Talk:René Descartes

As I'm typing this the first paragraph ends ", Descartes was Roman Catholic", followed by footnotes that, as I'm typing this, are numbered 15 and 16. The first footnote's article does nothing to substantiate the claim that Descartes was Roman Catholic. In fact, on the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, the first footnote's article more strongly implies that Descartes rejected that doctrine than that he embraced it.

The second footnote does better, but falls short of what is needed. To satisfy an encyclopedia-reader who doesn't know if Descartes was Roman Catholic or not (and is indifferent on the point, not hoping that it should turn out that he was (or was not) Roman Catholic, only wishing to know which one is true), we should have, perhaps, some letter of Descartes mentioning his confessing his sins to a Roman Catholic priest, or obtaining Communion from the same. Or some contemporary who witnessed that and wrote it down. Or some writing by Descartes in which he explains why Reason supports some Roman Catholic doctrine while it refutes the irreconcilable Protestant doctrine on the same issue.

Further concerning the article at the second footnote, it says that all of Descartes's books were, at one time, banned by the Roman Catholic church. How is it possible for someone who advocates positions that the Roman Catholic Church says no Roman Catholic should believe to be a Roman Catholic? If that is possible, then what is the MEANING of the phrase "is a Roman Catholic"? (In modern times, of course, the ONLY definition of "Roman Catholic" is "someone who checks the 'Roman Catholic' tick-box for 'religion' on a form", and the ONLY doctrine you have to believe in order to be a Roman Catholic is "I believe I will check the 'Roman-Catholic' tick-box where a form requests my religion". If you believe that, then, in today's world (which disregards the resulting problem of the infinite self-reference's absurdity), you're a Roman Catholic, no matter what else you do (and don't) believe.)

This latter footnoted article also says

QUOTE:

One point of controversy at least can be settled. It was fashionable at one time to throw doubt on the sincerity of Descartes's religious convictions. He was and died a Catholic, in "the faith of his nurse",

UNQUOTE

but doesn't supply any argument or further footnote backing up the assertion that "he was and died a Catholic". It tells us the controversy CAN be settled, but then blatantly does NOT settle it. HOW can it be settled? By this article's tacit position of "He was Roman Catholic, because this article says so"?

To say that Descartes was Roman Catholic requires describing what he believed (as inferred from what he WROTE and from his ACTIONS), and describing how the ONLY religion with which his beliefs were not in conflict was Roman Catholicism. So we'd need some description of the Catholic and Protestant doctrines on those issues too. None of that can be found here, and it's not in the articles footnoted. This Wikipedia article, as written, based on the information it provides, is not justified in taking a stand one way or the other that Descartes was (or was not) Roman Catholic.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Hello,

The lede of the article is in my opinion problematic for two reasons. Firstly, it only covers the philosophical aspect of Descartes and not his work in mathematics. Secondly, it is arguably too large. I would like to get some feedback on this matter, because expanding the lede would make it even bigger, so certain elements in the current lede would have to be deleted (which is always contentious). Chiliagon (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for checking in on the talk page before changing the lead! The current version can definitely be cut back, and I'm happy to help with that if you'd like. What is it that you want to add about his work in mathematics? My one point of council would be that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. How carefully to follow this guideline depends upon how well-developed the article is, but in this case anything added to the lead should definitely be present in the body of the article with supporting citations.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The problem is first and foremost that the lead is not written according to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, in fact, not even to the standards of Wikipedia (there's nothing about his biography). So I suppose it's quite difficult to change the lead without removing lots of its content.

It seems to me that (almost) everything is about Descartes as a philosopher, but only one sentence is about Descartes' work as a mathematician. That, I think, is not entirely in proportion. I don't know if you agree? Chiliagon (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The biography sections of articles about philosophers are always wildly out of proportion to the coverage given to them in the secondary literature. I make an effort to keep them on point when I edit, but there's only so much sourced content you can remove as undue before people get upset. Plus, it's harmless—and most readers probably skip this stuff anyway.

The first paragraph of the lead gives more attention to Descartes' work on mathematics than his work in philosophy, and math is also mentioned twice in the last. So I'm not seeing the problem you see. By all means, though, edit boldly and come back here to discuss if you're reverted.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph actually gives enough attention to Descartes' work on mathematics, I have to say in all honesty that I misread it a little bit. But then again, it's still completely out of balance in my view. For instance, a sentence like "Many elements of Descartes's philosophy have precedents in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or in earlier philosophers like Augustine." can be interesting, but I would say that it's a little bit too specific for the lead. I will follow your advice to 'edit boldly', and if someone disagrees I will come back here. Thanks again. Chiliagon (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I just cut it back more. We strive to make at least the lead of articles accessible to middle schoolers.

Incidentally, as I notice you're new here, WP:BOLD is a guideline and WP:BRD is a normal editing procedure for regular editors.

If you ever have any issues translating academic knowledge to WP, please do tag me if I might be of assistance. Many of the institutional norms are frustratingly different from those of higher ed. Nevertheless, the encyclopedia needs folks who know and care about the history of stuff like geometry.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Was Descartes left-handed? Google search seems to think he was. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)