|
|
|
Some
opinions of philosophers/scholars of philosophy: |
|
“But of the vigor of your intellect I have a
still stronger proof, and one peculiar to myself, in that I have never yet
met any one who understood so generally and so well as yourself all that is
contained in my writings. For there are several, even among men of the
highest intellect and learning, who find them very obscure. And I remark, in
almost all those who are versant in Metaphysics, that they are wholly
disinclined from Geometry; and, on the other hand, that the cultivators of
Geometry have no ability for the investigations of the First Philosophy:
insomuch that I can say with truth I know but one mind, and that is your own,
to which both studies are alike congenial, and which I therefore, with
propriety, designate incomparable. But what most of all enhances my
admiration is, that so accurate and varied an acquaintance with the whole
circle of the sciences is not found in some aged doctor who has employed many
years in contemplation, but in a Princess still young, and whose countenance
and years would more fitly represent one of the Graces than a Muse or the
sage Minerva.” (From his dedication to Princess Elizabeth in The Principles of Philosophy) |
|
author of Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period (taken from her
book): “Elisabeth’s reputation as a philosopher rests
on her correspondence with René Descartes, whom she met at her parents’ court
while she was still a young woman living in Holland. It is worth noting that in the seventeenth
century, the exchange of letters was an important way in which the
philosophic community exchanged and advanced ideas…In her letters to
Descartes, we do not find Elisabeth putting forward a fully developed
philosophical position, but, instead, she comments critically on the works of
Descartes and others she had been reading.” [p.10] |
|
Professor of Philosophy, Macalester College (Cartesian
Scholar): “I am not an authority on Elizabeth, but I certainly think she was a philosopher in the sense that she was very interested in, and thought hard about, philosophical problems all her life. She was not a philosopher in the sense of composing books or making a profession of philosophy (the latter would have been nearly impossible given her sex and station, as she herself says). Nor were her ideas as original, in my opinion, as some of the other women philosophers…even in the same period. (Originality is not a necessary condition for being a philosopher -- otherwise the American Philosophical Association has very few members who are philosophers) But she had remarkable critical/analytical skills, as evidenced in the famous exchange of letters about mind-body interaction. Also noteworthy about her philosophy is that she tended to consider philosophical questions as they related to her 'lived life'. I think, for example, that her concerns about mind-body interaction and Descartes’ austere form of dualism arose in part from her personal observation of the intimate affect of body states (fatigue, nutrition, medicines) upon mental states (mood, mental alertness, etc.), and vice-versa. Other issues that concerned her were the nature of human happiness, political philosophy and philosophy of religion.”
|
Mary Ellen Waithe, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy and of Women's Studies, Cleveland State University: “The answer to [the] question turns on what criteria we use to decide who deserves to be called a philosopher. The criteria can be quite liberal, e.g., anyone who evidences abstract thought; or, can be quite conservative, e.g., Philosophy Ph.D.s who are employed professionally teaching philosophy and who have published works considered by the profession to be of that genre. But neither of these criteria are satisfactory because under the liberal criterion almost everyone turns out to be a philosopher and so the term becomes vague and meaningless. Under the conservative criterion, great philosophers like John Locke who never taught philosophy, wouldn't qualify as a philosopher.It is my belief that the term should be defined in historical context: what was a person doing at the time they lived considered then (or during earlier or later historical periods) to be the work of a philosopher? If we use this criterion, then, yes, Elizabeth of Bohemia was a philosopher, even though it might not have been her principal occupation. Clearly, she contributed clarity and insight on the nature of the human rational soul. But is she a major philosopher? No. Why? I'd think that the major/minor distinction has to do with the scope, quantity and quality of her philosophical work. It is not very broad in scope, and not much in quantity of written pages. The quality, however, was good, even though many of her contemporaries who were philosophers may have written better quality work.”
|
|
Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University: Elisabeth of
Bohemia asked most difficult philosophical questions of the philosopher René
Descartes, author of Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations on
First Philosophy (1641). The questions Elizabeth asked—what is the
relation between mind and body? How can mind move or affect body? How can one
achieve rational autonomy while being subject to emotion or passion?—are
questions not only Descartes attempted to answer but which current
philosophers like Alison Jaggar are still occupied in answering. Susanne K.
Langer has said that philosophy begins with questions and new philosophy with
new questions. For Descartes,
Elizabeth’s questions began “new” philosophy in light of his own
groundbreaking work. Elisabeth
wrote the first letter (1643) that began the correspondence with Descartes
when both were living for a time in Holland. The correspondence ended
essentially with his completion of his last book, On the Passions (1649)
dedicated to her. In a sense, through the correspondence, the younger
Elisabeth was a teacher of philosophy, pushing the older Descartes to think
harder, objecting to some answers and encouraging others. As Hannah
Arendt believed, thinking begins after an experience of truth. These letters persuaded with Elizabeth’s
“experiences of truth.” And truths
were what Elisabeth was attempting to find in the dialogue through letters
from one philosopher to another. While many worries and responsibilities of her life as Princess and member of a royal family prevented Elisabeth from devoting her life to the pursuit of philosophy in the way that Descartes was free to do, I believe, she proved that she was indeed a philosopher through her active role in affecting the understanding of philosophical issues in her correspondence with Descartes. Unfortunately Descartes died in 1650 at the palace of Queen Kristina of Sweden, ending any further possibilities of his continuing philosophical dialogue with Elizabeth of Bohemia and of her finding another like mind with which to probe philosophical questions. |
Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Professor of Philosophy at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, author of Rediscovering Women Philosophers: Was she a philosopher? My
approach is not so much arguing the “why?” as answering the “why not?” Andrea
Nye’s account of Elisabeth brings out two important elements to counting her
as a philosopher: the differences in her thought from Descartes, and the fact
that (in collaboration with Descartes) she reflected philosophically over a
period of time. Thus – if one focuses
purely on the philosophical content of Elisabeth’s letters – there seem good
reasons to count her as a philosopher. However,
other commentators have stressed (1) that Elisabeth does not offer a fully
formed philosophical position, (2) that her comments function mainly as
productive criticism of Descartes’ views, (3) that her letters are a mixture
of the personal and the philosophical, and (4) that she did not want her
letters made public/published. If
these doubts can be (at least partly) answered, then I see no reason not to claim that Elisabeth is a
philosopher. Doubts (3)
and (4) are the easiest to answer. Certainly for women – and even to an
extent for men – of Elisabeth’s social rank, doing philosophy “officially”
would have conflicted with the duties and status of that particular rank. A
continuing correspondence with a philosopher would have been one thing, but
officially engaging in philosophy would have been quite another. But what
about the philosophical components of her letters? Doubts (1) and (2) are a
little more difficult. Wherever one locates Descartes within the history of philosophy,
it is certain that the literary forms of medieval philosophy are echoed in
the work of Descartes (e.g. his Meditations)
and also for other thinkers (e.g. Leibniz). If we were to see Elisabeth in the philosophical parts of her
letters as echoing the disputation form (or perhaps a dialogue), then this
would constitute at least the beginnings of an answer to the first two
doubts. Simply put, Elisabeth’s questioning and commenting would have been a
legitimate way of doing philosophy… |
Joy Laine, Professor of Philosophy, Macalester College: “In my opinion Princess Elizabeth was a philosopher. She engaged in extensive discussion with Descartes and we have her letters as a testimony to her philosophical thinking. She presented Descartes with an incisive critique of his dualism and really forced him to ponder on its coherence. I'm not an expert but I believe that this led him to reconsider his earlier philosophical dualism. I think she also had a clear sense of her position in relation to Cartesian dualism and the demands of the Cartesian project. She understood that the Cartesian method was incompatible with living an ordinary life. This to me hints at a feminist critique of the dualism between reason and emotion that we see in Cartesian thought (See Genevieve Lloyd The Man of reason p.49) and shows a self-awareness about her position in relation to the philosophical tradition.”
|
|
Initially,
I felt Princess Elizabeth was not a philosopher. I had read some of her letters, especially the
ones pertaining to the problem of mind/body dualism. It seemed to me that she merely questioned
Descartes’ theories and pointed out the holes in them. But as I started designing this website and
reading commentaries and other letters she had written, I started to change
my mind. I saw a distinct philosophy
that was clearly delineated from Descartes.
The objections she put to his theories led to a clear formulation of
her own. All her opinions are
suggestions simply so as not to offend Descartes. There are certain parts that really strike
me, especially in their debates concerning the deterministic view of the
world. In Elizabeth’s letters, she
clearly makes a case for her own view, and refuses to listen to Descartes. She was also extensively schooled, and
well-versed in many philosophical texts, so it was not like she had picked
her views out of the dark. She
presented a well-thought, well-formulated case to Descartes, and at some
points, he accepted it, and added it to his own. I believe she was a philosopher. |
|
Do you
think she was a philosopher? Or was
she merely a questioner/critic of Descartes?
Do you think she had a separate, distinct philosophy from Descartes? Let me know! Perhaps you will see your opinion on this
website! Send me an
email with your opinion, along with the reasons why your opinion is the way
it is. Send it to
either: debater332@go.com or adupay@macalester.edu. I thank
you for your input and comments! |
