The relationship is complicated. Let us take four points.
First. both were path-breaking mathematicians. Descartes’ invention of analytic geometry made possible, a generation later, Newton’s (and Leibniz') development of calculus.
Second, they had very different ideas about matter and how different chunks of matter interact. Descartes wanted to get rid of the idea of “occult” causes and effects, or what some call teleology. To speak very roughly, mechanistic explanations involve pushing and teleological ones involve pulling.
For Descartes, everything that happens in the material world had to be explained by things pushing each other around. There could be no “action at a distance,” no pull, just as things didn't happen because inanimate objects (or non-human animals!) wanted them to happen. So the Cartesians of the following generation argued against Newton’s law of gravity — in their eyes Newton was trying to bring back those occult causes, pulling at each other across vast distances!
Third, closely related, Descartes offered his own theory for why some objects orbit around other objects. He called this the theory of “vortices”. the idea is that there is no vacuum. Matter is everywhere. This in turn allows us to believe that (invisible) things are pushing each other around everywhere, even when we only see the moon orbiting the earth, we must infer that it is being pushed by invisible stuff in vortices. Think of the earth as the drain in a bathtub. If you could not see the water circling the drain you would not know why the rubber duckie was moving in a circle around the drain. But Descartes would help you figure it out!
As to the second and third points above, Descartes goes down in history as the cause of resistance to the later work of Newton. But it is important to make a final point here. Descartes seemed to have thought of space in “absolutist” terms that are very akin to those which Newton later adopted. This was in opposition to the “relational” view of space adopted by Leibniz, which in some ways prefigured 20th century relativity. So in how they thought about space, Descartes and Newton can be considered on the same side. The one we generally consider the wrong side.
Mathematicians who are/were scientists are interesting. But their duality is, to put it simply, natural, IMHO. On another view (mine), mathematicians who are/were interested in philosophy are fascinating---to me. Why? Well, there seems little obvious concurrence. Philosophy, per se, is not about cold, hard, numerical relationships. Logic, yes. Reason, yes. Ethics and morality? Probably, although those human successes or failings are more in the province of religion and theology, which live right next door to their philosophic neighbor, especially in academia. Thinkers like Rene and Sir Isaac looked for connections, making their quest more fully rounded.
ReplyDeleteIT is all connected, somehow. What is IT? That is the right question. I like fascination. THAT is one of the deeper pleasures of life.