Philosophy of Science 62 (1):150-160 (1995)

Athanassios Raftopoulos
University of Cyprus
In a recent article G. Hatfield claims that Descartes for a certain time thought a purely a priori science to be possible. Hatfield's evidence consists of his reading of the Cartesian method in the Regulae and of a letter to Mersenne, written in May 1632. I argue that Hatfield misinterprets the Cartesian method and Descartes' claim in the letter to Mersenne. I first show that the latter does not argue for an a priori science. Then, I show that the method of the Regulae is not a priori. Finally, I propose a reading of Descartes' letter
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289845
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,676
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Cartesian Analysis and Synthesis.Athanassios Raftopoulos - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (2):265-308.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
423 ( #15,945 of 2,386,589 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #367,415 of 2,386,589 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes