What do you think?
Rate this book
Meditations on First Philosophy, with Selections from the Objections and Replies
This authoritative translation by John Cottingham of the Meditations is taken from the much acclaimed three-volume Cambridge edition of the Philosophical Writings of Descartes. It is based on the best available texts and presents Descartes' central metaphysical writings in clear, readable modern English.
265 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1641
232 people are currently reading
2119 people want to read
About the author
René Descartes
1,562 books2,324 followers
Meditations on First Philosophy
(1641) and
Principles of Philosophy
(1644), main works of French mathematician and scientist René Descartes, considered the father of analytic geometry and the founder of modern rationalism, include the famous dictum "I think, therefore I am."
A set of two perpendicular lines in a plane or three in space intersect at an origin in Cartesian coordinate system. Cartesian coordinate, a member of the set of numbers, distances, locates a point in this system. Cartesian coordinates describe all points of a Cartesian plane.
From given sets, {X} and {Y}, one can construct Cartesian product, a set of all pairs of elements (x, y), such that x belongs to {X} and y belongs to {Y}.
Cartesian philosophers include Antoine Arnauld.
René Descartes, a writer, highly influenced society. People continue to study closely his writings and subsequently responded in the west. He of the key figures in the revolution also apparently influenced the named coordinate system, used in planes and algebra.
Descartes frequently sets his views apart from those of his predecessors. In the opening section of the Passions of the Soul , a treatise on the early version of now commonly called emotions, he goes so far to assert that he writes on his topic "as if no one had written on these matters before." Many elements in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or earlier like Saint Augustine of Hippo provide precedents. Naturally, he differs from the schools on two major points: He rejects corporeal substance into matter and form and any appeal to divine or natural ends in explaining natural phenomena. In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of act of creation of God.
Baruch Spinoza and Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz later advocated Descartes, a major figure in 17th century Continent, and the empiricist school of thought, consisting of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, opposed him. Leibniz and Descartes, all well versed like Spinoza, contributed greatly. Descartes, the crucial bridge with algebra, invented the coordinate system and calculus. Reflections of Descartes on mind and mechanism began the strain of western thought; much later, the invention of the electronic computer and the possibility of machine intelligence impelled this thought, which blossomed into the Turing test and related thought. His stated most in §7 of part I and in part IV of Discourse on the Method .
A set of two perpendicular lines in a plane or three in space intersect at an origin in Cartesian coordinate system. Cartesian coordinate, a member of the set of numbers, distances, locates a point in this system. Cartesian coordinates describe all points of a Cartesian plane.
From given sets, {X} and {Y}, one can construct Cartesian product, a set of all pairs of elements (x, y), such that x belongs to {X} and y belongs to {Y}.
Cartesian philosophers include Antoine Arnauld.
René Descartes, a writer, highly influenced society. People continue to study closely his writings and subsequently responded in the west. He of the key figures in the revolution also apparently influenced the named coordinate system, used in planes and algebra.
Descartes frequently sets his views apart from those of his predecessors. In the opening section of the Passions of the Soul , a treatise on the early version of now commonly called emotions, he goes so far to assert that he writes on his topic "as if no one had written on these matters before." Many elements in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or earlier like Saint Augustine of Hippo provide precedents. Naturally, he differs from the schools on two major points: He rejects corporeal substance into matter and form and any appeal to divine or natural ends in explaining natural phenomena. In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of act of creation of God.
Baruch Spinoza and Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz later advocated Descartes, a major figure in 17th century Continent, and the empiricist school of thought, consisting of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, opposed him. Leibniz and Descartes, all well versed like Spinoza, contributed greatly. Descartes, the crucial bridge with algebra, invented the coordinate system and calculus. Reflections of Descartes on mind and mechanism began the strain of western thought; much later, the invention of the electronic computer and the possibility of machine intelligence impelled this thought, which blossomed into the Turing test and related thought. His stated most in §7 of part I and in part IV of Discourse on the Method .
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 210 reviews
August 9, 2007
Oh Descartes, we have an interesting relationship, you and I. You are a necessary step in Philosophy classes, and yet I abhor you. So you get 3 stars.
March 30, 2014
René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is a book I picked up for two reasons. The first is that a friend had been reading and enjoying his work, the second is that I have developed an interest in philosophy due to my university units. I am currently undertaking one literature unit on the 'Philosophies of Hell and Heaven' which is rather fascinating (though I disagree with many points). I figure that if I wish to understand a wide variety of views, I must read about those opinions and philosophers are often a key to understanding theories and ideas.
Descartes' work here is slightly different to any other philosophy work I have touched in the last while however. It is broken up into a series of 'meditations' each one touching on a particular thought and following a logical sequence. He attempts to begin by intellectually breaking down anything he has claimed to believe in the past, in order to address the ideas of 'the reality of God' and everything associated with such. He then concludes with a series of objections to his philosophical conclusions and the replies to these objections, making it a work that rebuts as much as it discusses.
It is hard to follow Descartes at times. Much of this is likely due to translation. But what is easily grasped is that he believes we all need to come to our own conclusions about God through thought and not mere theology - that the nature of the spiritual, of God and religion is as much connected to the intellectual as anything else. To some degree it's a similar conclusion as that reached by Nietzsche, only Nietzsche rejects spirituality and religion altogether.
So, if you want an older staple of philosophy, I recommend reading this. I will no doubt be delving back into Descartes' mind time to time in order to better understand the concept of intellectually thinking about my own revelations of God and humanity. But in the meantime I shall move on to other works and see what they consider.
November 3, 2021
The use and exploration of philosophy needs to be psychoanalysed cause this man was definitely not stable at this time in his life. I, as a mentally ill person, can absolutely relate to his state of mind but at the same time. How did he come up w this stuff lmao
Studying this as part of school is really an experience lol. My philosophy teacher is actually the worst which doesn't help.
Studying this as part of school is really an experience lol. My philosophy teacher is actually the worst which doesn't help.
Read
February 4, 2017i hope to come back and read the the objections and replies soon, for i enjoyed reading Meditations.
here are a few thoughts i wrote out about them.
Doubting Descartes
The method of doubt used in Meditations brings the text to such proximity to doubt that doubting the text’s veracity readily suggests itself as an approach for understanding the text. This would likely have vexed Descartes, who suggested that the methods employed in Meditations would eventually be considered by all who could closely attend to them to be absolutely rigorous demonstrations that would erase erroneous views on truth and God (6). But perhaps Descartes would understand the need to doubt his book, for, as he notes, “prudence dictates that we should never fully trust those who have deceived us even once” (18), and patient readers we all may be, yet there are none who have not been fooled at least once by a book containing articulate thoughts published by those who hoped to say something true. In doubting the veracity of Meditations, the most efficient approach would seem to be to question Descartes’ doubt, but before proceeding to this it may prove useful to first briefly examine what this doubt is.
Descartes describes his doubt as initially achieving an unrelenting darkness of difficulties (23) because he has stripped away the foundations of all his former beliefs (18). What his initial doubt then achieves is a systematic eradication of trust in the presupposed notions of body and feeling (18), which also means an eradication of the trust in the ideas that once defined existence. Stranded in darkness, Descartes next surmises that the only truth remaining is the truth of an exhaustive uncertainty (24), but his very thoughts help to remind him that he had not found sufficient ground to doubt his own existence (25), which allows him to do away with exhaustive uncertainty and know that “this proposition, ‘I am, I exist, whenever it is uttered by me [ . . . ] is necessarily true” (25). With this modicum of doubt assuaged, he then explains that this expresses a general rule, which can be understood as the sought for Archimedean Point (24), that everything very clearly and distinctly perceived is true (35). Although Descartes further refines his truth as the meditating continues in the book, his handling of doubt just described provides sufficient places for doubting the foundations of Meditations, which, following Descartes’ example, is the most expedient manner to apply the method of doubt and clarify our perspective on the book.
The quality of Descartes’ doubt must be doubted because his manner of eliminating all notions possibly touched by doubt provides the foundation to the Archimedean Point that allows Descartes’ ultimate grasp on truth and God. If it is true that Descartes destroys all his former beliefs (18) at the start of his meditating, then only new truths, built upon only what is clearly and distinctly perceived as true, shall be found as his thoughts progress in Meditations. That Descartes is unable to destroy all his former beliefs by attacking their very foundations (18) is most clearly seen in the near effortless correlation he makes between deception and imperfection. Positing that deception is a shortcoming and therefore not belonging to the perfection of God (52) is problematic because it is not something that has been clearly and distinctly perceived or established as true, but is instead an attempt to specify an attribute (in a negative manner) to the perfection of God and in which the ability of the finite thinker to specify an attribute to the perfect, incomprehensible, infinite God (46) is nowhere explained. Descartes seems to ground his ability to understand deception as an imperfection in God by attributing all perfections to God with the understanding that there must be as much in the cause as in the effect (49-50), and, since Descartes has an idea of a supremely perfect God and Descartes cannot account for all perfections, God exists as all perfections (51). The reason this does not actually allow Descartes the ability to have a clear and distinct perception of what might be a shortcoming (deception) in God is that to understand that God contains all perfections does not imply that one understands what all of those perfections are (46), nor what they might exclude, unless one is already conceiving the perfection of God as something more specific and exclusive.
What is revealed is that there seems to be an attempt by Descartes (it is unimportant to the present purpose whether it is intentional or not) to create a correlation between the ability to know that everything clearly perceived involves some perfection of God and the notion that the truest and clearest idea one can have is of God (46). The aim of this correlation is to set up an association between the conception of truth, as we are able to clearly and distinctly perceive it, with the perfection of God that suggests that the perfection of God is truth, which then allows for the claim that deception would be a shortcoming (52) because God is truth. What this ultimately implies and what Descartes is never fully able to doubt is that the perfection of God is goodness. It is true that Descartes more than once sincerely asks if God might be a deceiver (22-23, 26, 29) and therefore not goodness. He poses such a question before examining how God is the sum of all perfections (described above), “I must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver” (36), but his answer to the question, to equate deception with imperfection is based upon the undoubted, preconceived notion of goodness in the perfection of God, which undoubtedly is a noble hope, but, in a meditation where everything has been doubted, it is has no more grounds for being true than the notion that deception is a perfection in God that simply remains incomprehensible to the finite thinker. I imagine that the objection that Descartes would offer here is that the former is clearly and distinctly perceived as true and the latter cannot be, but this objection (the Archimedean Point) is based on the foundation that was built securely by first doubting everything, which just has been shown was not in fact done. For Descartes, the way to complete doubt was halted by goodness, but is this true for everyone who might employ his methods? This question becomes of the highest importance when it is recalled, as mentioned in the introduction, that Descartes thought that his methods should eventually be considered by all who could closely attend to his methods to be absolutely rigorous demonstrations that would erase erroneous views on truth and God (6).
It seems highly probable that a person employing Descartes’ method would be able to obtain a complete doubt and be able to consider the idea of goodness as just one more uncertainty. For the complete doubter, the problem with the way goodness is handled in Descartes’ Meditations is that when the proof of God is given (in either the 3rd or 6th meditation) goodness is not expressed as an essential part of God, and Descartes’ aim seems to be to imply goodness with the use of the all encompassing form of perfection in God, but assuming goodness (no shortcomings like deception) to be in what is understood tentatively as an incomprehensible perfection (46) is not something the complete doubter would allow himself to do. The complete doubter, who is not secretly or accidentally still holding to goodness, would follow very much in Descartes’ manner in the beginning meditations with this crucial difference: when he pondered whether or not God was a deceiver he would not solely think of God as deceiving in an all or nothing manner. Descartes consistently conceives of deception in this manner (22-23, 26, 29) because goodness is still guiding his thoughts and goodness can only conceive of deception as wholly wrong—he finally openly acknowledges the latter of these near the end of Meditations when he states that it seems “contrary to the goodness of God that his nature should be deceptive” (84), which is the first direct mention of goodness. The complete doubter would not have the corrective quality of goodness within himself and could speculate that God was truthful enough to him so to as be able to allow him to establish his general rule, that everything that is clearly and distinctly perceived is true, similar to Descartes’, but the complete doubter could not safely be assured that God might not be lying to him in greater ways than this. Thus the general rule for the complete doubter could not be a true Archimedean Point that lifts the all encompassing darkness as it does for Descartes, but is instead a small candle in the vast darkness, lighting up clearly and distinctly objects only immediately in front of it. This end for the complete doubter can hardly be what Descartes intended by the erasure of erroneous views of truth and God.
The danger of Descartes’ method of doubt, then, is one that assumes goodness as undoubtable and ever present, even when unmentioned and unexplained. This may have been a safe assumption for Descartes, who somewhat jovially admits in the synopsis to the Sixth Meditation that he never truly but only speculatively doubted everything (16), but, for those who earnestly follow the method of doubt, it cannot be safely assumed that goodness shall halt the progress of darkness and doubt.
here are a few thoughts i wrote out about them.
Doubting Descartes
The method of doubt used in Meditations brings the text to such proximity to doubt that doubting the text’s veracity readily suggests itself as an approach for understanding the text. This would likely have vexed Descartes, who suggested that the methods employed in Meditations would eventually be considered by all who could closely attend to them to be absolutely rigorous demonstrations that would erase erroneous views on truth and God (6). But perhaps Descartes would understand the need to doubt his book, for, as he notes, “prudence dictates that we should never fully trust those who have deceived us even once” (18), and patient readers we all may be, yet there are none who have not been fooled at least once by a book containing articulate thoughts published by those who hoped to say something true. In doubting the veracity of Meditations, the most efficient approach would seem to be to question Descartes’ doubt, but before proceeding to this it may prove useful to first briefly examine what this doubt is.
Descartes describes his doubt as initially achieving an unrelenting darkness of difficulties (23) because he has stripped away the foundations of all his former beliefs (18). What his initial doubt then achieves is a systematic eradication of trust in the presupposed notions of body and feeling (18), which also means an eradication of the trust in the ideas that once defined existence. Stranded in darkness, Descartes next surmises that the only truth remaining is the truth of an exhaustive uncertainty (24), but his very thoughts help to remind him that he had not found sufficient ground to doubt his own existence (25), which allows him to do away with exhaustive uncertainty and know that “this proposition, ‘I am, I exist, whenever it is uttered by me [ . . . ] is necessarily true” (25). With this modicum of doubt assuaged, he then explains that this expresses a general rule, which can be understood as the sought for Archimedean Point (24), that everything very clearly and distinctly perceived is true (35). Although Descartes further refines his truth as the meditating continues in the book, his handling of doubt just described provides sufficient places for doubting the foundations of Meditations, which, following Descartes’ example, is the most expedient manner to apply the method of doubt and clarify our perspective on the book.
The quality of Descartes’ doubt must be doubted because his manner of eliminating all notions possibly touched by doubt provides the foundation to the Archimedean Point that allows Descartes’ ultimate grasp on truth and God. If it is true that Descartes destroys all his former beliefs (18) at the start of his meditating, then only new truths, built upon only what is clearly and distinctly perceived as true, shall be found as his thoughts progress in Meditations. That Descartes is unable to destroy all his former beliefs by attacking their very foundations (18) is most clearly seen in the near effortless correlation he makes between deception and imperfection. Positing that deception is a shortcoming and therefore not belonging to the perfection of God (52) is problematic because it is not something that has been clearly and distinctly perceived or established as true, but is instead an attempt to specify an attribute (in a negative manner) to the perfection of God and in which the ability of the finite thinker to specify an attribute to the perfect, incomprehensible, infinite God (46) is nowhere explained. Descartes seems to ground his ability to understand deception as an imperfection in God by attributing all perfections to God with the understanding that there must be as much in the cause as in the effect (49-50), and, since Descartes has an idea of a supremely perfect God and Descartes cannot account for all perfections, God exists as all perfections (51). The reason this does not actually allow Descartes the ability to have a clear and distinct perception of what might be a shortcoming (deception) in God is that to understand that God contains all perfections does not imply that one understands what all of those perfections are (46), nor what they might exclude, unless one is already conceiving the perfection of God as something more specific and exclusive.
What is revealed is that there seems to be an attempt by Descartes (it is unimportant to the present purpose whether it is intentional or not) to create a correlation between the ability to know that everything clearly perceived involves some perfection of God and the notion that the truest and clearest idea one can have is of God (46). The aim of this correlation is to set up an association between the conception of truth, as we are able to clearly and distinctly perceive it, with the perfection of God that suggests that the perfection of God is truth, which then allows for the claim that deception would be a shortcoming (52) because God is truth. What this ultimately implies and what Descartes is never fully able to doubt is that the perfection of God is goodness. It is true that Descartes more than once sincerely asks if God might be a deceiver (22-23, 26, 29) and therefore not goodness. He poses such a question before examining how God is the sum of all perfections (described above), “I must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver” (36), but his answer to the question, to equate deception with imperfection is based upon the undoubted, preconceived notion of goodness in the perfection of God, which undoubtedly is a noble hope, but, in a meditation where everything has been doubted, it is has no more grounds for being true than the notion that deception is a perfection in God that simply remains incomprehensible to the finite thinker. I imagine that the objection that Descartes would offer here is that the former is clearly and distinctly perceived as true and the latter cannot be, but this objection (the Archimedean Point) is based on the foundation that was built securely by first doubting everything, which just has been shown was not in fact done. For Descartes, the way to complete doubt was halted by goodness, but is this true for everyone who might employ his methods? This question becomes of the highest importance when it is recalled, as mentioned in the introduction, that Descartes thought that his methods should eventually be considered by all who could closely attend to his methods to be absolutely rigorous demonstrations that would erase erroneous views on truth and God (6).
It seems highly probable that a person employing Descartes’ method would be able to obtain a complete doubt and be able to consider the idea of goodness as just one more uncertainty. For the complete doubter, the problem with the way goodness is handled in Descartes’ Meditations is that when the proof of God is given (in either the 3rd or 6th meditation) goodness is not expressed as an essential part of God, and Descartes’ aim seems to be to imply goodness with the use of the all encompassing form of perfection in God, but assuming goodness (no shortcomings like deception) to be in what is understood tentatively as an incomprehensible perfection (46) is not something the complete doubter would allow himself to do. The complete doubter, who is not secretly or accidentally still holding to goodness, would follow very much in Descartes’ manner in the beginning meditations with this crucial difference: when he pondered whether or not God was a deceiver he would not solely think of God as deceiving in an all or nothing manner. Descartes consistently conceives of deception in this manner (22-23, 26, 29) because goodness is still guiding his thoughts and goodness can only conceive of deception as wholly wrong—he finally openly acknowledges the latter of these near the end of Meditations when he states that it seems “contrary to the goodness of God that his nature should be deceptive” (84), which is the first direct mention of goodness. The complete doubter would not have the corrective quality of goodness within himself and could speculate that God was truthful enough to him so to as be able to allow him to establish his general rule, that everything that is clearly and distinctly perceived is true, similar to Descartes’, but the complete doubter could not safely be assured that God might not be lying to him in greater ways than this. Thus the general rule for the complete doubter could not be a true Archimedean Point that lifts the all encompassing darkness as it does for Descartes, but is instead a small candle in the vast darkness, lighting up clearly and distinctly objects only immediately in front of it. This end for the complete doubter can hardly be what Descartes intended by the erasure of erroneous views of truth and God.
The danger of Descartes’ method of doubt, then, is one that assumes goodness as undoubtable and ever present, even when unmentioned and unexplained. This may have been a safe assumption for Descartes, who somewhat jovially admits in the synopsis to the Sixth Meditation that he never truly but only speculatively doubted everything (16), but, for those who earnestly follow the method of doubt, it cannot be safely assumed that goodness shall halt the progress of darkness and doubt.
March 20, 2017
For all his doubting, there seems to be a direct line connecting the Cartesian quest for certitude with that of Augustine (of Hippo); they almost appear to join hands across the centuries in their limitless craving for absolute certainty, without which they simply cannot exist. (Pun intended.) But not only in just that: In many and obvious ways, Descartes is still steeped in the medieval tradition, despite often being called the first modern philosopher – a distinction that more obviously belongs with Spinoza, who is the first to make a decisive break with religious tradition, as has been pointed out by Spinoza scholar H.A. Wolfson. Still, Descartes was an important influence for Spinoza (something he hardly would have appreciated, I reckon), as he was for many others. - If you first are going to read the Meditations, there are many good reasons to chose this Hackett edition, which includes the Objections and Replies (that were included in the first publication in 1641) and also an enlightening introduction by Roger Ariew, where he discusses how Descartes own thought developed as he responded to the different objections – and concludes that "All in all, Descartes’ bloc of certainty looks more like a sedimentary rock, a geological stratum with cracks and fissures, able to be read in historical terms." – However, if you maintain that you’ve had your fill with the Meditations alone, I can’t say I blame you – also, the additional material is not exactly an easy read and I freely confess to have simply skimmed through certain parts of it. I had already read the translation of Meditations by Donald Cress in another Hackett edition, and as I have not read in the original language, all I can say about it is that the translation flows well. For sure, the philosophical inconsistencies, whenever they occur, are Descartes’ own. At least as far as this particular work is concerned, I find Monsieur Descartes a rather presumptuous kind of fellow (and I suspect some of the authors of the Objections would be inclined to agree with that assessment.) I can respect a good argument even if I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion, but here Descartes seems simply sloppy at times. There’s no disputing his importance for Western philosophy and science though – it is in view of this fact that it’s worth the read – and thankfully, the Meditations is a short book.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
February 22, 2016
This is certainly a fundamental work for philosophy in terms of its epistemological and metaphysical implications, which can be simply summarised in that timeless proposition: "cogito ergo sum." Descartes can be seen as an explorer, navigating mathematics (having invented the Cartesian coordinate system) and freeing philosophy from religious institutions. Even though this work is largely centred around God, it does not necessarily invoke the Christian God in any way whatsoever.
Descartes points out that for him to be able to describe a being who is omnipotent and supremely good, there must exist a being to whom he can attribute such a description. This seems a bit flawed, I think, since his conception and words have absolutely no influence on reality. This is a common objection to Descartes' work since language is the only way in which he can communicate these doubts and without language does he really have this power? Cogito ergo sum or 'I think, therefore I am' does not necessarily have to be true. Descartes himself states that his thoughts and words do not impose necessity on anything, so why would his thoughts or doubts impose a necessity on existence for that matter?
Beyond that, he raises an excellent point about how our sensory perceptions are not the only true way in which we can come to know things. Descartes proposed that we get wax from a honeycomb. From this wax we can derive the relevant gustatory, visual, olfactory information, but once we burn the wax all of these qualities change. It is not with the senses that we recognise that the burnt wax and the unburnt wax are the same thing, but rather with the intellect, which allows us to conclude that they are in fact the same thing.
Totally worth the read: brief, concise and essential.
Descartes points out that for him to be able to describe a being who is omnipotent and supremely good, there must exist a being to whom he can attribute such a description. This seems a bit flawed, I think, since his conception and words have absolutely no influence on reality. This is a common objection to Descartes' work since language is the only way in which he can communicate these doubts and without language does he really have this power? Cogito ergo sum or 'I think, therefore I am' does not necessarily have to be true. Descartes himself states that his thoughts and words do not impose necessity on anything, so why would his thoughts or doubts impose a necessity on existence for that matter?
Beyond that, he raises an excellent point about how our sensory perceptions are not the only true way in which we can come to know things. Descartes proposed that we get wax from a honeycomb. From this wax we can derive the relevant gustatory, visual, olfactory information, but once we burn the wax all of these qualities change. It is not with the senses that we recognise that the burnt wax and the unburnt wax are the same thing, but rather with the intellect, which allows us to conclude that they are in fact the same thing.
Totally worth the read: brief, concise and essential.
February 8, 2025
How do we know that anything exists? Descartes poses himself as unsure. He knows that anything about which he has as much as a minuscule doubt, could not actually be. Thus, he starts by doubting everything. Descartes is not just a skeptic, like many then and today, he uses skepticism as a tool to get to the REAL answers. By questioning everything, he tries to get into the meat of things, finding that one thing which he cannot doubt - that is himself. The mind doubts everything, yet, it has to be something to doubt everything. This is the origin of that famous quote "Cogito ergo sum"; which btw, it doesn't come from this work, but from his longer and more mature "Principles of Philosophy". Starting from this major point, Descartes tries to find a way in which TO KNOW the rest. He needs God, He needs the material reality and thus he ends up KNOWING, perhaps.
Yet his work, as influential as it most certainly is, has its flaws and raises significant objections, still gives us a fundamental truth - that we can, in fact know something.
8.5/10, mostly because of the geometrical arguments that I had a hard time with.
Yet his work, as influential as it most certainly is, has its flaws and raises significant objections, still gives us a fundamental truth - that we can, in fact know something.
8.5/10, mostly because of the geometrical arguments that I had a hard time with.
October 13, 2007
I sleepwalked through this, not a fan. cartesian dualism you go to hell and you die...well for anyone dumb enough to believe that mind body interactions require the direct intervention of "god" when your god is sd;lkghfdlgh;sdfh I am not getting into an argument with myself about this, thus endeth the review.
January 27, 2025
Read this in tandem with watching lectures on YouTube so I could really understand everything and not miss any details and I’m glad I took the time to do that, I got way more out of this than I would have otherwise. Feeling prepared af to continue exploring the western canon that basically started from this hoe. And ya’ll know me I love that the translation notes were included in this copy you know I read every footnote mhmm. The replies part was funny to read too, imagining the beef between these oldass virgin philosophers. #Respect Descartes for using so much rationality rather than religious dogma but by meditation six..hmmm not sure I’m totally convinced of his whole mind body duality thing, I read Hume a while ago and that diva was more compelling…still a nondualist until further notice #teamnondualism. anyways, solid experience honestly quite approachable and readable for the genre
Omg wait i also forgot to complain about how they left out the most famous line EVER cogito ergo sum bitch. They literally didn’t even bother to add it in this translation. I was looking forward to reading that one effing line so bad what the hell do NOT piss me off…
Omg wait i also forgot to complain about how they left out the most famous line EVER cogito ergo sum bitch. They literally didn’t even bother to add it in this translation. I was looking forward to reading that one effing line so bad what the hell do NOT piss me off…
May 2, 2019
Groundbreaking, and mostly awful. Read the introductions for context and Meditations 1 & 2 for a 5 star experience, and let the rest be an intimately connected historical curiosity. God help the poor philosophy student who has read all the replies and objections.
December 6, 2020
Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinates (literally evenly spaced dots on a map) and superscripts in mathematical standard notation. His philosophy is in the same vein. You'd think someone would've figured all this out by then.
Is very jarring to go from Neo-Platonism to this.
Is very jarring to go from Neo-Platonism to this.
Read
November 11, 2024(only the first two mediations)
April 10, 2024
At the beginning of reading this philosopher I didn’t mind his views I actually thought his intention to clear his slate and create a new morality from nothing was interesting. But within just a few pages he completely disregarded his original goal and claimed “actually no I was wrong god is everything”. I didn’t understand how you claim that you will clear all prior opinions then within just a few pages base your entire existence on the biggest opinion of all which is religion. It was disappointing but still interesting. I liked reading the counter arguments against his points and it was funny to see how he completely disregarded these arguments like they didn’t prove a great point. I think Descarte is just simple minded and doesn’t have evidence to his conclusions he just jumps right to it. I think he jumps right to “I know this is true because god says so” but what about god says this is true ? Idk not my favorite philosopher I’ve read from.
October 14, 2022
I think, therefore, I am.
Funnily enough, this quotation appears nowhere in René Descartes' Meditations. But the Cogito certainly packs a heavy punch. If I can dream, I can doubt. If I can doubt, I cannot know anything—that is, until I think. If I can think, at least my thoughts (my mind) must exist.
Then, I think. And therefore, I am.
Existence based on rationality—that's what Descartes offers up. He breaks down Aristotelian views of the world, offering new perspectives on the mind-body conundrum. By diverging from such dogma of thought, Descartes pivots Western philosophy in a new direction.
Ingenuity at its finest.
Though Descartes' opinions on God remain questionable, his logic, mode of thinking, and bold assertion have impacted us all—the way we function, operate, and think. Nice one, René.
Funnily enough, this quotation appears nowhere in René Descartes' Meditations. But the Cogito certainly packs a heavy punch. If I can dream, I can doubt. If I can doubt, I cannot know anything—that is, until I think. If I can think, at least my thoughts (my mind) must exist.
Then, I think. And therefore, I am.
Existence based on rationality—that's what Descartes offers up. He breaks down Aristotelian views of the world, offering new perspectives on the mind-body conundrum. By diverging from such dogma of thought, Descartes pivots Western philosophy in a new direction.
Ingenuity at its finest.
Though Descartes' opinions on God remain questionable, his logic, mode of thinking, and bold assertion have impacted us all—the way we function, operate, and think. Nice one, René.
March 28, 2012
About 25 pages from the end of my first reading, will prob reread this within the season. Funny how this book for me, is understood better through the objections and the replies. Also funny, how a short book reads like a long book, Would love to read this in French, if I only knew French: Delicately Strong, and Strongly Delicate, A book to really get lost in, I am certainly pleasantly lost in this book. Such eloquence- - -.
I did finish and my only regret is That I do not know how to read French or the language. I can only imagine the beauty of his expressions in the
homelanguage of this books orginal writing...
I did finish and my only regret is That I do not know how to read French or the language. I can only imagine the beauty of his expressions in the
homelanguage of this books orginal writing...
May 1, 2020
Хэн: Декарт (1596 – 1650).
Юу: “Анхдагч Философийг Бясалгахуй” (1641).
Aч холбогдол: “Орчин үеийн” барууны философи энэ номоор эхэлдэг (гэж ярьдаг юм байна).
Гол асуудал: мэдэхүй (epistemology): аливаа зүйл үнэн, худал эсэхийг яаж мэдэх вэ? {Жишээ нь, энэ үзэг бодит уу? г.м.}
Зорилго (Декартын ойлгосноор): шинжлэх ухааны суурийг тавих; бурханы оршихуйг батлах.
Бас нэг асуудал: бие ба ухаан. (Mатериаллаг биед consciousness, soul буюу бодол ухаан, амин сүнс хэрхэн ямар байдлаар оршдог вэ?)
Гаргасан дүгнэлт нь: Алдаатай (юм шиг).
Бид нарын гаргаж болох дүгнэлт: Шашны номлолоор олон зуун жил явсан Европ хүмүүсийн хувьд, шинжлэх ухааны ойлголтууд бий болж байсан (жишээлбэл дэлхий хавтгай биш гэдгийг олж мэдсэн) тэр цаг үед мэдээж эдгээр асуултыг тавих шаардлага гарч ирсэн байх.
Унших учир шалтгаан: (1) Философийн түүхэнд ач холбогдолтой гэдэг утгаар нь; (2) Зарим талаар Декартын зарим нэг байр суурь үнэн байж болох: төрөлхийн мэдлэг гэж жишээ нь байдаг бол (Чомский). (3) Mэдэхгүй. Mиний ойлгоогүй өөр олон асуудлууд байгаа гэдэг нь тодорхой байна.
Гэвч: Өнөө үед (миний бодлоор) Декарт сүртэй чухал ач холбогдолтой биш.
Та унших хэрэгтэй юу: Философийг системтэй суръя гэж байгаа тохиолдолд хэрэгтэй.
Юу: “Анхдагч Философийг Бясалгахуй” (1641).
Aч холбогдол: “Орчин үеийн” барууны философи энэ номоор эхэлдэг (гэж ярьдаг юм байна).
Гол асуудал: мэдэхүй (epistemology): аливаа зүйл үнэн, худал эсэхийг яаж мэдэх вэ? {Жишээ нь, энэ үзэг бодит уу? г.м.}
Зорилго (Декартын ойлгосноор): шинжлэх ухааны суурийг тавих; бурханы оршихуйг батлах.
Бас нэг асуудал: бие ба ухаан. (Mатериаллаг биед consciousness, soul буюу бодол ухаан, амин сүнс хэрхэн ямар байдлаар оршдог вэ?)
Гаргасан дүгнэлт нь: Алдаатай (юм шиг).
Бид нарын гаргаж болох дүгнэлт: Шашны номлолоор олон зуун жил явсан Европ хүмүүсийн хувьд, шинжлэх ухааны ойлголтууд бий болж байсан (жишээлбэл дэлхий хавтгай биш гэдгийг олж мэдсэн) тэр цаг үед мэдээж эдгээр асуултыг тавих шаардлага гарч ирсэн байх.
Унших учир шалтгаан: (1) Философийн түүхэнд ач холбогдолтой гэдэг утгаар нь; (2) Зарим талаар Декартын зарим нэг байр суурь үнэн байж болох: төрөлхийн мэдлэг гэж жишээ нь байдаг бол (Чомский). (3) Mэдэхгүй. Mиний ойлгоогүй өөр олон асуудлууд байгаа гэдэг нь тодорхой байна.
Гэвч: Өнөө үед (миний бодлоор) Декарт сүртэй чухал ач холбогдолтой биш.
Та унших хэрэгтэй юу: Философийг системтэй суръя гэж байгаа тохиолдолд хэрэгтэй.
June 9, 2024
C'est le premier ouvrage auquel j'ai été confronté lors de mes études de philo. Si les cours étaient durs à suivre dans un premier temps, dans un second, je trouvais le professeur tellement humain, passionnant, adorable et percutant lors de ses explications des premières méditations, que je me souviens parfaitement du cours durant lequel la PED était exposée.
Sûrement un des ouvrages qui a donc le plus contribué au développement de mon amour pour la philosophie, qui a profondément transformé mon approche à cette dernière, et, en somme, bouleversé toute ma manière de penser.
Sûrement un des ouvrages qui a donc le plus contribué au développement de mon amour pour la philosophie, qui a profondément transformé mon approche à cette dernière, et, en somme, bouleversé toute ma manière de penser.
February 13, 2025
Meditasjonene var fascinerende å lese, spesielt de første to, men Descartes baserer seg på svake premisser for å videre bevise Guds og den fysiske verdens eksistens. Verdt å lese, men tung å lese.
February 25, 2023
(read med. 1, 2, and 6 for hum) i feel like i could be acquaintances with descartes if he was alive today and i think i’d also tell him to go to therapy (like most philosophers should probably do tbh)
December 29, 2024
"I know that I am, I am sure of it, because I know that I am able to doubt."
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
Ah yes, if it isn’t the father of skepticism himself! René Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy is a thought-provoking and intellectually rigorous exploration of knowledge, existence, and the nature of reality. As one of the cornerstones of modern philosophy, Descartes presents his famous method of radical doubt—questioning everything, even his own existence, in order to arrive at absolute certainty. The famous line “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) encapsulates his argument that the very act of doubting proves the existence of the doubter.
While Meditations can certainly be dense and abstract at times, it is precisely this challenging nature that makes it so rewarding. Descartes’ attempt to break down the foundations of knowledge, from the mind-body dualism to the existence of God, provides an intriguing philosophical framework that remains relevant today. His skepticism is both a strength and a limitation: by casting doubt on everything, he ultimately arrives at an unwavering foundation of certainty.
It’s undeniably essential reading for anyone interested in philosophy, but the dense style might make it a bit intimidating for those new to the subject. Still, Descartes’ influence is undeniable, and his method of inquiry encourages deep, critical thinking about the nature of human existence. Overall, Meditations on First Philosophy is a must-read for anyone looking to understand the philosophical origins of modern thought and skepticism!
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
Ah yes, if it isn’t the father of skepticism himself! René Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy is a thought-provoking and intellectually rigorous exploration of knowledge, existence, and the nature of reality. As one of the cornerstones of modern philosophy, Descartes presents his famous method of radical doubt—questioning everything, even his own existence, in order to arrive at absolute certainty. The famous line “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) encapsulates his argument that the very act of doubting proves the existence of the doubter.
While Meditations can certainly be dense and abstract at times, it is precisely this challenging nature that makes it so rewarding. Descartes’ attempt to break down the foundations of knowledge, from the mind-body dualism to the existence of God, provides an intriguing philosophical framework that remains relevant today. His skepticism is both a strength and a limitation: by casting doubt on everything, he ultimately arrives at an unwavering foundation of certainty.
It’s undeniably essential reading for anyone interested in philosophy, but the dense style might make it a bit intimidating for those new to the subject. Still, Descartes’ influence is undeniable, and his method of inquiry encourages deep, critical thinking about the nature of human existence. Overall, Meditations on First Philosophy is a must-read for anyone looking to understand the philosophical origins of modern thought and skepticism!
January 31, 2019
After reading it so many times some of it seems tiring and almost in bad faith (especially near the end) but it's such seminal text that it's refreshing in some parts to see the origin of certain discourses that still go on today.
I enjoy it a lot more when I remind myself of its historical significance because it keeps just how radically different its skepticism was compared to anything before in mind.
It's a huge break from scholasticism and ushered in the epistemological turn in phil... hard not to like it.
I enjoy it a lot more when I remind myself of its historical significance because it keeps just how radically different its skepticism was compared to anything before in mind.
It's a huge break from scholasticism and ushered in the epistemological turn in phil... hard not to like it.
December 12, 2015
Philosophy is hard.
September 22, 2024
he loses me when he spends like 2 whole pages talking about wax
July 29, 2025
Wow, wow. Yeah, that's pretty cool. Reading philosophy can feel a bit like going to a museum with old important stuff and being allowed to touch it. So, this Descartes' Meditations huh? So, yeah, I just read and understood this book including the objections and replies, did I? Would you look at that.
I heard a lecture on Descartes while reading Moby Dick, which included secondary not primary source readings. Then, when writing a paper for the class I decided I wanted to go in and get quotes from the Meditations themselves. What I found was amazing and shocking and beautiful and so, so, so faithful.
The original subtitle was 'in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the immortality of the soul' and the second edition (1642 still) subtitle was 'in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the distinction between the human soul and the body.' This is a book about God. This is a book proving God's existence, yes, and infinite perfection, justice, goodness, all of it.
Descartes is getting this rep for sparking the Enlightenment and it's so easy for people to take his famous 'Cogito ergo sum' in a vacuum. As if the ONLY thing his doubts brought about was the sureness of his existence-- no. That was the FIRST thing that his doubts brought him sureness about. And right after that was God. He is more sure of God than any physical thing. (Med III) Than the fact of his body. (Med VI) Than the fact of his certainty of anything (Med IV and also see replies).
Like! Ah!! The western tradition! You know... well, you know how I can get. God! God: beneath, above, in, amongst, amidst, for, from, of: all of this.
It really was a joy to read. To feel how close and obvious His perfection is to one of the greatest writers on behalf of reason who has ever lived. Truly anyone who has doubted Descartes faith has not read this book-- certainly not the last paragraph of Med III which is just one of the most beautiful things...
This isn't to say it was easy or fast. After devouring books and books quickly for many months, the three weeks this took me ended up a bit painful and slow and I'll be glad for a novel after this. But what a privilege it's been. Alhamdulilah.
Oh yeah, the translation seemed great, super clear. Perfectly helpful but non-obtrusive footnotes. All xlvi however-many-that-is pages of introduction, introductory essay, letters, preface, notes on translation were super clear and helpful. It was a great experience. I read the objections and replies to each Meditation after each Meditation, which seemed like a good way to do it. I am curious what the <> meant since I don't think it said in any of the xlvi pages of int....etc. But yeah, great job, John.
I heard a lecture on Descartes while reading Moby Dick, which included secondary not primary source readings. Then, when writing a paper for the class I decided I wanted to go in and get quotes from the Meditations themselves. What I found was amazing and shocking and beautiful and so, so, so faithful.
The original subtitle was 'in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the immortality of the soul' and the second edition (1642 still) subtitle was 'in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the distinction between the human soul and the body.' This is a book about God. This is a book proving God's existence, yes, and infinite perfection, justice, goodness, all of it.
Descartes is getting this rep for sparking the Enlightenment and it's so easy for people to take his famous 'Cogito ergo sum' in a vacuum. As if the ONLY thing his doubts brought about was the sureness of his existence-- no. That was the FIRST thing that his doubts brought him sureness about. And right after that was God. He is more sure of God than any physical thing. (Med III) Than the fact of his body. (Med VI) Than the fact of his certainty of anything (Med IV and also see replies).
Like! Ah!! The western tradition! You know... well, you know how I can get. God! God: beneath, above, in, amongst, amidst, for, from, of: all of this.
It really was a joy to read. To feel how close and obvious His perfection is to one of the greatest writers on behalf of reason who has ever lived. Truly anyone who has doubted Descartes faith has not read this book-- certainly not the last paragraph of Med III which is just one of the most beautiful things...
This isn't to say it was easy or fast. After devouring books and books quickly for many months, the three weeks this took me ended up a bit painful and slow and I'll be glad for a novel after this. But what a privilege it's been. Alhamdulilah.
Oh yeah, the translation seemed great, super clear. Perfectly helpful but non-obtrusive footnotes. All xlvi however-many-that-is pages of introduction, introductory essay, letters, preface, notes on translation were super clear and helpful. It was a great experience. I read the objections and replies to each Meditation after each Meditation, which seemed like a good way to do it. I am curious what the <> meant since I don't think it said in any of the xlvi pages of int....etc. But yeah, great job, John.
July 11, 2025
Took me forever to finish this re-read for no reason. Descartes is just so fun and just so brilliant. A lot is covered in his Meditations and it's truly inspired all those who proceeded him. It really is helpful for understanding the whole Rationalist project, the criteria and expectations which govern the completion of a philosophical system, the reaction to the Scholastics and Christian dogmatism, and it even sheds light on modern man's psychological splitting of the self (Self as merely conscious thought)! If one wants to understand the most pressing questions in philosophy (notice how I didn't say "philosophical questions") one *has* to read Descartes.
I love how his project's twofold aims pull on opposite directions. On one hand, he sets the highest imaginable standard for knowledge - the kind of absolute certainty which we find nowhere. And then, he applies that very standard to establish the existence of God, and thus eradicating the very uncertainty that makes the room, or creates the conditions for the pull of faith.
If you're a Rationalist all the way down, and you believe that reason can ascertain all truths, and that it can even get you something like absolute certainty, if the intellect should always precede determination of will, what do you need God for? A life devoid of trembling unknowability doesn't call for faith. Perhaps to appease the Church. It's interesting that the Third Meditation is taken to appease religious worries, but it seems to actually use the existence of God as a *tool* for completing the deductions of the Meditations. Instrumentalising God! Rational idolatry!
It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim up to the top (p. 20).
I'm reminded of a passage I recently read from Brothers Karamazov: Much on earth is concealed from us, but in place of it we have been granted a secret, mysterious sense of our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds...if this sense is weakened or destroyed in you, that which has grown up in you dies (320).
I love how his project's twofold aims pull on opposite directions. On one hand, he sets the highest imaginable standard for knowledge - the kind of absolute certainty which we find nowhere. And then, he applies that very standard to establish the existence of God, and thus eradicating the very uncertainty that makes the room, or creates the conditions for the pull of faith.
If you're a Rationalist all the way down, and you believe that reason can ascertain all truths, and that it can even get you something like absolute certainty, if the intellect should always precede determination of will, what do you need God for? A life devoid of trembling unknowability doesn't call for faith. Perhaps to appease the Church. It's interesting that the Third Meditation is taken to appease religious worries, but it seems to actually use the existence of God as a *tool* for completing the deductions of the Meditations. Instrumentalising God! Rational idolatry!
It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim up to the top (p. 20).
I'm reminded of a passage I recently read from Brothers Karamazov: Much on earth is concealed from us, but in place of it we have been granted a secret, mysterious sense of our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds...if this sense is weakened or destroyed in you, that which has grown up in you dies (320).
February 16, 2025
I won't say much about the content because that should be mostly known. Descartes presents a compelling series of arguments, with many problems e.g., the Cartesian circle, the problematic conception of infinity, the vague use of the term "reality", and the assertion that "something can't come from nothing", even though today many physicists believe that the universe came from nothing.
I was originally drawn by Descartes' truly unique style. He somehow combines precision and clarity with a dialectic, conversational, and informal tone. Unfortunately, that starts falling apart in the 3rd meditation. Things start becoming murky and you really have to read between the lines.
Let me now talk a bit about the edition/translation. This is probably the standard translation (and e.g., the one we used in a philosophy course) and indeed, it's pretty good. One thing that is often overlooked (even in the course) is the selections from the Objections and Replies. First and foremost, they are incredibly useful in understanding the content. Second, they give you an idea of how peer review happened back then; and it really was wild :) I won't spoil it.
I did find the Hackett edition a good companion; in a few places its translation was illuminating. Also, it has the whole set of Objections and Replies. But, this is a _big_ set, so in fact that just reinforces the usefulness of the selection in the Cambridge edition.
I was originally drawn by Descartes' truly unique style. He somehow combines precision and clarity with a dialectic, conversational, and informal tone. Unfortunately, that starts falling apart in the 3rd meditation. Things start becoming murky and you really have to read between the lines.
Let me now talk a bit about the edition/translation. This is probably the standard translation (and e.g., the one we used in a philosophy course) and indeed, it's pretty good. One thing that is often overlooked (even in the course) is the selections from the Objections and Replies. First and foremost, they are incredibly useful in understanding the content. Second, they give you an idea of how peer review happened back then; and it really was wild :) I won't spoil it.
I did find the Hackett edition a good companion; in a few places its translation was illuminating. Also, it has the whole set of Objections and Replies. But, this is a _big_ set, so in fact that just reinforces the usefulness of the selection in the Cambridge edition.
March 19, 2022
Descartes may be interesting when he limits his understanding to his self and his own existence. However, the moment he extrapolates that his existence implies the existence of God, I lose all respect.
Descartes first denounces the reliability of the senses – fair enough, the senses can sometimes deceive. Then, he argues that because he can clearly perceive his own thinking self, he must exist even if he has no sensory perception of himself. This seems like a relatively interesting perspective. Although I do not think that self perception and awareness is the only method to establishing our own existences, Descartes' position is interesting because it illuminates one perspective on the debate between the separation of mind/soul and body (though of course this debate is most interesting from an intellectual history perspective rather than a philosophical perspective). Still, Descartes provides a valuable perspective on the nature of the human self and I suppose on the conflict over rationalism/empiricism.
Yet, I am so uncompelled by his later argument that our own self perception and clear and distinct perception of God implies God's existence (though of course, I read the chapter in which Descartes most fully explains his theory awhile ago). As a quick refutation, I do not have a clear and distinct idea of God. In fact, what if I had a clear and distinct idea against God?
Descartes first denounces the reliability of the senses – fair enough, the senses can sometimes deceive. Then, he argues that because he can clearly perceive his own thinking self, he must exist even if he has no sensory perception of himself. This seems like a relatively interesting perspective. Although I do not think that self perception and awareness is the only method to establishing our own existences, Descartes' position is interesting because it illuminates one perspective on the debate between the separation of mind/soul and body (though of course this debate is most interesting from an intellectual history perspective rather than a philosophical perspective). Still, Descartes provides a valuable perspective on the nature of the human self and I suppose on the conflict over rationalism/empiricism.
Yet, I am so uncompelled by his later argument that our own self perception and clear and distinct perception of God implies God's existence (though of course, I read the chapter in which Descartes most fully explains his theory awhile ago). As a quick refutation, I do not have a clear and distinct idea of God. In fact, what if I had a clear and distinct idea against God?
March 30, 2022
What a headache! Not in a bad way tho, Descartes is truly a fascinating thinker. I really enjoyed his way of thinking and the way he went about proving his theories. If you’re ever contemplating your own existence, readdd this book! It’s actually a pretty easy read for the time period this was written in. Descartes is a philosopher you’ll truly love, I will never forgive him for inventing geometry tho.
July 27, 2024
Descartes is super interesting, with a beautiful clear pen, ahead of his time and hugely influential on western society. He was fucking obsessed with objectively proving that God is real which kind of ruins the work.
Read
February 27, 2025Fun to read. He's an imp and a scoundrel and he knows it. Invented our modern world as a bit — look how that turned out. Good reminder not to use your genius for evil bc 400 years later a grad student will rate your civilization collapsing magnum opus 2 stars on goodreads
Displaying 1 - 30 of 210 reviews