//
"Principles of Philosophy" is the most comprehensive presentation of Descartes' philosophical system, which is the summary of all Descartes' thoughts, and is also regarded as the final finalization of Descartes' philosophy. However, the book's extensive discussion of physics and its "outdated" picture of the world have kept it both out of the field of philosophical research and the attention of the modern scientific community. However, although Descartes' picture of the world may now be regarded as "outdated", it shaped people's worldview and view of nature in the early modern period. Although Descartes' conclusions are very different from modern physical explanations, many key concepts and changes in the overall world picture have broadened the boundaries and possibilities of people's understanding of the world at that time. In addition, compared with traditional scholasticism, Principia Philosophical opens up a new style of scholarship, which is closely related to the rise of modern science. From this point of view, Descartes's Principia Philosophical Principles actually constitute an important sample of early modern science with fundamental significance. Professor Lu Bolin of Tsinghua University tried to re-excavate the historical significance of the book from the perspective of the history of scientific thought.
Principles of Philosophy (Full Translation)
Descartes
Translated by Zhang Butian and Lu Bolin
ISBN：978-7-100-23535-8
⭐️ The first full Chinese translation ⭐️
⭐️ Joint translation by ⭐️ Zhang Butian and Lu Bolin
⭐️ Professor Wu Guosheng of Tsinghua University made a preface recommendation ⭐️
⭐️ Descartes' longest and most philosophically ambitious work ⭐️
⭐️ Descartes' most important work ⭐️ on natural philosophy
⭐️ The best model for ⭐️ understanding the dominant forms of science in the early modern period, especially in the 17th century
⭐️ A seminal document ⭐️ in the entire history of science and the history of ideas in the 17th century
⭐️ The first 1,000 volumes are accompanied by a uniquely numbered book stamp ⭐️
✦
•
✦
I. The "Transitional" Texts of Medieval Science to Modern Science
From the perspective of the history of ideas, it is precisely the uniqueness of Descartes' natural philosophy that gives it incomparable research value. Because the Principia Philosophical Principles inherited medieval scholasticism and led to the scientific revolution, it is clearly characterized by a "transitional" period, so that modern people, although they have no difficulty in understanding Descartes' methodology, are prone to misinterpret the old terminology that remains in the text. This is reflected in many of Descartes' formulations of physics. Let's take "spiritus", which is mentioned many times in the Principles of Philosophy, as an example. In Descartes' context, spiritus refers to a substance, "particles of irritating liquids and volatile salts", to a lesser extent "alcohol", which belongs to one of the former. At the same time, Descartes also mentions Spiritus (French: les esprits) in his Meteorology, which domestic scholars translate as "spirits"; There is also a reference to Les esprits Animaux in The Passion of the Soul, which is generally translated as "animal spirit". But either way, it seems to be very different from what is commonly understood by modern people as "spiritual". This is because the Latin context of spiritus inherited the concept of "pneuma" in Galen medicine in the 2nd century AD, which originally referred to the mediated existence between the soul and the body, the material and the immaterial, and can also be translated as "essence" or "yuan jing" in Chinese academic circles. Therefore, in the context of classical scholarship, Spiritus originally had a certain vague duality of mind and body. However, due to Descartes' strong mechanistic tendencies, the materiality of Spiritus was greatly enhanced, and then became part of his system of particle theory, along with vapores and exhalationes, which also have volatile properties. Therefore, further study of Descartes' concept of Spiritus is not merely a retrospective or recording of some outdated idea, but is likely to be an important incision in revealing the understanding of the relationship between matter and mind in the 17th century.
For example, in order to explain various physical phenomena from the perspective of particulism, Descartes devised a special concept: "particulae striatae". Groove particles are a type of first element, between the adjacent second element spheres, and are named because they have three grooves. With the help of this concept, the Principia Philosophical construct a mechanical model of particles to provide a unified interpretation of celestial phenomena (such as sunspots) and earthly phenomena such as earth, water, fire, and air. Descartes' interpretation is based both on purely broad rational presumptions and on common sense or empirical analogies. For example, he pointed out that the movement of "trench particles" in the second element channel is unidirectional, because the "ramulus" formed in the channel prevents them from returning from the other end. Such assumptions tend to be strongly geometric, but they do not necessarily involve specific mathematical calculations – or rather, they are geometrical rather than quantitative. It can be seen from this that for Descartes, who advocated "mathesis universalis", where the limits of mathematics were, or in what sense, the knowledge of nature was mathematical. The answers to these questions undoubtedly constitute a necessary prerequisite for our understanding of the scientific practice of Descartes and his contemporaries. There are many similar examples, including, but not limited to, Descartes' exposition or explanation of concepts such as "lightness", "globuli coelestes", "mercury vivum", "armature magnet" (magnes armatus), and so on. The specific interpretation of each concept may open up a different path for the study of early modern science.
2. The last system of natural philosophy and the picture of the universe on the eve of the scientific revolution
In addition to the detailed network constructed by terminology, the overall cosmic picture of Principia Philosophical also deserves the attention of contemporary research on the history of science. Take the "view of time and space" mentioned above as an example. Due to the hegemony of Newtonian mechanics in the modern scientific system, the "absolute view of time and space" has become the basis of scientific concepts in the past two hundred years and has become generally accepted common sense. However, with the emergence of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Big Bang theory after the 20th century, Newton's physical edifice was revolutionarily overturned, and the universe returned from infinity to bounded, and the absolute view of space-time hidden behind it also faced a historical reconstruction: Is time and space really not dependent on human existence or observation? Is space-time infinitely extended? In a universe full of gravitational fields, is there a void that is absolutely empty? In response to the above questions, Descartes' model of the enriched universe and vortex has quietly returned to the field of contemporary scientific thought. Of course, this does not mean that Descartes' physics is on the rise again – far from it. For modern people, the true meaning of Cartesian physics lies in the possibility of understanding the world, the totality of the world picture, and the role it plays in the great chain of ideas. From Aristotle and Plato to Descartes and Newton, the ideas of great men have dominated the scientific interpretation of the world at different times. Even Descartes, whose "reign" was a little shorter, ruled the academic world for more than a century, and had great successors such as Huygens and Leibniz. But the collapse and reconstruction of the "edifice" again and again have made us more aware of the humanistic nature of science: in the final analysis, the interpretation of nature, the universe, or man itself is "human," or, as Karl · Pope put it, "fallible" or "falsifiable." Therefore, the significance of any influential scientific system lies not only in whether it has been falsified or proven, but also in the extent to which it has broadened the boundaries and possibilities of human imagination and interpretation of the world, a meaning that may not be fully manifested at the time, but may be revealed thousands of years later. Therefore, the historian of science Charles C. Gillispie once commented:
"[Descartes and Newton] were both first-rate geniuses, born with extraordinary understanding, and both were fit to be the founders of the kingdom of knowledge...... One of them is ambitious to find the origin of all things at once, to grasp the first principles through clear and basic ideas, and then he may have nothing more to do but to descend to the level of natural phenomena in search of necessary causal connections; The other is more cautious or humble, seeking unknown principles by grasping known phenomena, and only acknowledging them when they can be produced by a chain of causal relationships. The former seeks the cause of the phenomenon from what he thinks is unmistakable, while the latter looks from the phenomenon to find the cause behind it, whether it is clear or ambiguous. The self-evident principle advocated by the former does not always lead to the discovery of the true cause of the phenomenon, and the phenomenon does not always enable the latter to acquire a sufficiently obvious principle. The boundaries of their respective paths of exploration that hold these two people to a halt are not the boundaries of their own understanding, but the boundaries of human understanding. ”
This passage reveals another advantage of Cartesian physics that is rarely recognized today, and which Newtonian physics does not reach: Descartes had a deeper thinking and a clearer idea of meta⁃physics (originally meaning "postphysics" in ancient Greece, now "metaphysics"), that is, the origin or first principle of all things. Especially at a time when Newton was shy away from discussing natural phenomena and even accusing the atheistic tendency of "extension as object", Descartes had already made mature thinking and argumentation on a series of fundamental "big questions" such as whether God exists, what the subject is, and the question of mind and object. This not only established Descartes' lofty position in the history of philosophy, but also meant that his physics had a coherent natural philosophy compared with modern science after self-castration. In other words, Descartes' physics has "roots". It is precisely the grounds, rooted in the limits of human understanding, that provide modern people who are not accustomed to being too exhaustive in their understanding of the whole picture of the world that may seem a little strange to the latter. This last system of natural philosophy on the eve of the Scientific Revolution also has a completeness that is lacking in the fragmented modern disciplines. The difference between Cartesian physics and modern physics is rather an essential difference between the pre-modern and modern world landscapes. For modern thought, which is obsessed with manipulating nature, man today is an improvement over Descartes' time; But for a philosophy that never forgets to reflect on nature, we lose the most important thing: the connection between man and the world. Therefore, returning to the natural interpretation of the Prinkenia Philosophical Principles is undoubtedly a "journey to find its roots" for the study of contemporary history of science. Compared with the methodology or the first philosophy that has only been extracted from the philosophical community, the Principles of Philosophy presents a more complete and flesh-and-blood system of thought. As Wallers put it, Descartes' conception of physics "is not to explain the world itself, but to reveal the world in which we have to locate ourselves."
3. Human displacement in modern science
Correspondingly, Descartes' Principia Philosophical Principles is radical and revolutionary, but it also preserves some of the old concepts of scholasticism, such as the discussion of the relationship between "indifferentia" and human free will, and the interpretation of light and sound borrowed from the "theory of physiognomy". This is also in line with his transitional character as a watershed between medieval and modern philosophy. Paradoxically, the displacement of man in modern science also begins with Descartes—with his "dichotomy of mind and matter", with the mechanization of man himself, and with the withdrawal of the mind and God from the physical world. This can be seen in the Principles of Philosophy. In the physical universe depicted in the book, it is difficult for us to find the exact location of man. Although Descartes' well-known assertion "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum) broke through the fog of skepticism and laid the foundation for the principle of subjectivity, the progress of thought has been racing beyond the path of expectation – according to Descartes' definition, "I" is "I", the "I" of thought, and thought is the form of the mind, so the "I" is "my mind". But the mind is not an object, it does not have a vastness, and it does not occupy space. In other words, I am sure that "I am", but I do not know where "I" is. This problem was also pointed out by Moore, a contemporary of Descartes. He accuses Descartes' conception of the mind, like God, of being in danger of being expelled from the world, because "they exist neither in some places (alicubi) nor everywhere (ubique), and therefore can only exist in nowhere (ibi)". Even Descartes himself struggled to preserve a place for the immaterial mind, such as his assertion that the soul is in the brain, his assumption of the pineal gland as an intermediary between mind and body, and his efforts to reconcile the seemingly inaccessible soul and body in his last work, The Passion of the Soul. But compared with the drastic revolution in the first half of his life, this reconciliation seems somewhat weak.
In this sense, the influence of Descartes' scientific practice and the scientific system he constructed itself is far more profound than contemporary people believe. After him, materialism and even atheism took advantage of Descartes' philosophy to leap into the new wave of the Age of Enlightenment. With the rapid development of science and technology after the combination, the practical needs have further pushed science and technology to the altar, the "material" world has become more independent and infinitely expanded, and the "mind" has been neglected and reduced to fantasy. The most important achievement of modern science is the fulfillment of the "unattainable" goal of Descartes' Principia Philosophy: the expulsion of God from the material world, a clear grasp of geography, and a more thorough mathematization. But this result, in turn, constitutes what Husserl called "the crisis of European science", and explains why Heidegger and others sought to return to the living world of the earth after the 20th century, in search of a real home for the lost "I" (here) in the post-Cartesian era. The origin of such a tortuous journey of modern thought can be traced back to Descartes, who opened up Hongmeng with the unquestionable "I think". In this way, whether it is in terms of the conceptual retrospective of the history of scientific thought, or in terms of the integrity and coherence of the world picture, Descartes's "Philosophical Principia" has a fundamental significance, and this significance has obviously been underestimated for a long time. Especially for the study of the history of science, the academic value of the Principles of Philosophy is far from being obscured by the word "outdated". On the contrary, it constitutes the best model for modern people to re-understand the mainstream scientific form of the early modern period, especially in the 17th century, and it is also one of the most important historical sources that we can trace back to reflecting on modern science.
IV. Conclusion
To sum up, the writing of Principia Philosophical originated from Descartes' proximity to modern science in terms of style of thought and his ambition to grasp the world with clear and distinct principles, so the construction of natural philosophy in the book has also become a representative of Descartes' physical system. Descartes intended to replace the Aristotelian physics of the old era. However, since its birth, the book has been subjected to religious accusations, bans by the authorities, and other tribulations, and the comprehensive rise of Newtonian mechanics has finally caused it to disappear from the stage of history. Thus, in the narrative of the history of science, Descartes' physics seems to be close to fantasy. However, based on a new metaphysical foundation that is different from scholasticism, the author constructs a complete philosophical system, just as the metaphor of the "philosophical tree" says: from the "roots" built by "principles" to the "branches" composed of various disciplines, they are interrelated and readily available. From the perspective of intellectual history, the most important historical significance of Descartes' Principia lies not in the specific laws of motion or astronomical explanations, but in the pursuit of completeness that has always been criticized by modern scientists. Despite its transitional character between the Middle Ages and the modern era, and despite its great differences from modern science, Descartes' natural philosophy has always been a self-consistent and coherent rational construction. It shows the boundaries of possibilities for human beings to conceive and interpret the world before the Scientific Revolution, which also makes Descartes's physical system itself a "wonder" of intellectual history worth tracing and having fundamental significance. From this point of view, the book has considerable potential to be tapped in terms of research and translation, and deserves the attention and follow-up of the domestic science history community. Further research in the future is also expected to open up an unusual way of thinking for understanding modern science.
[Disclaimer: This article is excerpted from Lu Bolin, "A New Exploration of Descartes' Principles of Philosophy from the Perspective of the History of Science", Science and Culture Review, 2022, No. 06, pp. 91-109. For ease of reading, the notes are omitted, and the specific subheadings are added by the editors. This article is forwarded with permission from Rublin, and the rights are owned by Rublin. 】
The Academic Center of the Commercial Press consists of four editorial offices, namely Philosophy and Society, Literature and History, Politics and Law, and Economics and Management, as well as the Wolters Kluwer Project Team, which is mainly responsible for the editing and publishing of academic works in the fields of literature, history, philosophy and social sciences. His publications include a variety of academic translations and original academic works, including the Chinese Translation of World Academic Classics Series, the Modern Chinese Academic Classics Series, the Compendium of Contemporary Chinese Scholarship, and the Collected Works of Masters.