Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-ntvhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T13:38:15.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of Cartesian Dualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2020

TAREK R. DIKA
TAREK R. DIKA*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAMEtdika@nd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the recently discovered Cambridge manuscript, widely regarded as an early draft of Rules for the Direction of the Mind, Descartes does not describe the mind as a ‘purely spiritual’ force ‘distinct from the whole body’. This has led some readers to speculate that Descartes did not embrace mind-body dualism in the Cambridge manuscript. In this article, I offer a detailed interpretation of Descartes's mind-body dualism in the established Charles Adam and Paul Tannery edition of Rules, and argue that, while differences between the Cambridge manuscript and the established version of Rules are significant, the relevant passages in the Cambridge manuscript preclude interpretation along both materialist and hylomorphic lines. I then offer an account of the development of Descartes's mind-body dualism between the Cambridge manuscript and the established version of Rules. What the Cambridge manuscript reveals is not Descartes before dualism, but rather Cartesian dualism in its barest form.

Keywords

Descartesmind-body dualismsubstance dualismmethodearly modern metaphysics

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Fall 2020 , pp. 335 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I thank John Carriero, Stephen Fallon, Robert Goulding, Denis Kambouchner, Yitzhak Melamed, Tad Schmaltz, and Phillip Sloan for comments on a previous draft of this article. I also thank Stephen I. Wagner, Patrick Brissey, and Jack Stetter for comments on a previous draft of this article presented before the Descartes Society at the American Philosophical Association Central Division Meeting on February 21, 2018, in Chicago. I owe special thanks to Richard Serjeanston and Michael Edwards, who kindly shared a draft of their forthcoming translation of the Cambridge manuscript at an international seminar organized by Daniel Garber at the Institut d’études avancées de Paris on April 19, 2018 (many thanks to Dan for his invitation). During a visit to Cambridge University on October 17, 2017, Richard generously provided me with access to the Cambridge manuscript. All translations in this article are my own and are based on the original manuscript; respecting their request not to cite prior to publication, I have not cited the Edwards-Serjeanston translation. I also thank the University of Notre Dame's Institute for the Liberal Arts for a grant that enabled me to travel to Paris to participate in the seminar on the Cambridge manuscript. I thank the journal's two anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments. I dedicate this article to my loving wife, Constance de Font-Réaulx.

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Descartes are to the Adam-Tannery (1996) edition, abbreviated ‘AT’, followed by volume number and page. All English translations are based on Descartes (1985–1991), abbreviated ‘CSM’ (vol. 1–2) or ‘CSMK’ (vol. 3), followed by volume number and page. Citations of the Cambridge manuscript are abbreviated ‘CM’. When distinguishing between the Cambridge manuscript and the edition of Rules found in the Adam-Tannery edition, I employ the following subscripts: RulesCM and RulesAT, respectively. Subscripts are also used for individual rules (e.g., Rule 12CM, Rule 12AT). Where the Cambridge manuscript agrees with the Adam-Tannery edition, I reproduce, with occasional modifications, the translation of Rules found in Cottingham et al. (based mostly on the Adam and Tannery edition). All other translations from the Cambridge manuscript are my own.

References

Alquié, Ferdinand. (1950) La découverte métaphysique de l'homme chez Descartes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas. (1945) Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 1. Translated and edited by Pegis, Anton C.. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas. (2002) The Treatise on Human Nature: Summa Theologiae 1a 75–89. Translated and edited by Pasnau, Robert. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Aristotle. (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle. Edited by Barnes, Jonathan, vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon, and Morris, Katherine J. (1996). Descartes’ Dualism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beck, L. J. (1952) The Method of Descartes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Desmond M. (2003) Descartes's Theory of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conimbricenses. [1598] (1604) Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu in tres libros de anima Aristotelis Stagiritae. Coimbra: Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu.Google Scholar
Cottingham, John. (2017) ‘Context, History, and Interpretation: The Religious Dimension in Descartes’ Metaphysics’. In Gaukroger, Stephen and Wilson, Catherine (eds.), Descartes and Cartesianism: Essays in Honour of Desmond Clarke (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René. (c. 1626/27?) MS Dd. 14.26.6. Cambridge University Library.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. (1985–1991) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Translated and edited by Cottingham, John, Stoothoff, Robert, Murdoch, Dugald, and Kenny, Anthony. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. (1996) Oeuvres de Descartes. Edited by Adam, Charles and Tannery, Paul. 11 vols. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. (2013) Étude du bons sens, La recherché de la vérité, et autres écrits de jeunesse (1616–1631). Translated and edited by Carraud, Vincent and Olivio, Gilles. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis. (2000) Life's Form: Late Aristotelian Conceptions of the Soul. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis. (2006) ‘Review Essay: Descartes's Theory of Mind, by Desmond M. Clarke’. In Garber, Daniel and Nadler, Steven (eds.), Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 315–41.Google Scholar
Eustachius of St. Paul. (1609) Summa philosophica quadripartite [. . .]. Paris: Carolus Chastellain.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. (2015) Discussion paper on the work of Frédéric De Buzon and John Schuster presented at the sixth annual Séminaire Descartes, Paris, May 23, 2015. https://mathesis.hypotheses.org/files/2015/08/SDGarber_DebuzonSchuster-.pdf.Google Scholar
Gilson, Étienne. (1979) Index scolastico-cartésien. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Hamelin, Octavio. (1921) Le Système de Descartes. Paris: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Paul. (1986) ‘The Unity of Descartes's Man’. Philosophical Review, 95, 339–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, Jean-Luc. (1975) L'ontologie grise de Descartes: Science cartésienne et savoir aristotélicien dans la Regulae. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Marion, Jean-Luc. (1996) Questions cartésiennes, vol. 2. Sur l'ego et sur Dieu. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pasnau, Robert. (2011) Metaphysical Themes: 1274–1671. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozemond, Marleen. (1998) Descartes's Dualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rozemond, Marleen. (2014) ‘The Faces of Simplicity in Descartes's Soul’. In Corcilius, Klaus and Perler, Dominik (eds.), Partitioning the Soul: Debates from Plato to Leibniz (Berlin: De Gruyter), 219–43.Google Scholar
Schuster, John. (2013) Descartes-Agonistes: Physico-mathematics, Method and Corpuscular-Mechanism, 1618–1633. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepper, Dennis L. (1996) Descartes's Imagination: Proportion, Images, and the Activity of Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sepper, Dennis L. (2016) ‘Descartes’. In Kind, Amy (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Imagination (New York: Routledge), 27–40.Google Scholar
Serjeanston, Richard. (2013) ‘Descartes before Dualism: New Evidence’. Paper presented at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, Cambridge University, January 21, 2013.Google Scholar
Suárez, Francisco. (1856–1878) Opera omnia. Edited by André, M. and Berton, C.. 28 vols. Paris: Ludovicus Vivés.Google Scholar
Suárez, Francisco. (2000) On the Formal Cause of Substance: Metaphysical Disputation XV. Translated by Kronen, John and Reedy, Jeremiah. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
South, James B. (2012) ‘Suárez, Immortality, and the Soul's Dependence on the Body’. In Hill, Benjamin and Lagerlund, Henrik (eds.), The Philosophy of Francisco Suárez (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 121–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar