From Science to Subjectivity: An Interpretation of Descartes' "Meditations" (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 615 answer Ursus's skeptical arguments and sketch a realistic view according to which astronomical theorizing involves more than the mere prediction of celestial positions; it involves physical and metaphysical considerations because it aims at the true description and representation of physical reality. In the second, historical part Kepler examines the works of the relevant authors to show the untenability of Ursus's anticipation claim, and in the process he sketches an account of the development of astronomy in terms of progress toward the realistic aims he advocates. Jardine provides an edition of the Latin text of the Apologia, an English translation, a detailed account of how it came to be written, a summary of its content, an analysis of its epistemological and historiographical significance, and a brief account of its rhetorical form. Numerous informative notes add to the value of the work. It is interesting to note that, in regard to rhetorical form, Jardine points out how and why Kepler's work is a judicial oration in the style of Cicero. His epistemological analysis focuses on Kepler's antiskeptical and prorealistic stance, as well as on his redefinition of the relationship between physics and astronomy by his insistence on the relevance of physical considerations in the assessment of astronomical hypotheses. The upshot is a portrayal of Kepler as an advocate of treating astronomy as a part of natural philosophy . In his historiographical analysis, Jardine makes a convincing case for the historiographical originality of Kepler's history of astronomy. Jardine's work displays impressive erudition in the handling of primary and secondary literature, superior sensitivity in the interpretation of the texts, and considerable sophistication in his epistemological analysis. I should have liked to see, in the discussion of the historical background to Kepler, some awareness of William A. Wallace's account of the history of the notion of hypothesis, as well as a sharper distinction among physics, metaphysics, and epistemology in the discussion of Kepler's philosophy of astronomy. But these are minor flaws, which do not diminish the great value of Jardine's multifaceted work. Finally, it should be noted that the a988 paperback edition being reviewed here contains corrections of errata in the 1984 original. This greater accessibility is welcome, and necessary if Kepler's Apologia is to gain the popularity it deserves. MAURICE A. FINOCCHIARO University of Nevada, Las Vegas Walter Softer. From Science to Subjectivity: An Interpretation of Descartes' "Meditations." Contributions in Philosophy, No. 33. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987. Pp. xv + 183. $35.oo. Softer argues that "Descartes' theological metaphysics is insincere since God's benevolence , the core of the Cartesian theodicy, cannot be demonstrated so long as His will is unintelligible to human reason" (xiv). He concludes that "Descartes' resolution of the problem of embodiment tends toward epiphenomenalism rather than substantial dualism " (xv). To do this he shows that "the metaphysical roots of the tree of philosophy are replaced by method, thereby resolving the issue of the priority of physics or metaphys- 616 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 28:4 OCTOBER 199o ics in favor of physics" (18). Thus, "Cartesian doubt is a method for the overcoming of theoretical prejudices in the interest of establishing solid foundations for the sciences" (25). An omnipotent deceiver must be avoided because his deception could lead to "the suspension of the law of contradiction and thereby the cessation of rational inquiry" (54). Descartes is ambiguous about the demon and doubt because he wants both to establish and to conceal from Jesuits "the independence of reason from theology" (54) in his philosophy. For Softer, "God is simultaneously the gravest threat to, as well as the most secure guarantor of, the truths of reason. If God is evil, reason is untrustworthy; if God is good, reason can be trusted" (8 t). The problem is that "divine omnipotence does not guarantee divine beneficence" (82). The crux of Soffer's argument is that although "Frankfurt resorts to God's inscrutability to separate certain from absolute truth ... because divine inscrutability fails to vindicate God from possible malevolence... Descartes ' position is that reason renders faith superfluous and that unassisted human reason is able to grasp absolute truth" (86). Harking to Descartes...