The natural Philosophy of Rene Descartes

INTRODUCTION:
One of the toughest challenges for any contemporary author who approaches
to the old treaties of physics and natural philosophy is to know If those
authors kept the difference between physics and other disciplines, and if any
of these disciplines has something to do with what we call physics.
In the case of Descartes, is important to notice that his fiscal writings do not
constitute an independent theory. He links his physical assumptions to a
series of metaphysical premises in order to integrate all in the unitary system
of the human knowledge.
On the other hand, Descartes seems to restrict the term physics to a logically
possible universe and not to an actual knowledge of the universe. This can be
considerate like this since his physical system is just a system of propositions
that are not contradictory between them.
Descartes system is a physical deductive system. So it has to be insert in a
more large knowledge that unify the physics with the metaphysics, having as
a result, a philosophy that is able to give reason of the actual world. Having
these distinctions on mind, we can start to approach to Descartes's natural
philosophy, and we are going to do this from he's work The World, or Treatise
on Light.
CARTESIAN'S COSMOLOGY:
The work The world of Descartes, maintain a cosmological and speculative
proposal about the mechanism of formation and organization of the world.
This proposal can be basically summarized in he's theories of the vortex.
In first place, the author considers that the knowledge of the natural world
cannot be based on sensible data. Neither it can come from a contemplative
act which proposal is to save the appearances. What Descartes tries to do, is
to find the deep structure of the reality. For the author, the world is basically
matter in motion which essential characteristic is the extension. Therefore, to
conceive a space without matter becomes impossible. This is the conception
of fullness, where the space is not just a simply quantifiable property of the
bodies as it was for Aristotle. If not, what the author does, is to return to the
most definitely and essential property of the matter.
Descartes makes Aristotelian theory stronger since he proposes that only the
extension and its modes; the size, the shape, the velocity... are ontologically
important. With this, he tries to create and intelligible and rational knowledge

of the universe, and he will consider this knowledge as the only fountain of
explanation of all the natural world phenomena.
The material fullness that Descartes supported, as a basic supposition of his
physical and cosmological proposals, makes very difficult to explain some of
the phenomena like the stars motion or the motion in general. However, from
the moment that these suppositions where in concordance with his
metaphysical principles, the author did not doubt about its adequacy.
On of the first proposals of Descartes in The World about what is the natural
world, is his hypothesis of the res extensa. This hypothetical consideration
emphasises the geometrical perspective from where the matter homogeneity
occurs in base to the extension. This is an abstract hypothesis that highlights
the geometrical and mathematical point of view of the universe. But, this
perspective has to become a physical one if the author want to give a
possible explanation of the natural phenomena.
From this geometrical perspective, the most immediate consequence of the
identification of the matter with the extension, is the exclusion of the void.
Therefore, there is no void neither in the universe nor out of it. The next
consequence, is that the extension can be only considerate as unlimitedly
divisible. That means that the impossibility of the void and the divisibility are
consequences of the geometrical definition of extension. So, the problem
appears at the moment that we try to pass to the physical field, where the
matter fullness makes very difficult to explain the motion and, on the other
hand, the infinite divisibility makes problematic the explanation of the
production of the physical bodies. Because, if the parts are always beening
divided, how they can generate bodies?
As had been said, the hypothesis of the concious solid is just a geometrical
and abstract consideration, but, in fact, this considerationis non-existent.
Descartes thinks that God created at the same time the matter and the
motion. So, in fact, never existed, strictly speaking, a continuous of
differentiated parts. What do really exists, for him, was a kind of
"contiguousness". This means that, even if the matter is divided on parts, the
matter never allows the possibility of void. Therefore, the parts must be
together as much as they can, limitating, at the same time, with the other
ones in all its area. This make that the fullness become a fullness of diverse
parts that are contiguous.
According to all of these, is adequate to say that the organization of the
universe is own to the impossibility of void, the divisibility of the matter and
to the laws of the motion. God creates, at the beginning, the quantity of
matter and motion that the universe has, and also, the laws that command
the universe organization. But anyway, there is a question that steels being

there: How does the motion exist in the fullness? For the author, God gives to
the matter parts a rectilinear motion, that is the most simple one. But when
all is full, there is no possibility of moving on a rectilinear motion, so
everything moves circularly.
If its difficult to explain the movement in the fullness, is even more difficult to
explain the organization, the balance and the diversification of the physical
world from the vortex theory. But for Descartes, since the matter is gifted by
the initial motion, the universe become organized and regulated from swirls.
This theory, explained like this, becomes very week and easy to criticize. In
fact, the swirls are formatted by the same homogeneous matter. But this
matter is relatively differentiated in velocity, size and shape from its
component parts. That's why we can distinguish the sky from the sun or the
planets.
But, in some parts of his work, Descartes seems to give to understand that
his theory of the vortex and the elements are not enough for explain the
diversity of phenomena:

I do not promise you to set out here exact demonstrations of all the
things I will say. It will be enough for me to open to you the path by
which you will be able to find them yourselves, whenever you take
the trouble to look for them. Most minds lose interest when one
makes things too easy for them. And to compose here a setting that
pleases you, I must employ shadow as well as bright colours. Thus, I
will be content to pursue the description I have begun, as if having
no other design than to tell you a fable. (final of the chapter VII)

In fact, the theory of the vortex, is analogical and descriptive. But, even if in
The Worl,d more accurate and more rigorous formulation are missing, it
cannot be considerate as a fable. I consider that the description that
Descartes makes allusion is not a description of the real world in the
traditional sense. This is to say, to present the physical world as a diversity of
substances which intrinsic qualities. But, what the mechanism des consist, is
not just in a substantial reduction and homogeneity of the universe. If not,
also in a search for an ordered explanation of the natural phenomena from
the material unity of the universe by quantitative explanations. In some
sense, this makes easier to notice that the Descartes explanation about the
variety and multiple natural phenomena were conditioned by his
metaphysical proposals.
But, far from considerate that Descartes resigns to give an explanation about

the phenomena, what he really does is to provide a serial of more specific al

laws in order to make a characterization of the nature where the qualitative
explanation of the phenomena is
overcomed in order to give us a
quantitative explanation.
If the physical world is reduced to matter and Descartes does not only want
to explain it geometrically (this is, as shape and size), if not, also physically
(as it changes). Therefore, is important to mention that, for the author, any
kind of modification is reduced to the displacement of the material parts or
relative position. This notion was deeply criticized by the Newton followers
since there is not, in this motion explanation, any immutable point of
reference. So, the motion that the Cartesian physics explain is the change of
place.
In his work Principles of Philosophy, the author specify the motion as
alteration where the mobile is spread form the action, power or force of
moving something. This conception is motivated by the fact that the author
does refuse as explanation of the change any kind of internal cause, that for
him is just hidden cause.
In consonance with his intention of geometrical explanation, he considers
that the best and most simple explanation of the motion is to consider it as a
change of position. But this is not a change of the position of the geometrical
bodies, if not of the physical ones, of the bodies in the real world. Therefore,
the finality of the physics of Descartes is to reduce the effects and properties
of the phenomenon that we known by the experience, to just parts of the
matter (limited portions of extension) with shape, size and susceptible of
change their position respect the other with motion. That's why Descartes
introduce the laws of the motion as a rational and ordered explanation of the
change.
In order to understand better this assumption is very important to take care
of a basic assumption of these physics that contrasts with the Aristotelian
one. Indeed, the Cartesian physic is largely an explication of the motion laws.
But is important to remember that since the universe is infinite or, at least,
indeterminate, there is no centre. That fact of no centre, would make that the
Aristotelian distinction between natural motion and violent motion would
disappear, making that the laws of the motion rule all the parts of the matter.
So, Descartes proposes the first law of the motion as:

"Each thing, in so far as it is simple and undivided, always remains in

the same state, as far as it can, and never changes except as a result
of external causes (...) Hence, we must conclude that what is in
motion always, so far as it can, continues to move. " (Principles Part

II, art. 37)

With this law of the inertia, Descartes wants to underline:

1) Even if the matter have motion thanks to God, the matter is not something
intrinsic.
2) The mobile "transports" his motion, but does not "create" it and
3) the matter is totally inert, therefore, the modification or change, as it can
be read in (1), its intrinsic to the matter.
In fact, the formulation of this law is the entrance door to the mechanism,
where the matter has no powers. The matter does only receive and transmit
the motion. In consequence, the matter is a kind of passing dusk and that's
why, in Descartes opinion, it can be differentiated from the mobile in motion.
The Cartesian physics, in the strict sense of mechanism, is more centred in
the explanation of the transfer of motion than in the causes of it. Indeed, he
summarizes the explanation of the motion in three laws (inertia, permanence
and shock) and he lets as a metaphysical supposition the consideration that
God is the last cause of the motion. It's more, he advises us that is not his
intention to deal with which is the essence of the motion.
The first law, therefore, highlight the intention of the author of underline the
non efficiency of the matter, its inertia and without any potency to be
actualized at. So, against Aristotle, the change, in this version of a mechanist
universe, can only be the result of "encounters" and "shocks" between the
matter parts of the bodies. The result of these shocks are the variations of
positions of the parts, that are the only and genuine changes of the matter.
The second law of Descartes is the next one:

"Every piece of matter, considered in itself, always tends to continue

moving, not in any oblique path but only in a straight line. "
(Principles Part II, art. 39)

This law is clearly antiaristotelian law. To this Cartesian law underlies the idea
that the motion and the repose are matter states that anything have to do
with the finalist explanations. There is no significant ontological variation
between the matter in motion or in repose because the matter is only the
vehicle of the motion that pass from one body to another by contact.

Naturally, one of the main difficulties of the origins of the motion, that
Descartes has to put it on the hands of God, is that the matter conserve the
same quantity of matter and motion. Therefore, the metaphysics explanation
is not in the laws or principles of the motion but in its foundation. This
metaphysic foundation is deeply rooted in the reason sufficient reason that
prevent to God to act changing the rules and the quantities of the mechanical
game of the universe. This is what provides to Descartes theory the warranty
of the continuity of the order of the universe.
This permanence law, that rests in the immutability of God, is parallel to the
divine warranty of the evidence of the knowledge. This can be understood as
Descartes founded the epistemology in the metaphysics. But, nevertheless,
we must recognize that the novelty of Descartes lies in his intention of take
the rational research to its lasts consequences where it founds an impassable
limit: the absolute rationality of God.
The third law of Descartes is the shock law:
"When a moving body collides with another, if its power of continuing
in a straight line is less than the resistance of the other body, it is
deflected so that, while the quantity of motion is retained, the
direction is altered; but if its power of continuing is greater than the
resistance of the other body, it carries that body along with it, and
loses a quantity of motion equal to that which it imparts to the other
body." (Principles Part II, art. 40)

Here, the author consider that all the motion is transmitted by contact and
instantaneously. The necessity of this law follows from the negation of the
void.
On one hand, the inert matter, without internal force receives and transmit
the motion, has to be understood as a contiguous of different densities and
cohesions of matter, and never as a continuity. In principle, this conception
should give place to the motion. But the question is: From where does the
different densities and cohesions of the fullness come from? The answer of
this question can be found in the Cartesian theory of the elements. This
theory allows to the author to characterize the parts of the matter with a limit
in its division. Therefore, the parts that are infinitely divisible, acquire certain
shape, size and velocity (thanks to the motion laws). At the same time, this
gives the opportunity of propose three different elements. Not different in
them matter naturally, if not in them quantitative characteristics.
The theory of the motion, therefore, is tightly linked to the theory of the
elements that is founded in a functional atomism. There are parts that work

as atoms that explain the diversity of the elements what, at the same time,
condition the diversity of material bodies and motions. Anyway, from where
does the density and the cohesion comes from steels being a problem
because, if even with the theory of the elements, he is able to diversify the
material parts, if that parts does not have any force, how do they cohere?
The conception of the fullness has more important consequences over the
mechanism, and also difficult the explanation of the movement. Indeed,
Descartes does not accept de Aristotelian conception of the repose (that is
the natural state of the matter), but he accepts that the matter have a
tendency to move in a rectilinear motion. And bases this assumption in "how"
God created the universe. So, in some sense, to talk about tendency is to talk
about some kind of intrinsic action power, that was denied by the author.
Even if Descartes was able to make big advances about the Aristotelian
metaphysic explanation of the motion. This mechanical explanation is not
absent of problems since he tries to combine the inertia of the matter and the
matter fullness. And all the problems that had been highlighted during the
text, will be the problems that the Newtonian will try to solve and overcome.

Bibliography:
DESCARTES, RENE El mundo o trarado de la luz.
DESCARTES, RENE Principios de Filosofia
Notes of the subject Modern Philosphy of Dr. Salvi Turro
Notes of the subject History of Science of Dr Jos Romo

Xim Martnez Brcel

ERASMUS Student from the University of Barcelona
ID: 43219264X
Philosophy of Science