TO
THE VERY SAGE AND ILLUSTRIOUS

THE DEAN AND DOCTORS OF THE SACRED
FACULTY OF THEOLOGY OF PARIS.

This is the greeting Descartes used in his “Meditations on First Philosophy” in 1641. Seems the church was pretty much the go-to outfit to get anything put in print, whether or not he was aware of Galleo’s problems or not.

Given the pre-French Revolution era absolute power of the church, and the pervasive beliefs of the day among the general population, I would think what was written by early modern philosophers was really the way they viewed their world.

As far as following his own method, I think he had to simply just draw the uncrossable line somewhere,
So he had to admit, or he had to write as if, the method worked up to a point and no further.

I'm thinking Descartes was an opportunistic traveler, as many were, for religious reasons, and he was a soldier. And I'm told many books were edited to align with Catholic doctrine, readers reading "between the lines." Also, I think his thinking refracted contention between scholastic realism and nominalism - realism often represented as belief in the existence of universals, nominalism not. But the real issue between these was the tension between the ideas of a perfect God and an omnipotent God. In positing a God who would not lie, Descartes placed himself in the realist camp. A nominalist, who would argue for an omnipotent God, would not and could not argue that God could not lie. But do some research - none of this is simple.

Thanks for both feedback. If I understand well, you both suggest the books later chapters might not actually reflect what Descartes had in mind?

I find it strange there is so much discussion over Cartesian dualism or the proof of God's Existence if those theories were just a clever(?) censorship coating wrapping the true treasure of this book, which I feel teaches man to doubt the church.

@Mww: I feel like the first paragraph of Part 6 is exactly a reference to Galileo's fate... And as printing, I thought he had printed in very liberal Amsterdam, thus freer than in France?

Part 6 of what? Meditations? I don’t know Galileo’s works well enough to comment on their respective similarities.

Holland before 1638, at least, I think. His major works after that were done in Latin, published by a friend in Paris, and were directed at French nobility and academia.

“The World” was pulled out of consideration for Galileo’s predicament, but Descartes didn’t suffer the “heresy” of his contemporary.

No no, I meant Part 6 of Descartes' Discourse on the Method, which was printed in 1637 apparently (so I guess still Amsterdam).

Oh, yeah. Sorry. Title of the thread is sort of a clue, huh?

Part. 6 does include some thoughts on maybe not publishing right away. He doesn’t mention Galileo by name, of course, but that was the big news cycle of the day, and they were contemporaries, so....

I can’t find anything definitive on publishing, but I kinda pieced together that Discourse was written in French in 1634, put aside for three years, published in the Netherlands in 1637, translated into Latin and published in Amsterdam six years after his death, in 1656.

Yup... And just to double check, Galileo was tried in 1633, one year before the Discourse first publication. So kinda checks out I'd say...

I don't want to make light of the theme that Descartes was careful to not anger the Church but I don't agree that the argument that we have been given is simply a ruse. In some ways, this is the ultimate ground of verification. If what I am experiencing is false by design, then my existence is a cruel joke.

Nobody likes being the butt of a cruel joke.

What do you mean by "the argument that we have been given"? What is "the ultimate ground of verification" ?