Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
GASSENDI (GASSEND), PIERRE (b. Champtercier,
France, 22 January 1592; d. Paris, France, 24 October
1655), philosophy, astronomy, scholarship.
In this undertaking Gassendi may simply have
become aware of his own ambiguities.3 A thorough
study of the philosophical manuscripts preserved at
Carpentras, Tours, and the Laurentian Library, and
also of the published works, which repeat and correct
each other (Disquisitio, 1644; Animadversiones, 1649;
and the posthumous Syntagma, 1658), reveals neither
the duplicity nor the denial suspected by Pintard4 but
rather an effort to bring the Epicurean elements,
accompanied by their materialist tendency, together
with the traditional Christian elements. The two had
previously been juxtaposed in Gassendi's writings
without being mingled—but not without contradiction.
This became evident after the beginning of
the dispute with Descartes in 1641 and in the new
drafts of the Epicurean works first undertaken in
1642. The factors that Gassendi emphasized to
achieve a synthesis between Epicureanism and Christianity
were nominalism, finality, and vitalistic or
chemical analogies. A discussion of these factors is
required before asking whether Gassendi felt that
Descartes's reproaches really hit their target.
Nominalism had been born in a Christian atmosphere,
where it remained a minority position, inspired
by awareness of the limits of human understanding
(modulus intellectionis). Feeble beings that they are,
men (homonciones) cannot reach essential truth but
only appearances, or phenomena, conditioned by laws
that they did not make and cannot understand. God
established these laws in order that things might
endure and satisfy the needs of living creatures. Man
establishes a system of signs, of names, which permits
him to identify things perceived and to communicate
with other men. But the concepts thus formed are
conventions, not universal propositions. The universal
does not exist ontologically. God has given man a
mind capable only of conceiving the universal as the
result of repeated contacts between the senses and
well-ordered material realities. In animals imagination
and memory record the facts to be retained. In
man the rational spirit enables him to combine these
representations with a view to action, guided by coherent
predictions and based on reflections that take
time and that are true inferences and not intuitions
of some reality beyond the reach of sensation. But
there is an evident providential finality in the Creation
thus interpreted, and it is further illustrated by
the wonders of the universe, of which man is the
consummation and the goal. Hence, final causes are
the “Royal Way.” They demonstrate the existence of
God. The view was opposed to that of Descartes; and
Gassendi, incidentally, refuted the ontological argument
on which Descartes relied in much the same
way that Kant later did.
Gassendi held that the atoms were the first things
created, not in infinite number, as Democritus had
said, but in a number sufficient to create the finite
universe we know. They are endowed with an unalterable
(in French inamissible) movement propelling
them without interference in all directions
through the void. There is no swerving (no clinamen).
The collisions that necessarily take place
annul motion and result in the appearance of immobility.
Collisions form molecules which are particles
identifiable by several attributes. The homogeneous
atomic particles for their part are endowed only with
shape, resistance, minimum size, and a “weight” that
is the effect of their elementary movement. Molecules
combine in fewer ways than atoms to form sensible
objects, possessing not powers, or internal qualities
capable of activity, but mechanical forces. Various
circumstances may liberate these forces in such a
manner that impressions are made on other objects,
notably the senses of living beings. At this level, other
forces become effective—for example, chemical
forces.5
The dynamism that is sometimes noticed in Gassendian
physics, and that justifies the expression
semina rerum (borrowed from Lucretius) to designate
the atoms, was merely this accumulation of an energy
potential, conceivable even in biology. For living
bodies are subjected to the same laws as others. Life
is composed of movements of the “flower of matter,”
the animal soul, which in a way resembles Descartes's
animal spirits and subtle matter. Science is thus relative
to our needs, a view in which there was both
sensationalism and pragmatism. Thus, Gassendi was
not only a belated humanist but also a precursor of
Locke, Condillac, and the positivists and empiricists
of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
These ideas contained the entire arsenal upon
which future materialists could draw. Yet Gassendi
had no thought of being a materialist in the later
sense of d'Holbach or Marx. The clash with Descartes
had revealed to him the way in which his works, still
unpublished, could scandalize certain readers; his role
as a priest led him to take this danger into account.
But until then he had been able to conjoin faith with
Epicureanism with as little fear as Galileo had earlier
felt in juxtaposing Copernicus and the Bible.
Galileo had pointed out in his letter to the grand
duchess of Florence (see below) that the Bible had
originally been addressed to the early Jews in terms that
they could understand, while Copernicus, for his part,
had offered his work to the pope, and it was not at first
thought heretical. By the same token, in Gassendi's
view, God had the power to make the world from
atoms, as the Epicureans held, and was equally able to