Talk:René Descartes/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Descartes' educational relationship to the works of Galileo.

In the Early Life section of the article, we read "In 1607, late because of his fragile health, he entered the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand at La Flèche,[25][26] where he was introduced to mathematics and physics, including Galileo's work.[25][27]"

The last phrase of this sentence could be misleading: Galileo had not yet published many of the works for which is now popularly famous. He had published some works regarding scientific and engineering instruments. These could have been read by Descartes, certainly. But it was not until 1609 that Galileo created his telescope, and 1610 was his first publishing of his astronomical observations. While Galileo's Starry Messenger (1610) did cast doubt on geocentrism, it made no attempt at showcasing the heliocentrism for which he is now popularly known. The Starry Messenger did generate some discussion and controversy, but it was his Letter to Castelli (1613) that really set in motion (no pun intended) the subsequent struggle of Galileo with the Roman Catholic Church. Note that this letter was written in December of 1613, and that Descartes graduated from the Jesuit school in 1614. Because the Jesuits were initially sympathetic to Galileo's ideas—and since Descartes was in a Jesuit school—it is wholly believable that Descartes could have been introduced to some Galileo's ideas at this point. In addition, letters of such importance were widely circulated in those days. I wonder, however, whether Descartes could have received, by the time he graduated, a translation of a copy of a private letter written in the last month of the previous year. Even the wide reach of the Roman network had not received an authentic copy by the end of the following year (they had been given a copy with changes to make Galileo look bad).

My concern is that the statement leads the reader to believe that at this point in his life, Descartes was familiar with works and ideas that had not been published. It might be better to state which works of Galileo he read, if such evidence exists. The Starry Messenger is not out of the realm of possibility, certainly. But if Descartes read the Letter to Castelli—at least the real version—that would likely not have been until well after his graduation from the Jesuit school. Would it be better to establish that Descartes read the Starry Messenger, and that this work specifically influenced him to think more independently of popular thought? This is most certainly the effect it had on many of its readers. I leave this decision to the experts. Sambolic (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)sambolic

Descartes’ Dreams

In the section on his dreams, it says “these were likely caused...” But that seems somewhat subjective. It should be more nuanced, recognizing the various points of view on the matter. Something like “Several explanations for the dreams exist, one theory posits...” seems more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.235.8 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Law of Inertia

I think this needs to be included in the article, as it is a major development in the history of science. From Herbert Butterfield's book The Origins of Modern Science: "Descartes himself achieved the modern formulation of the law of inertia-the view that motion continues in a straight line until interrupted by something-working it out by a natural deduction from his theory of the conservation of momentum, his theory that the amount of motion in the universe always remains the same. It was he rather than Galileo who fully grasped the principle of inertia in all its clarity." (p. 178) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akasseb (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Descartes' thinking center transfer (not brain but soul)

self-referential safety archive***

Find the same in English

Descartes' thinking center transfer does not:

  1. cancel its metalogical and mereological analysis
  2. cancel its informational processes and components
  3. existence in living people; we still think, experience, react, empathize etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.183.239 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Latinized: Cartesius

What is the etymology of Descartes? It's a French word, and French derives from Latin, so how did its Latinization apply? --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Under current Wikipedia rules, René Descartes must be considered a Dutch philosopher (and not a French one)

According to Wikipedia editor Bretonbanquet, the rules of Wikipedia clearly state that a subject's nationality is based on the nation they lived within and their national citizenship at the time their works were created/published and where they became notable. Under Wikipedia's current rules of content this makes René Descartes' nationality Dutch -- see MOS:CONTEXTBIO where for biographies, "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability" Nationality in the lead sentence should be " the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable"

As René Descartes only wrote and published the works he is known for during his 20 years as a citizen of the Netherlands, current Wikipedia rules mandate that he is a Dutch (and not French) philosopher. See third paragraph of René Descartes --> Life --> Netherlands for previous verification.

Refer to the MOS:CONTEXTBIO discussions regarding nationality of subjects if you disagree with the Wikipedia line of reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthutcheon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding whether Descartes is Dutch or French per MOS:CONTEXTBIO

There is a reasonable amount of literature that supports the idea Descartes considered the Dutch Republic his "adopted homeland". His seminal work was heavily influenced by, and produced in, the Dutch Republic. Is it fair to consider Descartes as a Dutch Philosopher as opposed to a French one?02:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Assuming what User:Scotthutcheon says is true about Descartes' work being produced whilst in the Netherlands, doesn't this person raise a good point?

  • I first started with the Cambridge University Press blog by an author who seems to be familiar with Descartes' work:

    We think of René Descartes as a French philosopher given that he was born in La Haye, France. Descartes, however, felt most at home among the Dutch

  • I then began to "dig". Unsurprisingly, the first source that seemed to support this was Steven Nadler, whose book is cited in the main article. On Page 7 he suggests:

    "... [Descartes] belongs to the intellectual culture of the Dutch Golden Age as much as he does to Western Philosophy."

    • On Page 19 (unavailable for preview on Google Books) of this book he also states Descartes (apparently with other french noblemen) was significantly influenced by Isaac Beeckman while enrolled in the Dutch Army (mentioned in the lede):

      Soon after he landed in the Netherlands in the spring of 1618, Descartes, like many other young French noblemen, joined the army of Maurits, Count of Nassau. The stadholder, a son of William the Silent (and shortly to become the Prince of Orange, after the death of his older brother), was also a brilliant military man. When he assumed the stadholdership of Holland and Zeeland, in 1585, he began introducing modernizing reforms into the Dutch armed forces and turned them into a professional soldier corps with the latest in field discipline and engineering. Maurits was particularly interested in what science could do for his army, and his military service thus provided Descartes a good opportunity to study such things as military architecture and the physics of moving bodies (especially ballistics).
      While stationed in Breda, a city near the border with the Spanish-ruled southern provinces, Descartes met Isaac Beeckman, a medical doctor and accomplished mathematician (and failed Calvinist preacher). The two men quickly bonded over shared interests in mathematics and science. They challenged each other with a variety of problems in algebra, geometry, physics, and especially music. While the friendship later soured over Des-cartes’s suspicion that Beeckman was taking credit for his ideas, the relationship was of great consequence for Descartes’s own intellectual development. Much of Descartes’s mature work in algebraic geometry and mathematical physics was inspired by his early meetings with and instruction from Beeckman.

    • Nadler suggests Descartes referred to the Dutch Republic as his ``adopted homeland" (page 144), and in portions cited in the main article with respect to the portrait produced by Frans Hale.
  • I found the term ``adopted homeland" to be prevalent with scholars specialising in Descartes. For example, in the abstract of an article discussing Philosophy in the 17th century Dutch Republic by an author (Margaret C. Jacob) who is also cited in the main article suggests Descartes also considered the Dutch Republic his adopted homeland.
  • A source predating those above (from 1996) also uses the term ``adopted homeland" in reference to Descartes and the Dutch Republic:

    "In Holland, Descartes's adopted homeland, one finds a deep connection between art and experimental technology..."

  • Lastly, I have found a smoking gun that warrants the removal of the "French-born" prefix in the lede that currently exists, only as a compromise while this issue is sorted. It is from 1890 by notable philosopher Kuno Fischer. It is a prescient quote since it is both primary and secondary, and clearly shows Descartes' distaste because the French ``deceive themselves in their opinions and calculations" (arguably still a problem today):

    "Paris and Descartes were not made for each other. Every time he lived there, the longing for solitude and quiet overcame him, and drove him repeatedly into suburbs, and finally out of France. In the same mood in which he left Paris twenty years before, he now returns to his village in Holland, and felt there as though he were in a harbor. It is one of the most noteworthy facts of Descartes' experience, without a knowledge of which we cannot understand his character and disposition, that this greatest thinker of France was perhaps the only Frenchman who could not live in Paris, and had an antipathy to the metropolis of the world. ``If I venture in my vanity to hope for the approval ofthe queen," wrote he to Chanut soon after his last arrival in Paris, ``You must attribute it, not so much to my disposition as to the air of Paris. I think I have told you before, that it disposes me to chimerical fancies rather than to philosophical thoughts. I see so many here who deceive themselves in their opinions and calculations, that illusion seems to me an epidemic in Paris. The harmless solitude from which I have come pleased me far better; and I think I shall not resist my home-sickness, and shall soon return thither "[1]

In summary, I feel the high quality of Kuno Fischer's work justifies the designation of Descartes as Dutch philosopher without the French-born prefix. We can easily dig through his earlier correspondence with Mersenne where he states the education he received, whilst Top Notch, was ``useless". He did leave to "avoid distractions of Paris" (which included the burden of being famous). These nuisances eventually found him in the Dutch Republic as well; Fischer states he changed his location twenty six times. I am blown away by this book and I recommend others interested in Descartes give it a read, if not for the impeccable organisation and thorougness. He discusses almost every aspect of Descartes from his lifestyle to his work in separate sections. The only better source we could probably find are translations of the original correspondence, which I have now endeavoured to find (if it exists; a FULL translation of his correspondence, not just his philosophical stuff). 75.152.205.229 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) The common meaning of saying that he is Dutch or French in the info box is that he is a citizen of that country. Infobox characterizations are problematic if they are not slam-dunk. If it isn't, it should get removed from the info box and the various aspects just covered in text. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment (invited by Mr. Bot): What exactly are we voicing opinions on here? The current lead looks good to me, properly discussing his French origin and scholarly work in the Dutch Republic. For the infobox "Region," why not list both French Philosophy and Dutch Philosophy? Certainly he was a key figure in both, and while I wouldn't want to stumble into having a list of regions for every philosopher, Descartes clearly has a veritable claim to these two. I don't think one needs citizenship to be listed in a certain region. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe the perceived importance of the issue is partly because of the "<name> was a <national> <occupation>" pattern which we borrowed from nationalist encyclopedias. Almost always, and certainly in this case, nationality is less important than the occupation; it's often controversial, sometimes an accurate description is lengthy, it's surprising when it doesn't correspond to the languages used, and so on. I think all those reasons sometimes make it appropriate to relegate the nationality discussion to the second sentence. As a further comment, the current second sentence, which discusses Descartes's relationships to various states without establishing notability, should not be this long or this prominent. Once we've established who the guy was, quickly get to the point: cogito ergo sum, cartesian coordinates, the first "real" philosopher since antiquity. Eelworm (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not Dutch:AFAIK, no WP:RS refer to him as 'Dutch', therefore he isn't, regardless of how at home he felt in the Netherlands. Innumerable people live in adopted countries, that does not confer nationality in itself, regardless of how settled they feel. Unless RS explicitly say he was Dutch, it would be completely wrong to ascribe that nationality to him. Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment:This is simply not true, I'm afraid. Nadler's book alone, which the main article has some dependence on, says it was his "adopted homeland". Margaret C. Jacob, another author cited in the main article, also uses this term. Thus it is much more than "how settled they feel"; it is clear *many* secondary sources who use the term. Secondly, we are not talking about "nationality" in terms of birth. We are talking about where he made his most notable contributions and the origin of those influences that produced this work, which is the Dutch Republic. I think the [[ ]] provides a difficult-to-argue reason for removing "French-born", forget the unacceptable suggestion of removing 'Dutch':

    Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

I think it's rather easy to argue that the number of references to Descartes' "French" nationality is not even justified, since it is irrelevant to his notability. In fact, as we are seeing, Descartes did not enjoy being in France at all. French philosophy is put in the infobox without justification; it also had nothing to do with his most notable work.
Descartes was inarguably one of the greatest beneficiaries of the flourishing intellectual discussion that made 17th century Dutch philosophy famous. It clearly had an significant impact on him, and vice-versa. It is obvious why this deserves to be in the lede. Had Descartes not enlisted in the army, for example, he would have never met Beeckman who provided probably the greatest "initial spark" that motivated later work (though they fell out). To remove Dutch is to remove the influence of the country and its scholars/theologians on Descartes, which *every* source acknowledges were primarily Dutch.
If you are challenging the validity of two authors whose works are cited in the main article, I will be happy to add Kuno Fischer's book into a WP:RS verification to establish that this is a reliable source. I don't see how his work wouldn't meet the criteria. It is not surprising that he was treated similarly to Descartes. He seems to have good taste in the philosophers whose work he chose to anthologise.75.152.205.229 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
What I am challenging is that you haven't provided a single source for how/when he 'became Dutch' nor even that he was Dutch. The 'ignore previous nationalities',is irrelevant unless one presupposes that French WAS previous, which no evidence has been provided for. I don't doubt that many sources describe him as very 'at home' in The Netherlands, but none of them say 'was Dutch/became Dutch in year X', that is because he wasn't and didn't! 'Ignore previous nationalities' applies to people like Hitler whose 'Austrian-ness' is fairly irrelevant to his notability, but AH certainly DID acquire German nationality, it isn't simply a question of AH feeling comfortable in Germany, affecting or being affected by Germany. Being French may not have been important to RD, fair enough, but it is still basic biog info which most sources mention. Chaplin spent most of his working life in the US and did most of his most famous work there, nonetheless, he was British. Both facts (nationality and domicile) are easily-sourced basic biog info, it would be ludicrous to start making Chaplin American when he never became that . What you appear to be arguing for simply isn't sourced, because it is confusing 'nationality' with some other quality. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
While sources may mention him being French, these sources clearly also state that the Dutch Republic was where all of the influence came from in terms of his work. The lede does capture the influence of the Dutch Republic on his work, but to call Descartes French solely out of birth is an inaccurate characterisation of the sentences that immediately follow it.
I commend you for providing Chaplin, but this cannot be extended to Descartes.
*In the case of Charlie Chaplin, he could have gotten citizenship but chose not to.
*In the case of Descartes, if we consult the concept of Citizenship in the Dutch Republic, it would have been impossible for him to obtain "Dutch citizenship" since it was merely for the city.
The fragmented nature of the Republic during his time is well-known. This is presumably why authors do not mention him "becoming Dutch": because the burden of filling out or applying for such citizenship in *every* city you reside would be far too demanding for someone of his abilities; had he done so, it wouldn't really establish he was a "Dutch citizen" as much as he was a denizen of the respective city.
Thus, I argue expecting the sources to discuss him "becoming Dutch" was impossible. If he acknowledge his frequent relocation (on average more than once a year), it is an unreasonable expectation for him to have done this in every city. We must go by the sources when they say "adopted homeland" because Descartes own words and reputable analysis of this correspondence are the only way to properly assess citizenship in terms of the Republic-at-large. Had he remained confined to one area I would have agreed with your point. 75.152.205.229 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
So your argument boils down to, RD didn't in any sense (except culturally perhaps) become Dutch - but he would have done if he could and if a process had been in place to do so! Nationality is more structured in this day and age, passports, citizenship etc, I believe I am correct when I say that in RD's time, 'nationality' referred primarily to where born or sometimes to ethnicity, not necessarily where living and working, even if one acquired civic status there. Even if I am wrong about that, you are basically arguing that RD didn't like France + did like Netherlands therefore he is Dutch, regardless of what sources say! The other branch to this discussion is what did he influence. Without looking at sources, I would have thought that a strong case could be made that he impacted European philosophy, rather than parochially French/Dutch/Scandinavian individually.
What you are doing, it seems to me, is conflating nationality and where one had an impact or was influenced. To use the same example, there is no doubt that Chaplin impacted US cinema, no doubt that his films were US in character, no doubt that (until McCarthyism), he worked well in the US and liked being there, therefore he is part of the story of US cinema. But he isn't personally American and whatever the reason he never took citizenship, personal preference, US dislike of his morals or beliefs or simply because of the colour of his socks - he didn't and therefore isn't American in any sense except culturally - which is not the general understanding of nationality. WP cannot retrospectively award RD with Dutch nationality, nor localised 'city' citizenship. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
First of all: I never said that. your argument was "none of them say 'was Dutch/became Dutch in year X'" which I stated is irelevant in terms of the Dutch republic and how citizenship (or nationality) is determined.
  • That is not the same as arguing 'he would have, if a process was available', which was my response to your argument "none of them say 'was Dutch/became Dutch in year X'". I said this is irrelevant in terms of the Dutch republic and how citizenship (or nationality) is determined at that time. We are not talking about the present, but at the time Descartes lived there. It was a city-based citizenship and the concept of nationality on the basis of a citizenship undertaking is very contentious.
Secondly: you have not even read the sources, and you are arguing with me. You do not belong in this conversation. I have said many times the source material stated the Dutch Republic was his "adopted homeland". Yet, you state "you are basically arguing that RD didn't like France + did like Netherlands therefore he is Dutch, regardless of what the sources say!". The sources say that he viewed the Dutch republic as an adopted homeland. Chaplin did not view the US as an adopted homeland.
  • Using Chaplin is weak. Chaplin's skills and abilities were acquired in the UK from what I see. Descartes' work was not produced in France, nor did France shape his work. For Chaplin, from what I can see, he was a primed performer by the time he hit the US. He went to the US to make money and obviously did well, likely due to his established abilities in the UK. Further, Chaplin clearly did You ignore this point greatly and attempt to twist my words.
Thirdly: to your last argument about "nationality referred priarily to where born or sometimes to ethnicity", you are flat out wrong.

By your own admission: you did not look at sources, and you also disingenuously manipulated my point. You were the one that made the statement "none of them say 'was Dutch/became Dutch in year X'", and I rebutted it accordingly with the fact the Dutch Republic only had a city-based notion of citizenship. Then you argued this was my main position, which it was not.

The sources clearly state "adopted homeland", and you admit to not reading the sources. How are you not embarrassed? To participate in this conversation, you must read the sources. You cannot twist others' argument, make a reversion based on an incoherent one, whilst admitting you did not even read the sources. I am astounded by this conduct and may look at WP:ANI. This is inexcusable and a blatant disregard for others who contribute time and effort to get the record correct.

Looking at the Talk Page history for User:Pincrete is quite telling. It seems he frequently makes contentious edits and is frequently involved in content disputes with others. @David Eppstein:: could you please provide a remedy for a person like this? He admits he did not consult sources, uses Charlie Chaplin as his basis for argument, and otherwise is habitually involved in content disputes 75.152.205.229 (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

75.152.205.229, please do not put your comments in your edit summaries. Edit summaries should contain a brief, neutral explanation of your edit and should not be used to conduct a discussion. Right now, they are disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
75.152.205.229, if you have some complaint about me, WP:ANI is the place, not article talk page. I have yet to see a single source which says RD was Dutch, nor how, why, when he became Dutch. In the absence of such sources, he didn't and therefore wasn't Dutch by nationality - even though he may have been a significant part of the development of Dutch philosophy, which is worthy of being noted, but wholly different from being Dutch. I don't have to provide sources since I am not trying to insert content, simply responding to the RfC. I have read all the sources which you have provided and none of them says RD was Dutch. They say other things. I have never said I didn't read sources, simply that I have not read ALL the sources relating to matters other than his nationality, for example his influences and impact.
Twisting someone's words and making vague, unsubstantiated accusations will win you few friends here. Sources that actually say he was Dutch and how when he became thus are the only thing that is going to win this argument. My comment about ethnicity was that at this time, it was not uncommon for someone to be referred to by their ethnicity, rather than by their place of birth, especially if the person was from a minority. Not uncommon does not mean the norm and certainly not an unfailing rule, nor was I suggesting that it applied to RD. You cannot rebut this with reasons why it was difficult/pointless or impossible to alter nationality - that is frankly an admission that RD didn't change nationality, but would have done so if he could have. Pincrete (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
ps I, my wife and two of my brothers have "adopted homelands" which are different from both our countries of birth and nationality - it proves nothing. Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • French: In all the RSs I can remember seeing, Descartes is described as French. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: (randomly invited by a bot) This RFC is poorly constructed and is unlikely to produce consensus. A good, productive RFC has just a simple question without explanations and TLDR commentary, followed by a !Vote section and a Discussion section. That said, this project to get RD recognized as a Dutch philosopher has all the earmarks of POV and OR and great care should be taken in avoiding such editorial errors. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not Dutch I am Dutch and feel pretty sure that no Dutch person considers Descartes Dutch. The Dutch republic was, compared to other states, open to all kinds of new ideas at the time and attracted many people who found that appealing. That didn't and doesn't make them Dutch. Dutchy45 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • French The vast majority of reliable sources refer to Descartes as French. Coastside (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Dutch If Eddie Van Halen is American, Hermann Minkowski and George Cantor are JUHMAHN, and Herman Schwarz, Leopold Kronecker, Heinz Hopf, Felix Hausdorff are also German but were born in what-is modern day Poland, then Descartes is Dutch (or just "a philosopher" without referencing origin). These are a few examples; there is no intent to offend my JUHMAHN friends and the great school of JUHMAHNN mathematics, but these are both notable and important people born in places that were not considered (at the time, or presently) German, but are known as such. Similar to Descartes, they were educated in their birth country until pursuing further studies in Germany (see Heinz Hopf), and are now considered German. And while I understand @Dutchy45:'s point of view, he must also realise we have been conditioned to accept Descartes as French but really the evidence for other notable mathematicians contradicts how it is being used. 50.99.182.113 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • French. Descartes was born in France and was ethnically French, which in those days were often the identifying factor. Most authors also consider him to be French. Besides if his emigration is the criteria then he cannnot be Dutch either as Descartes clearly turned his back to Holland as due to changing politicial and ethical circumstances he did not longer feel at home there anymore either and he emigrated to Sweden in 1649 where he later died. But nobody is advocating that he's Swedish. Even the Dutch language wiki doesn't claim that he is Dutch but states in the lead that he was a "French born philosopher and mathematician who worked a large part of his life in the Dutch republic". As a compromise a somewhat simalar formulation can perhaps be used as it goes around the nationality question. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2021, 23:40 CET.
  • "French born philosopher and mathematician who worked a large part of his life in the Dutch republic" sums it pretty well and avoids the anachronistic mistake of assigning a "nationality" to a philosopher who wrote mostly in the Latin and in the French langauges in the 17th century, in a period when the modern (from Bismarck in 1870 to the end of the First World War in 1918) concept of "nationality" did not even exist as such. warshy (¥¥) 23:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. This RFC seems moot now given the actual current wording. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I would accept that sentence as a fair compromise if that is how it was put in the lead. However, right now we have two sentences. The first stating he was french, the second stating he worked a good part in the dutch republic. i like the above sentence. i'll give a hand at editing the lead to reflect that.

older discussion

It may be gaining traction, but most reliable sources claim him to be French, and Wikipedia is not the place to correct history, a guideline far more important than the contextbio rules. I believe you can easily say French and Dutch in the introduction, as a compromise. Even Encyclopedia Britannica consistently labels him as French, it is, therefore, inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to unilaterally decide to change the nationality he his known by, even if there is policy that indicates it could be the right thing to do in most circumstances. Please note, Wikipedia does not have firm rules and if a guideline hinders the article's accuracy or completeness, then it must be ignored. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Footlessmouse:, I think you propose a fair compromise for the time being. I would say it's more appropriate to say something like "French-born Dutch philosopher".
There is no disputing that he had some, or should i say a, French pen-pal(s) (primarily Mersenne). I understand people would need to acclimatise to this ``new idea". However we should note that Descartes *chose* to write Meditations in Latin as opposed to French, which I believe speaks to the transition of ``adopted homeland". And one source is from 1996, so I can't say it's as new as we want to believe. French or Dutch, feels like a "lose lose" ;) 75.152.205.229 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No. (invited randomly by a bot.) We must go by what reliable sources support. Our job is not to do original research. We are here to organize and present the info that's available in existing sources. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you haven't absorbed the sources then, as this is not ``original research". Two of the four authors are cited in the main text and state Descartes considered the Dutch Republic as his adopted homeland. I do not think it's appropriate to label authors' use of the term "adopted homeland" as original research. I am going by the sources. 75.152.205.229 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just a bit of clarity: what is meant by the original research bit isn't stating that he considered the Dutch Republic to be his adopted homeland, the sources are clearly sufficient for that purpose. Using this statement to call him a Dutch philosopher, however, is original research, that's all anyone's trying to point out. That's why you have to be careful with the phrasing. To call him a Dutch philosopher, you need another reliable source that explicitly calls him a Dutch philosopher, to be perfectly in line with the no original research rule. I still think it's okay to say French and Dutch, given your sources, but it is up for debate. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
For now, can we change it to "French-born Dutch philosopher"? That's a fair compromise, isn't it? It's analogous to French and Dutch philosopher, don't you think? I am open to an interim compromise. I understand how asking for "all of it" at this point may be a bit lofty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.205.229 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
whatcha think @Footlessmouse: footy, pretty strong source in terms of a secondary source using primary source material, is it not? He is saying the epidemic of illusion in Paris makes him feel home sick (aka he wants to go back to the Dutch Republic soon). 75.152.205.229 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure, I apologize. Now that you have a real proposal which can be debated, my best suggestion is to close this request for comment and start a new section and start over with your new proposal. I am not involved in these pages, I focus on physics related stuff. I only chimed in to be helpful with respect to guidelines. Your proposal is still borderline and could go either way. I have no opinion, I think those that more regularly edit biographies and philosophy and history articles will have more to say and be more knowledgeable on the subject than me. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would strongly support closing the RFC and starting over with a concrete proposal. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
i don't know how helpful restarting the discussion will be, though. it seems to have not generated the interest i anticipated. is there any way i can drum up more interest? i am going to make a small change in the meanwhile. it's unfair to say he wasn't dutch, at least in part. 75.152.205.229 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I almost didn't comment here just because the discussion looked so vague and messy. I think if you make a more concrete proposal, you'll get more interest. I also don't know the editing history of this page, but in general I'd encourage you to just be WP:BOLD and make thought-out, professional, well-worded, and well-cited edits, then take very concrete points to the talk page if people disagree with your changes. As an aside, you may also get better engagement if you use an account rather than an IP address; there's prejudice! That's just my opinion though. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fischer, Kuno (1890). Descartes and His School. T. Fisher Unwin.

Did John Locke combat empiricism?

"It was this theory of innate knowledge that later led philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) to combat the theory of empiricism, which held that all knowledge is acquired through experience.[99]"

Cwrwgar (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cwrwgar: I have read the source and the quotation is not misleading. Although in his educational writings he argued children had natural tendencies in he philosophical writings he argues against Descartes. At this is in relation to Descartes, your right that he did not combat empiricism, he did the opposite. I will correct this. Thank you for spotting this, it was a good spot.DukeLondon (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Rosicrucianism

The matter is controverse, but it is still debated by authoritative sources cited in the WP article. Rosicrucianism of Descartes has WP encyclopedical relevance and it belongs to the acceptable knowledge that could be hosted on Wikipedia. Further studies are needed to clarify it in a risolutive way.

See what others say on this but I do not think it qualified under the policy as it its not a well-known historical fact. DukeLondon (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

DukeLondon, as the nominator of the GAN, I hope my comments will be helpful before someone picks it up. There is a good chance that it is quick failed because of valid citation-needed tags throughout, and places where tags should be added. Here are some quick things you should consider:

  • MOS:SAID asks us not to use words like "stated" (Descartes ... states) because it indicates a particular point of view, that the speaker is correct or had engaged in considerable thought
  • Some editorializing is throughout. Descartes clearly states is one example - what does "clearly" do here? the thinker whose approach has profoundly changed the course of Western philosophy -- This was a revolutionary step -- envisioned -- professed
  • There are citations needed. For example, the existing tag(s), but also things like: In shifting the debate ... of the individual -- His rule of signs is also a commonly used method to determine the number of positive and negative roots of a polynomial -- This work is traditionally cited with the initials HR (for Haldane and Ross) followed by a volume number in Roman numerals; thus HR II refers to volume 2 of this edition -- Empiricism holds that all knowledge is acquired through experience
  • What makes Encarta a reliable source?
  • Unencyclopedic tone, eg Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form?
  • Unclear as he clearly and distinctly perceives these two principles, Descartes reasoned, ensures their indubitability
  • Use of words like "however" "therefore" "moreover" are almost always unnecessary
  • "Purported Rosicrucianism" section is undue IMO
  • Information in the infobox is not repeated in the body (eg "Corpuscularianism")

Urve (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks these comments are greatly helpful. I will see what I can do to address these issues shortly. DukeLondon (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Descartes Natural Science

I believe there is more that could be talked about under the section “Natural Science”. It only focuses really on the philosophy behind his natural science and animals. Maybe add information about his book Principia Philosophiae and some key topics such as: the universe is a plenum (meaning its full), the three types of matter (that which gives off light, that which transmits light, and that which reflects light), and his idea that planets move through matter. Another topic that could be added is his idea that the center of the universe is where ever you put it. Epbvx6 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)epbvx6

Al ghazlali and Al hazen removal from influences

Someone has removed Al Ghazali and Al Hazen from the list of influences on Descartes. It is well-known RD and the renaissance as a whole had huge influences from the Islamic philosophers. Why has this been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juice3kh (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Lay Catholic?

"Lay Catholic" is probably an apposite descriptor but it feels weird in the first sentence. 144.171.137.66 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Devout Catholic?

No evidence is suggested for using the almost ubiquitous qualifier “devout”. Contrarily he attended a Protestant institution and fathered a child out of wedlock who was baptised Protestant. I intend to replace with “he was Catholic”. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caglioostroo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Caglioostroo (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I will be adding a small section on meteorology on this page using two sources the History of Meteorology to 1800 by H. Howard Frisinger. As well as Renaissance Meteorology by Martin Craig -Caglioostroo (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC) -- I forgot to change out what I had copied in order to show my sandbox in the edit summary. Here is my sandbox User:Caglioostroo/René Descartes

should we mention the famous quote "Give her the dick"

The quote "Give her the dick" is famously attributed to Descartes (though it is unlikely he actually said it), is it worth mentioning? 46.46.202.103 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

yes of course 138.88.96.36 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

X,Y,Z,Tx,Ty,Tz ..

"Фигушки тут !! Фигушки там !!". "Опера" или чо ??

Ну и кучи зарядов, масс, спинов, очарований, странностей и много-много радостей и всякого барахла .. 85.140.23.5 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:René_Descartes/Archive_3&oldid=1214151696"