Slashdot Mirror


Key Letter By Descartes Found After 170 Years

Schiphol writes of a long-lost letter by René Descartes to Marin Mersenne that has come to light at Haverford College, in Pennsylvania, where it had lain buried in the archives for more than a century. The discovery could revolutionize our view of one of the 17th-century French philosopher's major works. "[T]housands of treasured documents... vanished from the Institut de France in the mid-1800s, stolen by an Italian mathematician. Among them were 72 letters by René Descartes... Now one of those purloined letters has turned up at a small private college in eastern Pennsylvania... The letter, dated May 27, 1641, concerns the publication of Meditations on First Philosophy, a celebrated work whose use of reason and scientific methods helped to ignite a revolution in thought."

48 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by thomasdz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, we don't have that "é " letter in our alphabet, so we must have lost it. However I'm thinking René Descartes may have just stolen it... you know how those French are...

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    1. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by BlueTrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      And this is only one letter, just wait that we find the thousand letters missing, I guess they will not teach anymore alphabet at Kindergarten ...

      Logitech will showcase the new 1105 keys keyboard and legendary threads will pop up in slashdot such as "1105 keys ? Ok, but does it come in DVORAK."

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    2. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some "stolen" letters that René Descartes was using and that the English language is not using:

      é è ê ô ù à ë ç î

      We call these caracters "caractère accentués" in French.

    3. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      You may keep them! Can you imagine how many days I spent learning the friggin' difference between e, é and è? And no, "you can hear it" is NOT a suitable explanation for someone who doesn't know how it's pronounced either!

      Friggin' French and their urge to pepper harmless letters with various sorts of crap...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      English is worse because you have e, e and e that are pronounced differently, but there is no accent to tell which pronunciation to use.

    5. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, that's not a problem. You can hear it.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    6. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by Bonewalker · · Score: 3, Funny

      You guys cn lugh ll you wnt, but I hve letter missing from my keybord, nd it mkes life quite difficult, you insensitive clods!

    7. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by Unordained · · Score: 5, Funny

      é is like the "eh?" in "Let's go see The Phantom Menace, eh?" (canada)
      è is like the "eh." in "The Phantom Menace? Eh. I'm in no mood to ruin my childhood memories."
      ê is like an appropriately-angry version of è.

    8. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      ç

      I've never understood the need for this letter, at least the way it is used in Portuguese. There is a restaurant nearby my home called Café Opçao. It's pronounced "ohp-SAO". It's a bloody S! Why don't you just put a bloody S there?!

    9. Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "é " by eleuthero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wonderful historical reasons - the cedilla c is pronounced the same as the "s" today. Look back at two hundred year old grammars and there might be a difference (there would be, at least, in Spanish for the c, the z, and the s).

  2. Meditations on First Philosophy by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chapter 1 was great, and ended in the pinnacle of the work "I think therefore I am".

    After that, he couldn't go any farther, so he decided that you couldn't trust the world without the presence of God. At which point, I lost interest.

    Chapter 1: A+
    Chapter >1: D

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    1. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by SpeedyDX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Descartes might have been wrong, but that's kind of missing the point. During an era when scepticism was viewed as being inherently blasphemous and absurd, he embraced scepticism as a practical philosophy. Descartes, along with Hume and several others during the early modern period, began to establish moderate scepticism as the basis for a practical philosophy of scientific enquiry.

      There's no doubting that Descartes made many mistakes in Meditations. But from the fact that the work isn't perfect, it doesn't entail that it wasn't a great and influential work that's brought us one step closer to understanding the nature of reason. One step of many, to be sure, but one step nonetheless.

      Also, he didn't say that he can't trust the existence of the world without God. Rather, he gave an ontological argument for God, established His existence, and then, because God exists and He doesn't deceive, Descartes no longer had to justify the existence of the world (without a God). Of course, this is what led to the famed Cartesian circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_circle), but your short analysis showed that you didn't really understand the text. As I replied in another thread, Jonathan Bennett is translating early modern works to more modern language, resulting in more clear and accessible works (available: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html). I highly encourage that you read it over again and try to get more out of it.

      While I'm at it, it seems that a more empirical philosophy would interest you more. Descartes had some influence on Hume's work. Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is one of the best treatments of the philosophy of science in the early modern era, and definitely my favourite work out of that era. if you're interested, you should definitely check it out: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/he.html

    2. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by digitig · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I think therefore I am" sounds a bit bold an affirmation.

      Descartes was aware of that, and tried to resolve it, although his resolution is probably not satisfactory. I suspect that there isn't a resolution.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe his concern is that if you start on false premises, your argument is effectively meaningless. You could derive anything.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    4. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I think therefore I am" sounds a bit bold an affirmation. It's more like "I think I think, therefore I think I think I think" IMHO.

      It's not really all that bold. According to my philosophy professors (I was a philosophy major), the statement Descartes made actually translates a bit better to "I think, I am". When taken in context (attempting to doubt every possible thing), this statement means that I can be certain that I am thinking (whatever that may mean, it may mean I am creating the sounds that I hear in my head or it may mean that those sounds are being put into me). If I am thinking, then there is something that definitely exists (otherwise there would be no one to have thought) - and further more that something is me. Everything else in the world may be a lie or deception, but with certainty: I exist by the virtue of having thought (though I may not be what I think I am and the world may not be what I think it is).

    5. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sounds familiar.

    6. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I believe in God, I just don't belive in using God as a rationalization for science, as Descartes did in every chapter after 1.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by ENIGMAwastaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I exist, therefore I exist" is not invalid.

      P therefore P is always valid, for any value of P. It's trivial, but anything that's trivially true is valid.

      P always follow from P. The implication that the Cogito is invalid is just an absurdity. What you might mean is that it's a tautology, but tautologies are always true. The Meditations makes several dozen laughable logical blunders, but this isn't one of them.

    8. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by eleuthero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is true that if you start with a demonstrably false premise, you could end up anywhere. The problem is that God's existence is not demonstrably false. Having God as a first premise is perfectly reasonable. What might have been helpful is a treatise that used God's existence as a first premise followed by another one that rejected God's existence. This would provide for an intriguing thought exercise and would help many determine their approach (holding to argument one or to argument two). Given the above conversation, it would seem that rather than do argument two, Descartes determined that a discussion of God's non-existence as a first premise was a worthless topic (though many today would seek to work out an argument with that type of first premise).

    9. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Couldn't disagree more, except that Descartes was clearly an important transitional figure whose philosophical work, like Hume's, is as relevant to what serious modern philosophy ought to be doing as Newton's alchemical work is to what serious modern chemistry ought to be doing.

      "Having God as a first premise" is trivially incoherent. It leaves unanswered and the questions, "What is God?" and "How do I know anything about God in the first place?" which can obviously only be answered by reference to something else, which in fact is sense-experience, rather that "thought" as Descarte imagined. Since sense-experience is trivially prior to the very notion of God, it is clear that having God as a first premise is incoherent at best and dishonest at worst.

      Descartes big mistake in this regard was to believe that since he could fantasize about a disembodied intelligence that it had some ontological weight. Everyone but philosophers now knows that this method is useless, because we know that it is easy for us to imagine things that are contradictory and impossible. Humans suck at deducitve closure, so it is easy for us to fail to notice the incoherence of our own imaginings. We have only two methods of ensuring such coherence: empirical investigation and mathematical deduction, neither of which philosophers have adopted because they don't care about truth. They continue to treat their imaginings and the limits of their imaginings as being ontological determinative.

      Descartes' mathematical work, which was fundamental to the eventual melding of algebra and geometry that gave us modern mathematics, has had lasting value. His philosophical work was important only for its transitional role. He was a step on the way that's best forgotten today by all but historians.

      Hume is even less coherent than Descarte, with less excuse. His attempts to undertake an empirical analsyis of sense-experience are so far off the mark as to be laughable. Even knowing what was known in his own time about the perception of objects it was obvious he didn't have a clue what he was talking about with his fantasies of pure sensations, which are incredibly hard to produce even in the laboratory. Hume somehow failed to notice that he had never had a pure sensation in his life. That tells you something about the quality of his philosophy. That he ultimatly ends up arguing that his own books should be burned--since they clearly fail to fulfill the criteria for non-burning he sets out--is another clue to just how incoherent he was.

      Hume is to be honoured for waking Kant from his "dogmatical slumber", but not much else.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    10. Re:Meditations on First Philosophy by mhajicek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since God can neither be proven nor disproved, any argument based on the assumption of God can be dismissed by the assertion of no God. In order to have an infallible argument one must start on solid first principles, such as "I think therefore I am." It is pretty hard to go forward from there, but I think we can also say "I think therefore there is time.", because without time one could not have the experience of thinking. Also, "I think therefore there is data.", because the thoughts must contain or be represented by data of some kind.

  3. Rene Descartes by sxltrex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks "can I get you a beer?" Descartes replies "I think not!" and he disappears.

    Thanks, I'm here all week!

    1. Re:Rene Descartes by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Funny

      Meh, it's getting a bit stale. Besides, it wasn't really that funny when Decartes told it in 1630.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    2. Re:Rene Descartes by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

      [MONTY-PYTHON song="Philosophers Song"]
      Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am!"
      [/MONTY-PYTHON]

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  4. heresy by rarel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Interestingly this comes just a few days after I read an article supporting the theory that Descartes was actually assassinated for his controversial views and his influence on Queen Christina of Sweden, by his own priest to boot.

    (in french)

    1. Re:heresy by rarel · · Score: 2, Informative
  5. Re:So by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

    can we have the text please? (Preferably in a human language)

    Sorry, it's written in French.

  6. How about horses? by naz404 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was this magnificent mathematical horse. You could teach it arithmetic, which it learned with no difficulty, algebra was a breeze, it could even prove theorems in euclidean geometry, but when you tried to teach it analytic geometry, it would rear back on its hind legs, kick ferociously neigh loudly and make violent head motions in resistance.

    The moral of this story is that you can't put Descartes before de horse.

    *ducks*

  7. Re:It said that Descartes liked turtles. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's turtles all the way down, young man.

  8. Re:I'm confused by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, the letter itself is incapable of thought, so logic fails when trying to determine whether or not the letter exists.

  9. So by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How did Guglielmo Libri the Italian mathematician got away with stealing 30,000 books and manuscript from France and got away with it. How did the official at the French Public Library not notice that one of their employee had made off with 30,000 items that does not belong to him.

  10. Re:So by abigor · · Score: 2, Funny

    He just waited until their backs were turned.

  11. Re:...And René Descartes by hitmark · · Score: 2, Funny

    cheers bruce!

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  12. Re:Haverford? by buttersnout · · Score: 5, Informative

    I graduated from Haverford in 2005. It's a fairly prestigious small liberal arts college outside of Philadelphia (it was ranked 4th when I got in in 2001 but much of its endowment in 9/11 and is now ranked 8th by us news). It's a very liberal college with a quaker history though I believe it no longer has an official religious affiliation. The college is strong in the sciences which is the reason I went there. My faculty advisor, Gerry Gollub, for example, is recognized as a leader in the field of fluid dynamics. It takes pride in its campus and arboretum and I've heard many people with no affiliation with the college say it has the most beautiful campus in the US. Most students take about a quarter of their courses at Bryn Mawr college which is a similar but all girls college. Most events are shared between the colleges and there's considered to be little difference between a Haverford student and a Bryn Mawr student in terms of what they have permission to do. There is also a lesser relationship with Swarthmore college and the University of Pennsylvania. The college also is very proud of its honor code. Students, for example, may take tests home and are trusted not to open their text books while taking them. I would guess the college's pride in their honesty and trustworthiness was a major motivation in their decision to return the letter.

  13. Re:So by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think it's the variant on the old joke.

    "For 30 years, the guard at the French Public Library for the evening shift noticed Gugli walking out with a book tucked under his arm. He always make sure to talk to Gugli, as Gugli would look very suspicious, as if he'd done something wrong. The guard always figured there wasn't something quite right about Gugli. So he'd search him, but always find nothing.

    "After retiring, the guard wanted this mystery solved, so one day he followed Gugli home. He asked, 'Okay, I know you've been making some kind of mischief all these years, but I've never been able to figure out what. What have you been stealing?'

    "Gugli responded, 'Books!'"

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  14. Dear Marin by goffster · · Score: 4, Funny

    I still can't get laid at the local bars, maybe I should stop talking about Math.
    Perhaps astrology might work better. Do you have any good charts?

    Thanx,
    Rene

    1. Re:Dear Marin by oracleofbargth · · Score: 3, Funny

      I laugh, therefore I snort coffee out my nose.

  15. Re:Haverford? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm currently a junior at Haverford College, majoring in Computer Science with possible minors in Physics and/or Astronomy (depending on how the rest of my time here works out).

    It's definitely a small school -- 1200 kids or so -- but I've found this to be quite beneficial. I'll frequently walk in on CS department meetings (unknowingly; it's just the three professors meeting in an office) and they'll ask for input on what classes they should offer in the next few semesters. I couldn't imagine this individual attention existing at a larger institution.

    Haverford's Quaker roots also lend it a sense of strong community and positive social involvement. It is not officially affiliated with the Quakers any longer, but certain traditions still exist: consensus on any group decision, moments of silence before serious discussion, etc. My older brother, a graduate from another Northeastern Liberal Arts College, most notably was surprised at "how nice everyone at your school is."

    All in all, a wonderful place. Very happy I go there, and sad to be leaving it soon.

  16. Re:Could revolutionize? by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My point is that if well in digital age i would think normal than copies of it being everywhere, in 1700 still someone could have made copies or somehow made public the critical points, if had something that could revolutionize their views. If they were buried in a private collection where noone could see them and tell that had something revolutionary, then that had being stolen would had made no difference.

  17. meh, philosophy is dead by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics. Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?

    Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.

    Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.

    If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.

    These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:meh, philosophy is dead by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.

      No, they haven't.

      Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.

      That's not really a "basic philosophy question".

      If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.

      That's also not a basic philosophy question (and what the result you refer to would tell us is not "yes, if you do that, you will get there", it is "you can't do that"; if there is a quantum distance and you can't move a smaller amount, then you can't halve any distance that is equal to or smaller than that quantum distance -- in fact, you can't have any distance that isn't an even-number multiple of the quantum distance.)

      Actual basic philosophical questions are usually not simple fact questions (though sometimes these are posed as illustrations of philosophical issues), but things like "what does it mean to say 'I know X'". (Actually, that's not just a basic philosophical question, its an entire subfield of philosophy known as epistemology.)

      And basic philosophical questions mostly aren't questions that can be definitively "answered", because they aren't fact questions; they are questions to which answers can be proposed and the logical implications explored.

    2. Re:meh, philosophy is dead by Zedrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg."

      Eh, what? No. An almost-chicken lays an egg with a mutated embryo (the 100%-chicken). The egg is still an almost-chickenegg, and the first chicken egg is later laid by the chicken.

    3. Re:meh, philosophy is dead by ENIGMAwastaken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics. Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?

      What good are science and mathematics? Well, some of it has practical application. But the main reason people study those things is that they find them interesting. People don't become scientists or mathematicians for "the good" of anything, they just do it because it's interesting. It just happens to have useful side effects down the line. So it is with philosophy which, as you mention, produced those fields. So by the transitive property, philosophy is useful insofar is it allowed the production of fields like science and math. Not to mention that the fundamentals of both science and math are still philosophical issues. Science is nothing without interpretation, and interpretation of scientific results is just metaphysics.

      >Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.

      That might have been your goal, but from your post I'm not sure it was ever a serious option for you. It would be like me saying the reason I'm not a professional soccer player is that "I realized it has nothing to offer the world" rather than the actual reason, which is that I wasn't good at it. I suspect similar is the case here.

      >Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.

      Actually, if evolution has taught us anything this question, it's that was the chicken. But since this is your idea of a 'philosophical question' your failure to ascend to a post in academic philosophy is, as I mentioned, unsurprising. This may shock you, but it's quite hard to become a philosopher. Getting into Harvard law school is a joke compared to getting into a top philosophy grad school in terms of intellectual talent required.

      >If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.

      Your idea of serious philosophical problems are "which came first, the chicken or the egg" and the sophistical paradoxes of Zeno, which were refuted as soon as he produced them?

      >These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.

      Like I said, the fact that your idea of philosophy is Zeno's paradox and the chicken and egg shows that your understanding of philosophy is quite limited. Contemporary philosophy is, in some respects, quite difficult to differentiate from science. Philosophy of Mind is fully engaged with neuroscience, biology, cognitive science, etc. Even a cursory glance at some of the issues contemporary philosophers work on would show you that this is the case.

    4. Re:meh, philosophy is dead by Merc248 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Though mathematics is useful as a technology in the sciences, its ontological basis is questionable (and therefore, its link to the sciences might be specious at best.) Note, I'm not questioning the entire enterprise of science as a whole, but I'm simply bringing up the fact that there are real problems with mathematics and science that still require philosophical inquiry.

      Read:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_realism#Mathematical_realism
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics)

      --
      "Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig." - Bertrand Russell
  18. Correction by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Meh, it's getting a bit stale. Besides, it wasn't really that funny when Decartes thought he told it in 1630.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Re:You got to be kidding! by eleuthero · · Score: 3, Funny

    I do enjoy a good ghoti for lunch.

  20. Re:DRM violations! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    Marvin? Is that you?

  21. Re:You got to be kidding! by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Stop Global Warming!
    Just say no to irreversible processes!