Descartes' Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason [Bargain Price] [Hardcover]

Russell Shorto (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 14, 2008

On a brutal winter's day in 1650 in Stockholm, the Frenchman René Descartes, the most influential and controversial thinker of his time, was buried after a cold and lonely death far from home. Sixteen years later, the French Ambassador Hugues de Terlon secretly unearthed Descartes' bones and transported them to France.

Why would this devoutly Catholic official care so much about the remains of a philosopher who was hounded from country to country on charges of atheism? Why would Descartes' bones take such a strange, serpentine path over the next 350 years—a path intersecting some of the grandest events imaginable: the birth of science, the rise of democracy, the mind-body problem, the conflict between faith and reason? Their story involves people from all walks of life—Louis XIV, a Swedish casino operator, poets and playwrights, philosophers and physicists, as these people used the bones in scientific studies, stole them, sold them, revered them as relics, fought over them, passed them surreptitiously from hand to hand.

The answer lies in Descartes’ famous phrase: Cogito ergo sum—"I think, therefore I am." In his deceptively simple seventy-eight-page essay, Discourse on the Method, this small, vain, vindictive, peripatetic, ambitious Frenchman destroyed 2,000 years of received wisdom and laid the foundations of the modern world. At the root of Descartes’ “method” was skepticism: "What can I know for certain?" Like-minded thinkers around Europe passionately embraced the book--the method was applied to medicine, nature, politics, and society. The notion that one could find truth in facts that could be proved, and not in reliance on tradition and the Church's teachings, would become a turning point in human history.

In an age of faith, what Descartes was proposing seemed like heresy. Yet Descartes himself was a good Catholic, who was spurred to write his incendiary book for the most personal of reasons: He had devoted himself to medicine and the study of nature, but when his beloved daughter died at the age of five, he took his ideas deeper. To understand the natural world one needed to question everything. Thus the scientific method was created and religion overthrown. If the natural world could be understood, knowledge could be advanced, and others might not suffer as his child did.

The great controversy Descartes ignited continues to our era: where Islamic terrorists spurn the modern world and pine for a culture based on unquestioning faith; where scientists write bestsellers that passionately make the case for atheism; where others struggle to find a balance between faith and reason.
Descartes’ Bonesis a historical detective story about the creation of the modern mind, with twists and turns leading up to the present day—to the science museum in Paris where the philosopher’s skull now resides and to the church a few kilometers away where, not long ago, a philosopher-priest said a mass for his bones.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

At the center of this philosophical tale by the acclaimed author of The Island at the Center of the World is a simple mystery: Where in the world is Descartes's skull, and how did it get separated from the rest of his remains? Following the journey of the great 17th-century French thinker's bones—over six countries, across three centuries, through three burials—after his death in Stockholm in 1650, Shorto also follows the philosophical journey into modernity launched by Descartes's articulation of the mind-body problem. Shorto relates the life of the self-centered, vainglorious, vindictive Descartes and the bizarre story of his remains with infectious relish and stylistic grace, and his exploration of philosophical issues is probing. But the bones are too slender to bear the metaphorical weight of modernity that he gives them. Their sporadic appearance in the tale also makes them a shaky narrative frame for the sprawling events Shorto presents as the result of Descartes's work: the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the 19th century's scientific explosion, 21st-century battles between faith and reason. Given Shorto's splendid storytelling gifts, this is a pleasure to read, but ultimately unsatisfying. (Oct. 14)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

The earthly remains of René Descartes have been disinterred several times since his death in 1650, and with each disturbance, some of his bones vanished into the hands of venerators. The irony of the material legacy of the philosopher of reason being regarded similarly to the relics of saints is not lost on Shorto, who pairs a detective narrative with his thoughts about what the story reveals about skepticism versus belief as features of modernity. As Shorto relates, uncertainty about the authenticity of the contents of Descartes’ coffin accompanied its travels from Stockholm to Paris in 1666, culminating––when a skull purportedly that of Descartes surfaced in 1821––in an inquest conducted by the French Academy of Sciences. After describing subsequent attempts to fix the provenance of Descartes’ remains, Shorto tenders his speculation that they were lost in the turmoil of the French Revolution. Giving rein to his curiosity about the postmortem Descartes, Shorto will pull in readers who enjoy a good history mystery seasoned with philosophical thoughts. --Gilbert Taylor

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 320 pages
• Publisher: Doubleday (October 14, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 038551753X
• ASIN: B004JZWLZY
• Product Dimensions: 6.6 x 1.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (73 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #84,012 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

RUSSELL SHORTO is the bestselling author of The Island at the Center of the World and a contributing writer at the New York Times Magazine. He lives in Amsterdam.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

87 of 90 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Flawed but fascinating!, October 10, 2008

By 

Angie Boyter (Ellicott City, MD USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Descartes' Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason (Hardcover)

(What's this?)

Whether you are a " philosophile" or know Descartes only for the famous "Cogito, ergo sum", you will probably find this well-told tale of the continuing legacy of Descartes' thinking fascinating and informative. I enjoyed this book so much that I almost feel guilty not giving it a 5-star rating, but it DOES have two serious flaws. As others have pointed out, the "hook" of the title, the story of Descartes' bones over the past 350 years, is not well integrated into the rest of the book and is not a big enough "hook" on which to hang the book anyway (It might make a nice magazine article.). The second big flaw is the use of the current journalistic "cliche" in which serious topics are introduced through character sketches. Descartes' Bones opens with a vignette of Philippe Mennecier, the curator at Paris' Musee de l'Homme, a vignette which is not very interesting and makes no contribution to the topic of the book. Other modern sketches intrude at other points in the book.
The reviewer in the New York Times called this an "investigative book, one that goes off on frequent philosophical, historical and forensic tangents." I hesitate to disagree with the august Times, but I believe he has it backwards, and this may be the source of the flaws. I consider this to be primarily a wonderful history of philosophy and ideas, encompassing religion, science, and political thinking and tracing the influences of Descartes through them all for 350 years. This is a tall order and a weighty topic, and the flaws in the book may come from an attempt to "lighten it up" lest it intimidate the general reader. Personally, if I used my normal heuristic of "do I like the first page enough to go on?" I would probably have stopped reading, and that would have been a mistake. The "bones" theme and the modern tangents are only a small part of the book, and the rest is worth the investment of your time.

16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An Interesting Project, An Interesting Read, October 3, 2008

By 

Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty (Port Orford, OR United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Descartes' Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason (Hardcover)

(What's this?)

I really hate to disagree with most of the previous reviewers, but I found this book to be interesting and enlightening. I admit it is not a page-turner, but it is, after all, an "intellectual" detective story and not a thriller or novel of suspense.

I was first introduced seriously to Descartes as the subject of a graduate seminar in philosophy during my first year as a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Washington way back in the ancient year of 1961. I did not then -- nor do I do now -- consider Descartes to be a "great" philosopher, even though he is considered to be the so-called father of modern philosophy. That aside, there is no question that he raised philosophical issues of great import which still haunt us today.

This book does give the reader, in my opinion, an interesting detective story, despite the fact that he roams around a lot of intellectual history; and European geography, for that matter. For those readers, however, who have never been introduced to Descartes or the real problem he created -- the so-called body-mind problem -- this could be an adventure for them much needed.

So, I have to respectfully disagree with the other reviewers of this book who are negative toward it. I found it a good, if not excellent, read and would, without hesitation, recommend it to all general readers. Granted it is not great philosophy, maybe not even great history; but it is a fascinating tale. And I think told well.

Unfortunately, I was stuck with reading an uncorrected proof of this book. There were a number of quotes I would have cited to discuss. But such is not to be done, according to the warning clearly imprinted on the back cover of the book. So what I have said above is all to be said from my standpoint. Still, considering that restraint, I do advise potential readers not to shy away from this book. There's a lot to learn here and the ever-present battle between faith and reason, which is a continuous theme throughout the book, makes for a good read in spite of some of the shortcomings.

53 of 64 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Not enough here to support a whole book, September 25, 2008

By 

J. A Magill (Sacramento, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Descartes' Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason (Hardcover)

(What's this?)

On occasion there comes a book which examines some piece of history, a thing thought of as a footnote, and successfully demonstrates its importance. Shorto's last book, "The Island at the Center of the World" examined such a footnote, examining the fascinating, brief, and often neglected, history of the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam. With that work he offered a story that was not just entertaining, but gave considerable food for thought as one reconsiders American history. Shorto doubtless hoped to achieve the same illumination with Descartes' Bones, following the mystery of the disappearance of the Philosopher's remains as a vehicle for considering his central place in the development of modernity. Where "Island" sought to explore the under appreciated early history of a city which played a generally agreed upon crucial role in world history, in "Descartes' Bones" Shorto wants to take a person to whom most people have likely given little thought and make him the intellectual fulcrum of the Enlightenment.

If that sounds like a big task to you, you would be right. Worse still, Shorto not only does not succeed in accomplishing his goal, but cuts several intellectual corners to make a round peg of an idea fit into a square hole of a book.

In the first place, even used as a metaphor as Shorto wishes to, Descartes' remains and their whereabouts is just not that interesting a topic. A long essay in the Atlantic perhaps, but a better than 200 page book? In the second place, Shorto's claims regarding Descartes do not stand up to scrutiny to anyone familiar with his topic. One senses that even the author knows this as he often gives only the briefest attention to those important aspects of Cartesian philosophy which under cut his thesis.

For those who forget Philosophy 101, Descartes famously claimed he wanted to construct his understanding of the world based on nothing more than things of which he could be logically sure. To this end, he began with the question of how he could even be sure he existed, concluding he must with the famous phrase "Cogito ergo sum," or "I think therefore I am." In so much as this idea of building understanding on logic, Descartes served an important purpose in that he broke with the Aristotelian dogma of his day.

Unfortunately, contrary to Shorto's claims, in so doing Descartes not starting a movement, but joining one. At the time of Descartes birth Galilleo was in his thirties. Descarte aided this movement by giving birth to the "rationalist" school, but his efforts suffered from substantial limitations, indeed, Shorto works mightily to hide these shortcomings.

Back for a moment to philosophy 101. The problem with Descartes idea of I think therefore I am is that it leaves the "thinker" as a disembodied mind. Of course that would be quite boring, so the philosopher needs to find a bridge out. To this end, he leans on an ontological argument for the existence of god to "prove" that he can trust his senses. Here again, Shorto gives short shrift to a crucial segment of Descartes thought; while the author does wish to explore the fact that Descartes thought of himself as a very religious Catholic - particularly as it relates to the disputes between moderate and "radical" Cartesians - he does not want to focus on how that belief works as a central pillar of Descartes' work.

Shorto also seeks to put Descartes at the foundation of all later philosophers and therefore lay at the Frenchman's feet credit for what they built. Unfortunately history and those other thinkers own writing, gets very much in the way. Many found Descartes philosophy hollow - which one can understand, since it basically required a "cheat" to escape being disembodied mind - and thus another philosophical school was born. This school - empiricism - far from seeing themselves as part of a Cartesian revolution saw themselves in opposition to it. These thinkers, first Locke, but later and more significantly Hume, are far more the fathers of modern ideas of personhood, property, and ethics than Descartes. Indeed, when Immanuel Kant said that "Hume had "woke him from his dogmatic slumber" Cartesian thought was the dogma to which he referred.

Time and again Shorto papers over this great intellectual conflict. Thus he offers the American revolution vs. its French counterpart as a conflict between moderate and radical Cartesians. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers, devoted as they were to the Empiricist school of Locke and practical politics, would have found the notion absurd.

Cartesian philosophy, existing as it does almost entirely as a function of the mind, had a powerful impact on abstract mathematics. However, Descartes' thought was not, as Shorto wants to argue, the basis for experimental science - doubting the veracity of one's senses makes gathering data difficult - here again, Hume plays the central role.

One can quibble with other aspects of Shorto's work, such as his tendency to turn all those who opposed his protagonist into villains described in Perils of Pauline fashion, with epitets such as "rat faced," but that is to quibble. For the most part, he writes very well. No, in this case his problem lies in the short comings of his topic, a deficiency one cannot easily overcome.