Talk:Cartesianism

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cartesianism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Modern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Modern philosophy

Thomas More?

Thomas More was long dead before Descartes was even born, so he probably couldn't consider cartesianism at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitvok (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they meant Henry More, who corresponded with Descartes around the time of his Meditations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.212.128 (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Cartesianism

Cartesianism has faced opposition since it was proposed and now it is hardly a consideration, it is a forgotten doctrine so somewhere down the line it must have had a popular opposition, right? I only know because I read a book last summer by an Atheist priest, a Frenchman; Jean Meslier (written 1729) who devotes hundreds of pages to refuting Cartesianism "Testament, Thoughts and Sentiments". Shouldn't there be something in here about that? Fegor (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a 'forgotten doctrine', as you put it. It is a philosophically interesting and ingenious attempt to resolve certain questions which seem to naturally arise regarding the relation between the mind and the body. Indeed, it's probably because of Descartes that philosophers now seem to spend so much time thinking about these questions. At least some version of dualism is likely always to be supported, as we can see from the work of a number of living philosophers... I mean, it's not as if this is a 'settled' matter, anyway. Furthermore, the esteem in which a philosopher's work is held does not stem from it having somehow got closer to 'the truth'. When Whitehead declared philosophy to be no more than a 'series of footnotes to Plato' it wasn't really because he thought Plato was onto something. 90.205.92.110 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not qualified to edit Cartesianism, this is an extremely important and relevant article. The subject of self or soul is key to our world views, and the view as self being mind, but non-corporeal mind, is very much a modern and New Age concept expressed in many of our 21st century religions. It is not an obsolete and irrelevant concept, and this world did not begin, and will not end, at Scientificism and other modern shallow egotistical dogmas of false religiosity. The idea that only scientists are capable of intelligent thought and should censor all Wiki articles is inane. The problem of where to stop original thinking from appearing in Wiki is a real one and probably insolvable. I hope someone finds the time to expand on this article, as the nature of "self" and "I" is not appreciated in western philosophy and the idea of universal mind rather than individual souls is very important to self-understanding, to life, and to death, in this world. Duane Barker, rocket scientist. 69.230.109.60 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Geographical dispersal' section includes some discussion of opposition. Should that be retitled "Geographical dispersal and opposition" (or more simply, "Dispersal and Criticism") and additional opposition included there or should opposition (or 'criticism') be put in a separate section? humanengr (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]