Descartes Principle Of Material Things Part 2 Analysis

One of his most well-known theses, Descartes believed that it would be logically impossible to have empty space or a vacuum based on his doctrine of extension. His justification for this claim is quite simple, he thinks that space and body are identical or that at least the ideas of each are the same in relation to one another. In ‘The Principles of Material Things Part II’ Descartes explains his reasoning behind his theory that a vacuum or empty space would be ultimately impossible. Firstly, he states that “It is contrary to reason to say that there is a void or space in which there is absolutely nothing” (Descartes Principles). He then further goes on to say the extension of space does not differ from that of body. According to Descartes, a body is extended in length, breadth, or depth and from this there is reason to conclude that it is therefore a substance. A vacuum by definition is space that is not a …show more content…
As the piston drained the air away from the dome, he watched what happened. While the results of this experiments could be easily seen, there was an obvious controversy over the question of whether the device could truly empty everything from the dome. Boyle believed that that after the pump has taken the air from the dome, nothing is left inside of it. Therefore, he claimed that that his experiments showed that empty spaces can be indeed introduced into nature. While Boyle and Descartes agree on the fact that all matter is extended and impenetrable, he would refute Descartes on his belief that a vacuum is impossible. The traditional meaning of a vacuum was a metaphysical, and instead identified his dome as just having all of the air removed. Even though he differed from Descartes and believed that empty space did in fact exist, he realized that the evacuated space might not be absolutely empty. But, for him, it was a problem that could be