In this paper, I would like to present the methodological views of two representatives of the early modern Cartesian school: Jacques Rohault and Pierre-Sylvain Régis. Firstly, I want to present the methodological objections of Cartesians to Aristotelian and Scholastic natural philosophy. Then, I want to show how Cartesians strived for a combination of empirical and speculative procedures in their explanations of natural processes. Lastly, I would like to explain the reasons and forms of the hypothetical methodology which was significant for Cartesian natural philosophy. My aim is to refute the idea of the methodological naivety of Cartesians and point out the importance of hypothetical reasoning in the genesis of modern science. and V tomto článku chci představit metodologické názory dvou představitelů novověké karteziánské školy: Jacquese Rohaulta a Pierre-Sylvaina Régise. Předně chci představit metodologické námitky karteziánů proti aristotelské a scholastické filosofii. Dále chci ukázat, jak karteziáni usilovali o kombinaci empirických a spekulativních postupů v jejich vysvětleních přírodních procesů. A nakonec chci vysvětlit důvody a formy hypotetické metodologie, která byla příznačná pro karteziánskou přírodní filosofii. Mým cílem je vyvrátit myšlenku metodologické naivity karteziánů a zdůraznit úlohu hypotetického uvažování při utváření moderní vědy.
This paper examines the theological background of Newton's scientific research. The article begins with the brief survey of the mechanical philosophy of the 17th century: This type of philosophing is often viewed as a deism but the survey of the works of the mechanical philosophers shows that they maintain quite different position. Mechanicists think that the world needs for its next duration the continual influence of the conserving God's power. Newton picks up the threads of the mechanicism and thinks as well that the world is always dependent on the conserving power of God. Newton is convinced that the image of the world as a great machine going on without the assistance of a "clockmaker" exludes providence and God's government out of the world and therefore leads to materialism and atheism. At the same time Newton is worried about the possibility of the materialistic, atheistic or deistic interpretations of his scientific theories (e.g. the conception of absolute space, theory of the gravity) and so he adds to his scientific works some passages in which he strongly stresses God's omnipresence and the continual maintenance of the world by the power of God. Originally strictly mathematical theories are in this way connected with theology, e.g. the gravity Newton regards as a continual miracle. The tradition of the Enlightenment considers Newton to be a purely scientific mind deprived of religious prejucides. Such an opinion is obviously mistaken – religion and theology play an important part not only in Newton's private life but also in his scientific works. This fact shows that history of the European science and philosophy is not sufficiently simple for making onesided judgments.
Článek představuje renesanční pohled na původ vědění. Renesanční doba totiž oživila starou představu pocházející z antiky, že pravda byla zjevena na počátku lidských dějin bohem či bohy. Tato idea dávné moudrosti (prisca sap.) přetrvávala během středověku, ale novou brizanci získala po koncilu ve Ferraře a Florencii. Tam se totiž objevil byzantský filosof Pléthón, který se domníval, že nejstarším mudrcem byl Zoroaster. Další genealogie mudrců najdeme u největších představitelů renesančního platonismu – M. Ficina a Pica della Mirandola. Ficino preferoval nejdříve posloupnost, v níž byl prvním Hermés, pak se přiklonil k variantě, kde byl první Zoroaster. Podobné úvahy se objevují i u Pica a dalších autorů. Vždy jde ale o to, že současný stav společnosti a vědění je špatný a pro pravou pravdu je nutné obrátit se do dávné minulosti lidského rodu. and The article present the Renaissance concept of the origins of knowledge. Usually the Renaissance is presented as an effort to revive the legacy of ancient Greece and Rome. The Renaissance philosophers and writers, however, believed that true wisdom had been born in Orient before rise of the Greek civilization. The authors of Renaissance period revived an old conception stemming from late antiquity that truth had been revealed at the dawn of human history by God or gods to first human sages and legislators. This idea of ancient wisdom (prisca sapientia) had survived during the Middle Ages but it got new attractibility after the council of Ferrara and Florence. The council was visited by the famous Byzantine philosopher Plethon who argued that the oldest sage had been Zoroaster. Subsequent further genealogies of wisdom were presented by the representatives of Renaissance platonism – M. Ficino, P. della Mirandola. Ficino firstly preferred genealogy beginning with Hermes, later he inclined to think that the first sage had been Zoroaster. Similiar ideas can be found in Mirandola's works and other authors. The background for such a kind of genealogies was always formed by conviction that the present state of both society and knowledge has been corrupted. For the true knowledge and for better rules of government it is necessary to turn back in the ancient past of humankind.
Moderní evropská kultura o sobě ráda prohlašuje, že se na svou nynější intelektuální, kulturní a vědeckotechnickou úroveň dostala díky tomu, že se osvobodila od předsudků a iluzí. Jednou z nejčastěji zmiňovaných iluzí se stal geocentrismus vykládaný obvykle jako projev naivní touhy člověka postavit se do středu vesmíru. V této studii ukazuji, že geocentrismus se v antice, středověku ani renesanci nepojil s představou lidské výlučnosti v kosmu. Z kosmologického hlediska byla Země kloaka světa a z teologického hlediska byla Země působištěm ďáblovým. Teprve Koperníkova reforma astronomie rozbila dosavadní distribuci dignity v kosmu a přinesla odlišné zhodnocení Země a středu světa. A geocentrismus začal být napadán právě jako projev naivního a infantilního antropocentrismu, který v nekonečném vesmíru obydleném miliony inteligentních bytostí, nemá smysl. and The modern European culture likes to declare itself as having come to its contemporary intellectual, cultural and scientific level owing to the fact that it had freed itself from prejudices and illusions. One of the most often mentioned illusions became geocentrism interpreted usually as a manifestation of the naive human desire to place man in the centre of the universe. In this paper, I want to show that neither in antiquity nor in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, geocentrism was connected with the idea of human exclusiveness in the universe. From the cosmological point of view, the Earth was the gutter of the world and from the theological one it was the devil's place of work. Only the Copernican reform of astronomy broke existing distribution of dignity in the cosmos and it brought different evaluation of the Earth and the centre of the world. And geocentrism started to be attacked as an expression of the naive and infantile anthropocentrism which had no sense in the infinite universe inhabitated by millions of the intelligent beings.