How do I into Descartes? Is Discourse on Method a good intro?

dickart

>>8659309
Discourse on method. You nailed it

>>8659309
your seventh-grade science class!

seriously you only need read him in the flesh if you are deep into the history/historiography of science and philosophy

>>8659309
Sure. But Descartes is a fucking idiot and a YouTube explanation would more than suffice. Don't waste your time, there genuinely isn't a worse big philosopher in history. Not only that, but he's pretty much to blame for all this crap on being 'reasonable' with Enlightenment philosophy and the horrid era in general. Or at least, for reinforcing it.

start with the Greeks

>>8659329
what did he mean by this?

>>8659309
my philosophy 1000 had meditations/discourse on method. watch some lectures on yt, friend.

>>8659309
Yes, the Discourse was in fact meant by Descartes to act as a sort of introduction to his philosophical program. The best editions are the Focus Philosophical Library edition translated by Richard Kennington, and the Hackett edition that pairs it with the Geometry, Meteorology, and Optics. The former edition is a careful translation with a very helpful and eye-opening interpretive essay that shows how subtle the Discourse is, and the latter is actually the original form that the Discourse belonged to, having been set as the first work in a collection of studies by Descartes that the Discourse was in part to act as the justification of.

File: aristotle-17[1].jpg (100KB, 750x625px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 750x625px

>>8659309
>Wants to get into Descartes and consequently Cartesian Dualism
Careful anon, there are many problems with his system of metaphysics which one should have trepidations about. You should at least have a grasp of Aristotelian - Scholastic accounts of metaphysics before Descartes and the Duelists.

>>8663683
>there are many problems with his system of metaphysics
such as?

>>8665062
Pretty much all of dualism

>>8659329
calling the papa of modern philosophy a turd: only on /lit/