Table Of ContentSTUIIIES IN THE HISTORY Rent! Descartes REGULE AD
OF IDEAS IN THE LOW COUNTRIES
DIRECTIONEM INGENII
SERIES EDITORS i RULES FOR THE DIRECTION
Ham W. Ulom, Hcnri Krop, Sirp Stuuriii.in
and Wijnand W. Mijiihardt O F THE NATURAL
INTELLIGENCE
A bilingual edition of the Cartesian
treatise on method
4
I
I
Amsterdam-Atlanta,CA I 098 Edited and translated by George Heffcrnan
Mriner hrbeti tmu.
Kim Young-Her.
in Verrhrurig unci D~irikl~rkegietw idnirt:
ClP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG
RcnC Dcscartm: Replz ad directionem ingenii -Rules for the direction of thc natural intclligcncc.
A bilirihwal edition ofthc Cartesian treatise oii method / Edited arid translated by George Heffcrnan
Arn~terdam-Atlanta:K odopi.- (Studirs in thc history of idcar in thc Low Countries,
IsqN o927-5oXR ; nr. 3)
ISBN9 0-420-0138-0( pb)
IS~N90 -420-01 34-8 @IC)
0 Gcorgc Heffernan, 1y9X
Coverdesign: Bureau Piet Cerards bno, Heerlen
CONTENTS
IX
PREFACE
2IX
219
INTHODCCTION
A CONTEXTUALIZATTON OF THE TEXT
- Lrihiiiz -
Ilescarter' philosophy tend to get the iiiiprersion that he is almost exclueively interested hls defenee ofCopel.iiic'iriisiii. hic avxeness of the C;IW of Galilco. and hie concoinitant
in Irirtaphysical questions such as the exictence of God and the real dictinction henvee~l fur of inquisitorial c.oiideiiiii~ition."F inally - .inn here crucinlly -, the rccoiiri part of the
the human soul and the body - eve11 though, the better one knoXv5 this work. the Di.xiwr>cr epurtf on \oiiieo fthe work 011 the 'Iii&htlorls 1iitthodo1ogique.r't hx ~oiild
more one can appreciate that this too is a highly wlective intrrpretation of it. Mort.- rurvive in thc hrln ufa treatise on method now known as the Repla, while the fourth
over, as Or n~t:h e Disiottrsr is concerned, ttir hardest thing to do ~vhilrr eading it is to part report5 oii romr ofthe labor on the 'tiiiditxions mitaphysiques' that xvould endure
keep telling oneself, again and again arid again, th'it it really IC mainly aid mostly about in thr form of.) tre,itisc on met~iphycicrII OM' crlebratrd as thr ,Wfyfifn/io~is.'i
niethod - the irony beiiig th3t it is actually the Rqyrrln, u hich constitute 1)recartcs' Therefore the Disioiirsr virtually disqualifirc itself from being the definitivr accoiint
authentic treatise on rnethod. of the method of Dcmrte5 by pointing straight tu ailother major work as the niethod-
A\ a nintter of fact. to look for rlic Cnrrcsrnii rticrluid iiiainly atid mostly iii 'thc pnnci- ologcal treatire on which he hJd been working in 101 9a nd in the follon~ingy earr I'
pal riiles of the method' that arc proposed in tlie Dismirrsc OJI //I And this niagniim opus cm be none other than the Ru/c.i.tiv rhc Dircrtiori {frllc hhird
tally niisguidcd entcrpriw.' For 1)cscartes' oivn contempor hifr//@vt~-rS.t ill. thi\ iq not yet 10 c.iy snything about the cubstantial overlapping and
unaiiibiguously rndicateq that the IIIscmirw u;as hardly intended to represent an rsIi;iiis- underlappins hrrwren die riilec of tlir Dismiirrr .ind those of the Rrprkr..
tive - or eveii a systematic - presentation of lii, riiethod.' 011t he ronrrar>-,a i-c.pe.atcdly For philosophic.il purposes. then, the present edition IS very easy to justify: If' one
reciirniig mesrage of the letters is that the purpose of the Ilimctrsc oti riic .L[cr/rod i\ to \vantc to undcrst'inJ lleccarter, theti one must undc.r$tand the carly Ilcscartes; if ant'
reveal just enough of the method to render the Essnys i$t/rc //icy/a ccesslblr." 117 other wants to undrrst;ind the early Dercnrter. then one iiiuqt understand the Rqii/fi,; and, if
words. it had simply never brei1 thc niain aim of the Disroitrsc OII rlrc .lfc/lrad to explain one icints to iiiider\tmd the Rqvih. theti one must uiidrrstaind a philorophicd edition
dequately the niethud per se.' thrrcof.
After all, the Ilisc.twrsr has the narrative character of a linked seriec of reportr on re-
search i h i ~r.e cearch being done, arid research to be done. But, of the research done,
only wnie \vas being published, whereas soiiie was not, and some could not be. For, on
thr one hand, the Diclpfrt~st,h e A!~fc~orci!(i,qy,a nd the CAoiiirrry arc' cxamplcs of rcscarch
'
that 1)eccnrtes war publicl~irig( 1637),a nd Iir wrote tlir Disnirtrw a5 'n prefke' to ac- No\v, although the devil d\r.ells in the details, the early intrllrctual developinenr - that
coiiqiatiy them. to explain mmc aspects of their methodohby, and to hcihtate their .IC- is. from io18 to 1629- of Ikscartcs (1596-16jo)m al- be divided, proceeding carrfdly
crptance. Aid, on the other hand. Tlw llJor/d, on which r)ercarte\ had worked from from. inter alia, the autobiographical remarks in the Ilitriiiirir 1111 flip Afer/wd. into three
1630 to 1632. which he had abmdoiied in 1633, and on which he reports in the fifth part definite phases.'' For, whilr this account IS adiiiittedly sketchy, it is also remarkably
of the Diimirrc., was not being publiched because it was decnied utipubli\hablr - due to a c curnt e.
Tf, c p , the rrirrrticr in D.\/. pxt 2. to 'a trratrse rh.it certain considcr~~t~purncsv cnied [Drc-
c:irtesj iron1 p~~bli~h(~AnTg, '\ :I, 41 wrll a\ VI. T I. p x w i( AT,V I. 60 K).S oinc key letters (IF
Ihc,irte\ OK the c.1~(if the lnquie i VY. C;.ililei) we: To Merseliiie, Nov. (end). 16jj (AT, I.
270-27?). Frh. (ihd.. pp. ~XI--~HI). Apr. (!bid.. pp. ?S5-SK), and Aug. 14, 1634 (]bid.. pp. 303-
306).
Here I wrh :o corr~.tin error 011 p. I 19o fiiiy editiori ofthe Dimrmr. Far there I reldte the refer-
e~iccto the 'iiiC.ditdtionc ... ul&tnphy\iques' (AT, VI. 3 I) dt t!ie heqnnuig ofpart IV of the Dimrtnr
directly back tu the reflections on logic. on niathciiimcc. arid nn method on which I')esrnrrrs
rrportq hoth in all dpnrt II and at tlie end of part Ill - aid which wrre prrfornlrd in 1611)a nd 111
the follouin~ye arr. But, .is 1 mydf lntcr point out inure tlim oiice (p. 128,f n. 8.1. .Ird p. 164, iri.
305). thc 'nictaphyiical medit.itionr' ofp art IV of the Disnrimr d.lte. iior froin 1619,b ut froin 1629.
Thir point IS plainly rclev~iitt o thr, rctriev.11 ofthc place of rhc Rrprlrt. in Descartes' drvrloptiirnt <is
rkcrched 111 the .iurcrbiogrdphiral rc~~~aorfk th\e Dbrdiirw. Of wh~chse e nmre helow.
In fact. by publication tiiiir Descartes tliouglit of himrclf JS tidving worked for 'twenty ycarc' on the
iiirthodologc.il iwies of the Di,rorrn.c, ~ nodf t he Csays. Cf DAI. VI. IO (AT. VI. i6). and Lertrr
tu Mcrsciine. Jun. '9. 1638 (AT, 11. IOI-iw).
Of cowre. tliis doc, not include his collcge and univcrstt). ducation nt La Flkhe .ind at Poiticrs.
rerprcti~ely.a highly sclectivc accuunt uiwhicli I\ giveii in the first part of the Ducot~rsc.
Stephen Gnukroqr say5 that 'the Disroiirs IS not esprcdly reliable as an account of the prerirr detail5
ofllrscnrtrs' dt.crlopiiicnt'. See Dcrmnrs: .4t1 Lirt~l/ciriin/B irrpl~liy(O xford, ~yyj),p . ro6. That ri~ay-
be, but the nuiiicro~rit~d t~tiicnat~bo ut &ite.t - e.g., III p3rt II. $% I and 13,I ll. frys IV. I ff... and VI,
i and R. ctc. - do clirck Out. In other words, the problrm 15 not rdiabdiq, but generallq.
HISIOKY: 'I Ht 'KECU1.6' IN UtSCA117 tS' FAKLY YEAR\ II
recognize\ th.it rich and every one of them has Foiiicthing cpecial about it that \vould
allow Ilescartrc tn describe it JS uniquely 'ertabl~shed, ~eridical.a nd natural'. For
example, Rule I. concerning the foniiation ofsolid and true judgments a5 the direction
in which the natural intelligence liar to move, ic 'not without merit' selccccd .it thr firct
ofall.""K ulc 2, concerning the role of certainty aiid that ofprobability in thc se,irch for
knowledge, d~spl;iyca remarkable rrrenihlarice to wh~ItS prrsenred of the discutrion ar
the Chandoux C:oiifererice." Rule 3. coriceriiing evident intuition and certain deduc-
tion as the only niodes of inference in thc acquisition of knowledge, cont~insa n initial
intimation of evidence as the key to kno\vledge.'" Kulr j, concerning thc necestity of
method for the in\~stigationo f the truth of things, defines method in ternis of rules
and thus I113y be chuacterized as that rule which pre,cribes that the strictect nile ofall it
that rules are indispensable in the search for the truth."" I<ulc 5. concerning both (I)
analysk or rcwlutioii or regression froni coriiplicated dnd obscure propositions to uini-
plr arid clear ones aiid (3) synthesis or coinpositiou or progression froni riniple And
clear propositions to coinplex and clear oms. begin, with the stateiiierit that 'the ithole
iiic.tliod [i)l/iisfs iri the order and arrarigemerit of the things on which the vrsiori of the
mind hiis to he focused'.'" I<ulr fi. concerning the distinction het\r:een the s~rnplest
things and thc coiiiplicated oncs aiid the identification of the former, asserts that 'there
IS no iiiore useful propositioii 111 this entire tre'itise'.'l Aiiiong the rules of the Kqpln..
then, onr enjoys considerable latitude in choovng 01ie that could qualify as Descartes'
'first and forenlost' rule of the time.
Yet d sensible ;iltertiative might be to take thr hint when Descartes spek of '[hi<]
tine nile oi natural niethod'.'' Indeed. although in the context of the Ch.1tidoux Con-
ference Drscartrs does talk about '[his] pnr~ipes'i n the plural," he does not spedk of
'I&&' in the same number. Thus, while there are multiple 'principles', there iq but
one 'rule' or 'method', which would, then, be unique." Now. whatever rule or
method IS at stake here, the rule seems to be in some sense a method and the method
seems to be in wine sense a rule. In fact. when Ilescartes LISKS the term 'rPgle' in this
context, he may alw have in niind one of the perfectly legitimate Latinate senses of the
time, nanirly, 'rule' as a - niethod(o1og)ical - 'meacuce' or 'standard'.'' In a word, he
may very well niean 'rtgle' in the smse of 'criterion' - as in 'critenon of truth', thereby
making it rrJsonable to assume that such a rule or rnethod would have had something,
'" See AT, X. 360: 'AL proindc lion ~ninicritol iaiic rcgulani priiliani oniniunl proponmu.; ... .'
"' Sre ibid.. pp. 362-366. parrim
6n See ibid., p. 366: .... ebidenter ...'.
I" See ibid., pp. 371-372 (5 I).
''I See ibid., p. 379 (emphasis added): 'To/ii,ieIfh odlrs ronsisfir iii . . .'
SKKib id., p. 381: '... nrc ulla (propositlo] utilior est in tntn hoc tractatu ...'.
''
See, once .ignin, Ie ttrr to Villebre.;eiru. Suninxr, 1631 (AT. I, 213). '... mab elle rcslc 011 Methode
naturellr . . .' (clripharu added)
" See ibid.: '... nies pnncipes ...I (emphasis added).
74 Cf.. oncr .ig.~ni.I ~aillct,l 'rr $P ,bfoiisiwr Dr.wrfPs. p. 72:' . ._c e iiio).cn sufvant ses proprer principes.
Ce riioyen n'ttalt autre que sa r+e univenellc p'i/q qduir mrrriiiciii [this enlphnis added] \a
Ai4tiiodr lieitirrt.l/r . . . .' This ?tatanent i.; especially rrrnark.1blc.
''
Cf. Kdri Frnst Gcorgec, .4lr$r/tr/ir/rur ~rri~i;~r/~-DHcar~rd~uurir~rc~rb/lrtd~l (sD arnlrtdt. 1()92).Y O]. 2,
col. 3285.
