aristotle himself, and about some other the 1950s. Rather it’s the philosophy of the 1600s previous philosophers.) This view was shared by and onwards, as opposed to ancient and medieval many modern philosophers, but not all of them. philosophy. Classes in typically Among the next generation, for instance, Gottfried focus on the work of and Aristotle, who lived W. Leibniz argued that there was more good in the in the fourth century BCE. Famous medieval - work of Scholastic Aristotelians than moderns like sophers include , John , Descartes and Hobbes had realized. Second, they and William Ockham, who lived in the thirteenth and think that has been far more successful fourteenth centuries. Compared to Plato or Ockham, than philosophy at achieving consensus and finding Descartes and Kant are relatively recent authors. , and that it would be good if philosophy But there’s a better answer. Many people have could emulate this success. Mathematical learning, that certain seventeenth and eighteenth– says Hobbes, “is free from controversies and dis- century philosophers were doing something new— pute,” but elsewhere “there is nothing not dispu- something radically different from what their ancient table.” And Descartes too notes, “mathematicians and medieval predecessors were doing. One might alone have been able to find any demonstrations.” doubt this. But certainly many seventeenth and eigh- The more you read about modern philosophy, the teenth–century philosophers themselves thought that more you discover people who have grand they were doing something different and new. historical stories about what was going on. So, you In his Discourse on the Method, Descartes praised might read about the Scientific , the previous philosophers, saying that philosophy “has Enlightenment (or various Enlightenments), the been cultivated for many centuries by the most excel- mechanism replacing , or the conflict lent .” But he also said that those excellent between and (or British minds had not made much progress: “there is still no Empiricism and Continental Rationalism). Indeed, point in it [philosophy] which is not disputed and several modern philosophers had their own views as hence doubtful.” And he set out a new method for to what the overarching story of modern philosophy investigating the world, free from the “defects” of was. Both the seventeenth–century thinker Pierre previous methods, that would let him construct his Bayle and the eighteenth–century David own new, better system in , the sciences, Hume characterized modern philosophy as a view and even . about the unreality of “, sounds, tastes, smells, heat and cold.” Hume’s contemporary No doubt some of this was a of exaggera- thought that an important part of the history of tion, indeed of advertising. But Descartes and many

1 modern philosophy could be told in terms of different people’s opinions differed about the aims, method- theories about the of . Another eigh- ology, and conceptual vocabulary of as well teenth-century thinker, Immanuel Kant, gave Hume as about particular scientific theories. But all the phi- a pivotal role in his history of modern philosophy: losophers we discuss were influenced by the research “Since the Essays of Locke and Leibniz, or rather program known as “mechanism” or the “mechanical since the origin of metaphysics as far as history philosophy,” which attempted to explain all the reaches, nothing has ever happened which could behavior of the material world in terms of the size, have been more decisive to its fate than the attack shape, and of tiny bits of matter. made upon it by .” Why did the mechanical philosophy emerge in the A great deal has been said about such narratives seventeenth century, rather than earlier or later? One of modern philosophy. Even those with the most sup- answer is that mechanism is what emerged when two porters have opponents. And because they’re broad quite different currents of thought happened to come and general, they omit many details, and can easily together: the Galilean science of motion and the revi- mislead the unwary. Instead of discussing general val of ancient . When we think of Galileo narratives at length, we need to focus on debates (1564–1642), we typically think of his defense of the about smaller issues, about the interpretation of parti- Copernican view that the sun is the center of the solar cular views of particular philosophers. So, the ques- system and the earth revolves around it. This con- tions we ask are not questions like “should we think flicted with the official view of the about modern philosophy in terms of rationalism and that the earth was the center of the solar system, and empiricism?” nor even like “was Descartes a ratio- because of this conflict Galileo was confined to nalist?” but more like “what exactly did Descartes house arrest and his books were banned. Our modern believe about causation?” and “how should we study philosophers—most of whom were devoutly reli- the history of philosophy?” gious, many of whom were Catholics— would have Some historians of philosophy engage with their seen this as a mistake by the Church rather than evi- subjects in roughly the same way contemporary dence of a fundamental conflict between science and philosophers engage with each other, analyzing, . criticizing, and building on their arguments. They The relation between philosophy and religion in may think that the main to read historical this period is complicated. You see a number of philosophers is that their views are closer to the , interpretive debates concerning the role of and at least on the issue at hand, than contemporary religion in philosophical systems. These debates views. Other historians think of themselves as involve a variety of questions. In the Meditations primarily trying to understand past philosophers, Descartes gives an argument for God’s that putting their views into a broader context to see how is supposed to show that he can be certain that his their problems, assumptions, and even conceptual clear and distinct are true. schemes differ from our own. Such historians ty- Galileo said, “Philosophy is written in this all– pically think that the history of philosophy is valu- encompassing book that is constantly open before able in itself, like history in general. But they may our eyes, that is the universe…. It is written in also think that learning from past philosophers mathematical ” (The Assayer, 1623). This requires contextualizing their views so that we avoid alludes to the that we can learn about God in projecting our own assumptions back on to the past. two ways: by reading the book of revelation (the ) or by reading the book of nature (doing Galileo, Newton, and the Mechanical Philosophy science). But it also marks an important shift in how For modern philosophers, there was no clear divi- people conceived of science. In comparison with the sion between philosophy and science. Many of them science of today—or even the science of the pursued the project of “”—a eighteenth century—Aristotelian philosophy was project that produced such works as ’s mainly qualitative rather than quantitative. Thus, Mathematical of Natural Philosophy and emphasizing the search for mathematical of Leibniz’s Discourse on Metaphysics. Seventeenth- nature was a major change in strategy. And it went century natural philosophy was extremely diverse: along with a major change in focus. Galileo began

2 with the science of motion, studying inanimate or another. Many key issues in modern philosophy objects; Aristotelians had typically focused on—and arose because people recognized problem areas in been most successful in explaining—the behavior of mechanism and tried to figure out how to deal with living . them. Three of these problem areas are relevant to A central thesis of Aristotelianism was that dogs, the debates we will discuss: causation, the place of trees, stones, and all other physical objects are the human in nature, and what’s called the composites of matter and form. For example, think problem of individuation. of a piece of clay. The clay cannot exist without First, causation. Aristotelians thought of matter as having some form or shape, whether that form is the passive and form as active: they thought that forms form of a statue or just a misshapen lump. But the caused all change. Their opponents who denied the form cannot exist on its own either: it doesn’t make existence of forms worried about the source of to have a statue or a lump that’s not made out activity in the material world. These worries led to of anything. But a piece of clay isn’t really matter differing views, such as Malebranche’s “occasion- without form: there’s already some form in it that alist” claim that God is the only genuine cause and makes it clay rather than sand or wine. And form Hume’s psychological analysis of causation. The needn’t be literally shape: the form of a dog is what notion that only God can really cause things is a determines its growth and behavior, not just its strange one to us, but it was undoubtedly an impor- shape. But the example does give a sense of what the tant and influential view. Aristotelians meant by form and matter. The notion of causation is discussed again, in a Philosophers who viewed themselves as modern different way, regarding Spinoza. For some com- opponents of Aristotle often denied the existence of mentators, Spinoza thinks that many important forms, and tried to explain the behavior of physical notions, including causation, should be understood in objects by matter alone, which they typically thought terms of intelligibility. Critics to the claim that of as composed of atoms or corpuscles. Atomists causation and other notions can all simply be reduced thought that the material world was made out of to intelligibility. small, indivisible particles. Their non–atomist A second problem area within mechanism was the mechanist contemporaries didn’t believe there were human mind. Many modern philosophers found it any genuine indivisibles, but still thought that incomprehensible for the human mind to be just one material things could be explained by thinking about more piece of matter. The of Christian the structures and interactions of small particles philosophy, and the established churches of the time, which they called “corpuscles” (from the Latin insisted that human beings survive bodily death. To corpusculum, “little body”). many thinkers, this was best explained by positing an Those philosophers who wanted to explain the immaterial, immortal . Moreover, it seemed physical world in terms of matter alone all thought, inconceivable to philosophers—who thought that the unlike the Aristotelians, that matter had . only properties of matter were size, shape, and But they disagreed about what the properties of motion—that matter could think. Descartes famously matter were and whether all matter has the same made the mind an immaterial substance completely properties. Some chemists, for instance, argued that separate from the body, raising the problem of how there were three or even five kinds of matter: salt, mind and body could interact. Descartes tried to sulfur, mercury, and, perhaps, earth and water as explain this in his correspondence with Princess well. Other philosophers thought of the parts of Elisabeth of Bohemia, but readers from Elisabeth on matter as homogeneous, differing only in size, shape, have wondered whether he really had a good expla- and motion. Each of these properties is readily nation. quantifiable, which makes it easy to describe matter A third problem area within mechanism con- in mathematical terms. Hence this version of corpus- cerned what philosophers call “individuation.” cularianism combined well with the Galilean science Matter is divisible into tiny parts; the bodies we of motion, creating the mechanical philosophy. interact with are composites. So, mechanists won- Not all the philosophers of the period accepted dered, what makes it true that an animal is one thing, mechanism, but all were influenced by it in one way while something like an army or a flock of sheep—

3 also a structured collection of parts—is many? This During his time in the Netherlands, Descartes met is a problem that Leibniz struggled with for decades, and then corresponded with Elisabeth of Bohemia, and it’s often thought that even after he adopted the one of a number of early modern royal and aristo- view that fundamentally is composed only of cratic women interested in philosophy. Although she “monads”—indivisible immaterial, mind–like was the daughter of someone who was (briefly) king atoms—he still struggled to come up with a good of Bohemia (now part of the Czech Republic), explanation of the obvious fact that some parts of the Elisabeth was living in Holland. She was there world we are unified individuals and because of the Thirty Years’ War, a complicated and others are not. protracted conflict that originated in disputes be- Despite philosophical puzzles such as these, the tween Catholics and Protestants, but also embodied mechanist project persisted throughout the second the struggle for European supremacy between the half of the seventeenth century, and even beyond. French Bourbon monarchy and the Hapsburgs who But the notion that the world could be completely ruled both Spain and Austria. Elisabeth came from a explained by the of small parts pushing on family of women: her sister, Electress each other, like a giant piece of clockwork, came to Sophie of Hanover (mother of George I of England) have increasingly many scientific problems. In talked and corresponded with Leibniz about many particular, Newton’s views about , which philosophical and other subjects, as did Sophie’s seemed inescapably to involve action at a distance, daughter, who became Queen Sophie Charlotte of posed a great threat to the mechanist approach. Prussia. One fascinating part of Elisabeth’s corres- pondence with Descartes contains his attempts to The Broader Context console Elisabeth about her brother’s conversion to Catholicism—something Descartes, who was a It is easy to think of people like Descartes and Catholic himself, would not have seen as a bad thing. Leibniz as just names attached to philosophical posi- tions. But these historical figures were, of course, Benedict Spinoza came from a very different real people, who lived in particular places and background than Descartes, but he too benefited and participated in political and religious upheaval, from the greater freedoms of the Dutch Republic. His learned various true and false things in the course of family, then the Espinosas, had come to Amsterdam their education, and talked to others about their work. as refugees. They had been part of a large Spanish and Portuguese Jewish community that had at times Few of them were professional academics. Both flourished and at other times been persecuted under Spinoza and Leibniz turned down offers of university Islamic rule. But when Ferdinand and Isabella finally positions. Descartes was educated in the famous completed the Catholic Reconquista of Spain in l492, Jesuit school at La Fleche and studied at the Uni- they expelled the entire Jewish population—many of versity of Poitiers. But after that, he didn’t become a whom, like the Espinosas, fled to Portugal only to be lawyer or a professor. Instead, he joined the army, driven from there a generation later. serving in Prince Maurice of Nassau’s army in 1618– 19, and then spent a decade traveling around Europe Spinoza himself was born and grew up in Amster- before finally settling in Amsterdam in 1630. dam, where he was educated in the Portuguese– Jewish community’s Talmud Torah school, and later Amsterdam was an important city for worked in his family’s business. But in 1656 he was because books could be published there without the excommunicated by his congregation, presumably sort of official approval from or church because of early versions of views he would later required in other countries. Descartes published his publish. Spinoza’s ideas on the and Meditations in Amsterdam, avoiding official scru- immortality of the soul were, to say the least, highly tiny. He spent most of his working life in the Nether- unorthodox, as were his views about scriptural lands, remaining there until he moved to Sweden in interpretation. As the years passed, Spinoza acquired 1649 to tutor Queen Christina. He took this job to a broader reputation for , a hero of help popularize , but not for the money. the radical wing of the Enlightenment and a villain Unlike the rest of our philosophers, Descartes came for mainstream thought. from a wealthy family, so finding a job was never a necessity. Despite the free intellectual life of Amsterdam,

4 was still in many respects the intellectual capi- of buying a stamp and walking to the mailbox. And tal of seventeenth–century Europe. In the first half of letters traveled slowly too, just as people did, in an the seventeenth century, many of the most prominent unmechanized age. It’s probably no coincidence that philosophers were in contact with the Parisian monk Paris, Amsterdam, and London, the three capitals of Marin Mersenne, who acted as a middleman for cor- the seventeenth–century Republic of Letters, are respondents throughout Europe. Among those cor- within a few hundred miles of each other. Europeans respondents were Descartes and his critics Thomas could and did write to people in China at this time, Hobbes and . Mersenne had the un- but such long–distance communication was a very enviable task of keeping the between some slow affair. very ill–tempered philosophers. The so–called Mer- For all the importance of correspondence and the senne circle was very much aware of Galileo’s work. difficulty of travel, many prominent philosophers did Their discussions and books (such as Mersenne’s move around Europe. And many were interested in 1634 Galileo’s Mechanics) contributed a good deal places outside Europe. Leibniz was fascinated with to the growing awareness of Galileo’s work. China and its written language, because it could be Later in the century, Paris was an important intel- read equally well by groups of people who couldn’t lectual center. It was the home of the French Car- understand each others’ spoken words. He envisaged tesian philosopher . He may in this a way of healing the linguistic divisions of well be currently the least famous of the philosophers Europe, just as he sought a way to reconcile the we discuss, but his contemporary (him- Catholic and Protestant churches. He was fascinated self an enormously prominent figure whose work is with Egypt, although that fascination took the more now little read) described him as “the premier philo- sinister form of trying to persuade Louis XIV of sopher of our age.” to invade it. While Malebranche was a Parisian by birth as Discussing the scientific context in which phi- well as education, others made considerable effort to losophers wrote often helps us understand why they get to this important city. An important part of chose the topics they did. Knowing something about Leibniz’s early intellectual career was the time he their lives can also help us understand them. We spent in Paris in the 1670s. Leibniz was very much often read 17th–century philosophers translated into impressed by Paris: “One finds here, in all branches contemporary English. This makes it easy to forget of , the most knowledgeable men of the that in reading something like Descartes’ Medita- age, and one needs much work and a little determi- tions, you are really reading a text from a foreign nation to establish a reputation here” (Leibniz to culture, regardless of your own cultural heritage. Duke Johann Friedrich, January 1675). Leibniz only When you begin reading about the history of spent a few years in Paris though, and for much of philosophy, it’s easy to assume that there has to be his life lived and worked in Hanover. “I am not,” he one right answer to every question, one correct then complained “in a great city like Paris or London, interpretation. But this just isn’t true. There are lots where there are plenty of learned men from whom of wrong answers and silly interpretations—but one can benefit and even receive assistance…. Here there’s hardly ever just one clear right answer. one scarcely finds anyone to talk to” (Leibniz to Instead, there are usually several plausible interpre- Thomas Burnet of Kemnay, March 1696). Thus, for tations, each with its own advantages and disad- Leibniz, as for many other intellectuals of the time, vantages. correspondence was an incredibly important part of his intellectual life. Long before people complained Study Questions about having too much email, Leibniz was said to 1. How is the mechanical, atomistic philosophy have a hundred unanswered letters—not because he of the early moderns different from the qualitative, was lazy, but because he was constantly correspond- “form”–based science of Aristotelian philosophy? ding with a great many people about a great many things. That was despite the great difficulties of 2. How are causation, the mind, and individuation correspondence at the time. Before the nineteenth problems for mechanistic ? century there weren’t really organized national 3. What role do Amsterdam, Paris, and London postal systems, so sending letters wasn’t just a matter play in ? 5