Gassendi, Pierre. Pierre Gassendi - biography of Pierre Gassendi

GASSENDI, Pierre

French materialist philosopher, mathematician and astronomer Pierre Gassendi was born in Chantersiers, Provence. Thanks to his outstanding abilities, at the age of 16 he was already a teacher of rhetoric in the city of Digne in France. Here he took holy orders and became an abbot. Professor of theology in Digne (from 1613), philosophy in Aix (from 1616). He structured his philosophy course in such a way that he first presented the teachings of Aristotle, and then showed its fallacy. The discoveries of Copernicus and the writings of Giordano Bruno finally convinced Gassendi of the unsuitability of Aristotelian physics and astronomy. Gassendi dedicated his essay “Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos” (Grenoble, 1627) to criticism of the Aristotelian system; he had to refuse to finish this work, since it was unsafe to attack Aristotle and defend Copernicus at that time. In particular, in the decree of the Paris Parliament of September 4, 1624, caused by an attempt to organize a public debate on the corpuscular theory at the University of Paris, it was prohibited, under penalty of death, “to approve and teach propositions directed against ancient and recognized authors and to organize debates without the approval of doctors of theology faculty." Even before the publication of his book, Gassendi left the department and lived either in Digne, where he was a canon of the cathedral, or in Paris, from where he traveled to Belgium and Holland. In 1645 he became a professor of mathematics at the Royal College in Paris.

Promoting atomism and the ethics of Epicurus, Gassendi objected to the theory of innate ideas and the entire metaphysics of R. Descartes from the standpoint of materialistic sensationalism. Gassendi's philosophical system consists of logic (which establishes the signs of truth and the paths leading to its knowledge), physics and ethics (the doctrine of happiness). According to the teachings of Gassendi, everything that exists consists of atoms and emptiness and is located in space, as an endless possibility of filling, and time; time and space were not created by anyone and cannot be destroyed, unlike atoms, which, according to Gassendi, were created by God. The number of atoms and their forms is finite and constant (therefore the amount of matter is constant), but the number of forms is less than the number of atoms. The difference between atoms (except for shape) lies in the difference in their main property - weight or innate internal desire to move. Atoms continuously move in the void and collide with each other. Bodies do not consist of primary atoms, but of their compounds, which Gassendi called “molecules” (from the word moles - “mass”). Grouping, atoms form all the bodies of the universe and are, therefore, the cause not only of the qualities of bodies, but also of their movement; they determine all the forces of nature. Since atoms are neither born nor destroyed, the amount of living force in nature remains unchanged. When the body is at rest, the force does not disappear, but only remains bound, and when it begins to move, the force is not born, but only released. Action at a distance does not exist, and if one body attracts another without touching it, then this can be explained in such a way that streams of atoms emanate from the first and come into contact with the atoms of the second. According to Gassendi, not only material bodies, but also “weightless fluids,” in particular heat and light, also consist of atoms. The soul, according to Gassendi, consists of special atoms dispersed throughout the body. The basis of cognition is the readings of the senses (sensations).

Gassendi's philosophy, in particular his atomistic teaching, was in some respects an attempt to reconcile materialist ideas about matter and space with religion. Gassendi sought a compromise between the assumption of the eternity of space and atoms and the existence of God who created them. Gassendi's atomic doctrine was generally favorably accepted by naturalists of the 17th century. Many of them, including

philosopher, mathematician, astronomer and researcher of ancient texts. He taught rhetoric at Digne and later became professor of philosophy at Aix-en-Provence.

Biography

Gassendi structured his course in such a way that he first presented the teachings of Aristotle, and then showed his fallacy. The discoveries of Copernicus and the writings of Giordano Bruno, as well as the reading of the works of Peter Ramus and Louis Vives, finally convinced Gassendi of the unsuitability of Aristotelian physics and astronomy. The fruit of his studies was the skeptical essay “Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos” (Grenoble,). He had to refuse to finish this work: it was unsafe to attack Aristotle and defend Copernicus at that time, as was proven by the fate of Etienne Dolay, Giordano Bruno and others. Even before the publication of his book, Gassendi left the department and lived in Digne, where he was a canon Cathedral, then in Paris, from where he traveled to Belgium and Holland. During this trip he met Hobbes and published (an) analysis of the mystical teachings of the Rosicrucian Robert Fludd (“Epistolica dissertatio in qua praecipua principia philosophiae R. Fluddi deteguntur”). He later wrote a critique of Descartes' Thoughts ("Disquisitio ad v ersus Cartesium"), which led to a lively debate between both philosophers. Gassendi was one of the few 17th-century scientists interested in the history of science.

Scientific activity

Gassendi's philosophical system, set out in his Syntagma philosophicum, is the result of his historical research. These studies led him (like Leibniz later) to the conclusion that the opinions of various philosophers, considered completely dissimilar, often differ only in form. Most often, Gassendi leans towards Epicurus, differing with him only on theological issues.

Regarding the possibility of knowing the truth, he keeps the middle ground between skeptics and dogmatists. Through reason we can know not only appearances, but also the very essence of things; It cannot be denied, however, that there are secrets inaccessible to the human mind. Gassendi divides philosophy into physics, the subject of which is to explore the true meaning of things, and ethics, the science of being happy and acting in accordance with virtue. An introduction to them is logic, which is the art of correctly representing (idea), correctly judging (sentence), correctly concluding (syllogism) and correctly arranging conclusions (method).

Gassendi's physics stands close to dynamic atomism. All natural phenomena occur in space and time. They are the essence of “things of their own kind”, characterized by the absence of positive attributes. Both space and time can only be measured in connection with bodies: the first is measured by volume, the second by the movement of bodies. Gassendi represents matter as consisting of many tiny compact elastic atoms, separated from each other by empty space, not containing emptiness and therefore physically indivisible, but measurable. The number of atoms and their forms is finite and constant (therefore the amount of matter is constant), but the number of forms is less than the number of atoms. Gassendi does not recognize secondary properties of atoms, such as smell, taste, and others. The difference between atoms (except for shape) lies in the difference in their main property - weight or their innate desire to move. Grouping, they form all the bodies of the universe and are, therefore, the cause not only of the qualities of bodies, but also of their movement; they determine all the forces of nature. Since atoms are neither born nor destroyed, the amount of living force in nature remains unchanged. When the body is at rest, the force does not disappear, but only remains bound, and when it begins to move, the force is not born, but only released. Action at a distance does not exist, and if one body attracts another without touching it, then this can be explained in such a way that streams of atoms emanate from the first and come into contact with the atoms of the second. This applies equally to animate and inanimate bodies.

Translators of Gassendi into Russian

Memory

Write a review of the article "Gassendi, Pierre"

Notes

Literature

Biographical information about Gassendi is contained in Sorbier’s article “De vita et moribus Petri Gassendi,” appended to the collected works of the philosopher, and in the funeral homily of Gassendi’s successor in canonical office at Dina, Nicholas Taxil.

Works dedicated to Gassendi's philosophy:

• Zubov V.P. Pierre Gassendi // Questions of the history of natural science and technology. Vol. 2. - M., 1956.
• Bykhovsky B. E. Gassendi. - M., 1974. - 204 p.
• Dyakov A.V. Pierre Gassendi as a historian of philosophy // Bulletin of the Samara Humanitarian Academy. Series: Philosophy. Philology. 2013. No. 2 (14). pp. 119-127.
• Kolchinsky I.G., Korsun A.A., Rodriguez M.G. Astronomers: Biographical Guide. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional.. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1986. - 512 p.
• A. Martin, “Histoire de la vie et des écrits de Gassendi” (Paris, );
• L. Mandon, “Etude sur le Syntagma philosophicum de Gassendi” (Montpellier,);
• L. Mandon, “De la philosophie de Gassendi” ();
• Jeannel, “Gassendi spiritualiste” (Montpellier, );
• Ch. Barneaud, "Etude sur Gassendi" (in "Nouvelles Annales de philosophie catholique", );
• F. Thomas, “La philosophie de Gassendi” (Paris, ).
• Olivier Bloch, La Philosophie de Gassendi. Nominalisme, matérialisme et métaphysique, Martinus Nijhoff, La Haye 1971 (ISBN 9024750350)
• Saul Fisher, Pierre Gassendi's Philosophy and Science, Brill, Leyde/Boston, 2005 (ISBN 9789004119963)
• Lynn Sumida Joy, Gassendi the Atomist: Advocate of History in an Age of Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, 1987 (ISBN 0-521-52239-0)
• Antonia Lolordo, Pierre Gassendi and the Birth of Early Modern Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK / New York, 2006 (ISBN 978-0-521-86613-2)
• Forgie, William. Gassendi and Kant on Existence // Journal of the History of Philosophy - Volume 45, Number 4, October 2007, pp. 511-523
• Gventsadze, Veronica. Aristotelian Influences in Gassendi’s Moral Philosophy // Journal of the History of Philosophy - Volume 45, Number 2, April 2007, pp. 223-242

Links

• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
• Khramov Yu. A. Gassendi Pierre // Physicists: Biographical Reference / Ed. A. I. Akhiezer. - Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional - M.: Nauka, 1983. - P. 75. - 400 p. - 200,000 copies.(in translation)
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Excerpt characterizing Gassendi, Pierre

Pierre, unconscious from fear, jumped up and ran back to the battery, as the only refuge from all the horrors that surrounded him.
While Pierre was entering the trench, he noticed that no shots were heard at the battery, but some people were doing something there. Pierre did not have time to understand what kind of people they were. He saw the senior colonel lying with his back to him on the rampart, as if examining something below, and he saw one soldier he noticed, who, breaking forward from the people holding his hand, shouted: “Brothers!” – and saw something else strange.
But he had not yet had time to realize that the colonel had been killed, that the one shouting “brothers!” There was a prisoner who, in front of his eyes, was bayoneted in the back by another soldier. As soon as he ran into the trench, a thin, yellow, sweaty-faced man in a blue uniform, with a sword in his hand, ran at him, shouting something. Pierre, instinctively defending himself from the push, since they, without seeing, ran away from each other, put out his hands and grabbed this man (it was a French officer) with one hand by the shoulder, with the other by the proud. The officer, releasing his sword, grabbed Pierre by the collar.
For several seconds, they both looked with frightened eyes at faces alien to each other, and both were at a loss about what they had done and what they should do. “Am I taken prisoner or is he taken prisoner by me? - thought each of them. But, obviously, the French officer was more inclined to think that he had been taken prisoner, because Pierre’s strong hand, driven by involuntary fear, squeezed his throat tighter and tighter. The Frenchman wanted to say something, when suddenly a cannonball whistled low and terribly above their heads, and it seemed to Pierre that the French officer’s head had been torn off: he bent it so quickly.
Pierre also bowed his head and let go of his hands. Without thinking any more about who took whom prisoner, the Frenchman ran back to the battery, and Pierre went downhill, stumbling over the dead and wounded, who seemed to him to be catching his legs. But before he had time to go down, dense crowds of fleeing Russian soldiers appeared towards him, who, falling, stumbling and screaming, ran joyfully and violently towards the battery. (This was the attack that Ermolov attributed to himself, saying that only his courage and happiness could have accomplished this feat, and the attack in which he allegedly threw the St. George crosses that were in his pocket onto the mound.)
The French who occupied the battery ran. Our troops, shouting “Hurray,” drove the French so far behind the battery that it was difficult to stop them.
Prisoners were taken from the battery, including a wounded French general, who was surrounded by officers. Crowds of wounded, familiar and unfamiliar to Pierre, Russians and French, with faces disfigured by suffering, walked, crawled and rushed from the battery on stretchers. Pierre entered the mound, where he spent more than an hour, and from the family circle that accepted him, he did not find anyone. There were many dead here, unknown to him. But he recognized some. The young officer sat, still curled up, at the edge of the shaft, in a pool of blood. The red-faced soldier was still twitching, but they did not remove him.
Pierre ran downstairs.
“No, now they will leave it, now they will be horrified by what they did!” - thought Pierre, aimlessly following the crowds of stretchers moving from the battlefield.
But the sun, obscured by smoke, still stood high, and in front, and especially to the left of Semyonovsky, something was boiling in the smoke, and the roar of shots, shooting and cannonade not only did not weaken, but intensified to the point of despair, like a man who, straining himself, screams with all his might.

The main action of the Battle of Borodino took place in the space of a thousand fathoms between Borodin and Bagration’s flushes. (Outside this space, on the one hand, the Russians made a demonstration by Uvarov's cavalry in mid-day; on the other hand, behind Utitsa, there was a clash between Poniatowski and Tuchkov; but these were two separate and weak actions in comparison with what happened in the middle of the battlefield. ) On the field between Borodin and the flushes, near the forest, in an area open and visible from both sides, the main action of the battle took place, in the most simple, ingenuous way.
The battle began with a cannonade from both sides from several hundred guns.
Then, when the smoke covered the entire field, in this smoke two divisions moved (from the French side) on the right, Dessay and Compana, on fléches, and on the left the regiments of the Viceroy to Borodino.
From the Shevardinsky redoubt, on which Napoleon stood, the flashes were at a distance of a mile, and Borodino was more than two miles away in a straight line, and therefore Napoleon could not see what was happening there, especially since the smoke, merging with the fog, hid all terrain. The soldiers of Dessay's division, aimed at the flushes, were visible only until they descended under the ravine that separated them from the flushes. As soon as they descended into the ravine, the smoke of cannon and rifle shots on the flashes became so thick that it covered the entire rise of that side of the ravine. Something black flashed through the smoke - probably people, and sometimes the shine of bayonets. But whether they were moving or standing, whether they were French or Russian, could not be seen from the Shevardinsky redoubt.
The sun rose brightly and slanted its rays straight into the face of Napoleon, who was looking from under his hand at the flushes. Smoke lay in front of the flashes, and sometimes it seemed that the smoke was moving, sometimes it seemed that the troops were moving. People's screams could sometimes be heard behind the shots, but it was impossible to know what they were doing there.
Napoleon, standing on the mound, looked into the chimney, and through the small circle of the chimney he saw smoke and people, sometimes his own, sometimes Russians; but where what he saw was, he did not know when he looked again with his simple eye.
He stepped off the mound and began to walk back and forth in front of him.
From time to time he stopped, listened to the shots and peered into the battlefield.
Not only from the place below where he stood, not only from the mound on which some of his generals now stood, but also from the very flashes on which were now together and alternately the Russians, the French, the dead, the wounded and the living, frightened or distraught soldiers, it was impossible to understand what was happening in this place. For several hours at this place, amid incessant shooting, rifle and cannon fire, first Russians, sometimes French, sometimes infantry, sometimes cavalry soldiers appeared; appeared, fell, shot, collided, not knowing what to do with each other, screamed and ran back.
From the battlefield, his sent adjutants and orderlies of his marshals constantly jumped to Napoleon with reports on the progress of the case; but all these reports were false: both because in the heat of battle it is impossible to say what is happening at a given moment, and because many adjutants did not reach the real place of the battle, but conveyed what they heard from others; and also because while the adjutant was driving through the two or three miles that separated him from Napoleon, circumstances changed and the news he was carrying was already becoming incorrect. So an adjutant galloped up from the Viceroy with the news that Borodino had been occupied and the bridge to Kolocha was in the hands of the French. The adjutant asked Napoleon if he would order the troops to move? Napoleon ordered to line up on the other side and wait; but not only while Napoleon was giving this order, but even when the adjutant had just left Borodino, the bridge had already been recaptured and burned by the Russians, in the very battle in which Pierre took part at the very beginning of the battle.
An adjutant who rode up from a flush with a pale, frightened face reported to Napoleon that the attack had been repulsed and that Compan was wounded and Davout was killed, and meanwhile the flushes were occupied by another part of the troops, while the adjutant was told that the French had been repulsed and Davout was alive and only slightly shell-shocked. Taking into account such necessarily false reports, Napoleon made his orders, which either had already been carried out before he made them, or could not and were not carried out.
Marshals and generals, who were at a closer distance from the battlefield, but just like Napoleon, did not participate in the battle itself and only occasionally drove into the fire of bullets, without asking Napoleon, made their orders and gave their orders about where and where to shoot, and where to gallop on horseback, and where to run to foot soldiers. But even their orders, just like Napoleon’s orders, were also carried out to the smallest extent and were rarely carried out. For the most part, what came out was the opposite of what they ordered. The soldiers, who were ordered to go forward, were hit by grapeshot and ran back; the soldiers, who were ordered to stand still, suddenly, seeing the Russians suddenly appearing opposite them, sometimes ran back, sometimes rushed forward, and the cavalry galloped without orders to catch up with the fleeing Russians. So, two regiments of cavalry galloped through the Semenovsky ravine and just drove up the mountain, turned around and galloped back at full speed. The infantry soldiers moved in the same way, sometimes running completely different from where they were told. All the orders about where and when to move the guns, when to send foot soldiers to shoot, when to send horse soldiers to trample Russian foot soldiers - all these orders were made by the closest unit commanders who were in the ranks, without even asking Ney, Davout and Murat, not only Napoleon. They were not afraid of punishment for failure to fulfill an order or for an unauthorized order, because in battle it concerns what is most dear to a person - his own life, and sometimes it seems that salvation lies in running back, sometimes in running forward, and these people acted in accordance with the mood of the moment who were in the heat of battle. In essence, all these movements back and forth did not facilitate or change the position of the troops. All their attacks and attacks on each other caused them almost no harm, but harm, death and injury were caused by cannonballs and bullets flying everywhere throughout the space through which these people rushed. As soon as these people left the space through which cannonballs and bullets were flying, their superiors standing behind them immediately formed them, subjected them to discipline and, under the influence of this discipline, brought them back into the area of ​​fire, in which they again (under the influence of the fear of death) lost discipline and rushed about according to the random mood of the crowd.

Napoleon's generals - Davout, Ney and Murat, who were in the vicinity of this area of ​​​​fire and even sometimes drove into it, several times brought slender and huge masses of troops into this area of ​​​​fire. But contrary to what had invariably happened in all previous battles, instead of the expected news of the enemy’s flight, orderly masses of troops returned from there in upset, frightened crowds. They arranged them again, but there were fewer and fewer people. At midday, Murat sent his adjutant to Napoleon demanding reinforcements.
Napoleon was sitting under the mound and drinking punch when Murat's adjutant galloped up to him with assurances that the Russians would be defeated if His Majesty gave another division.
- Reinforcements? - Napoleon said with stern surprise, as if not understanding his words and looking at the handsome boy adjutant with long, curled black hair (the same way Murat wore his hair). “Reinforcements! - thought Napoleon. “Why are they asking for reinforcements when they have half the army in their hands, aimed at the weak, unfortified wing of the Russians!”
“Dites au roi de Naples,” Napoleon said sternly, “qu"il n"est pas midi et que je ne vois pas encore clair sur mon echiquier. Allez... [Tell the Neapolitan king that it is not yet noon and that I do not yet see clearly on my chessboard. Go...]
The adjutant’s handsome boy with long hair, without letting go of his hat, sighed heavily and galloped again to where people were being killed.
Napoleon stood up and, calling Caulaincourt and Berthier, began to talk with them about matters not related to the battle.
In the middle of the conversation, which was beginning to interest Napoleon, Berthier's eyes turned to the general and his retinue, who was galloping towards the mound on a sweaty horse. It was Belliard. He got off his horse, quickly walked up to the emperor and boldly, in a loud voice, began to prove the need for reinforcements. He swore on his honor that the Russians would die if the emperor gave another division.

Gassendi, or Gassend (fr. Pierre Gassendi, January 22, Chantersiers near Dinya V Provence - October 24 , Paris) - French Catholic priest, philosopher , mathematician, astronomer and scholar of ancient texts. Taught rhetoric in Dina, and later became a professor philosophy V Aix-en-Provence.

Biography

Gassendi structured his course in such a way that he first presented the doctrine Aristotle, and then showed it was wrong. Discoveries Copernicus and essays Giordano Bruno, as well as reading the works of Peter Ramus and Louis Vives, finally convinced Gassendi of the unsuitability of Aristotelian physicists And astronomy. The fruit of his studies was the skeptical essay “Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos” ( Grenoble, ). He had to refuse to finish this essay. Even before the publication of his book, Gassendi left the department and lived either in Dina, where he was a canon of the cathedral, or in Paris, from where he traveled to Belgium And Holland. During this trip he met Hobbes and published () an analysis of mystical teachings Rosicrucian Robert Fludda (“Epistolica dissertatio in qua praecipua principia philosophiae R. Fluddi deteguntur”). He later wrote a critique Descartes reflections (“Disquisitio adversus Cartesium”), which led to a lively debate between both philosophers. Gassendi was one of the few scientists 17th century, interested history of science.

Scientific activity

Gassendi's philosophical system, set out in his Syntagma philosophicum, is the result of his historical research. These studies led him (as later Leibniz) to the conclusion that the opinions of different philosophers, considered completely dissimilar, often differ only in form. Most often, Gassendi leans towards Epicurus, differing with him only on theological issues.

Regarding the possibility of knowing the truth, he keeps a middle ground between skeptics and dogmatists. Through reason we can know not only visibility, but also the very essence of things; It cannot be denied, however, that there are secrets inaccessible to the human mind. Gassendi divides philosophy into physics, the object of which is to explore the true meaning of things, and ethics- the science of being happy and acting in accordance with virtue. An introduction to them is logics, which is the art of correctly representing (idea), correctly judging (sentence), correctly inferring ( syllogism) and correctly position the pins (method).

Gassendi's physics stands close to dynamic atomism. All natural phenomena take place in space And time. This is the essence of “things of their kind”, characterized by the absence of positive attributes. Both space and time can only be measured in connection with bodies: the first is measured by volume, the second by the movement of bodies.

Translation of the works of P. Gassendi into Russian:

Gassendi P. Op. In 2 volumes - M., 1966-1968.

Translators of Gassendi into Russian

Memory

In 1935 International Astronomical Union assigned the name Gassendi

Basing his teaching on it. In his main work, the Code of Philosophy (1658), he divided philosophy into three parts: 1) logic, which analyzes the problem of the reliability of knowledge and criticizes skepticism and dogmatism; 2) physics, in which, substantiating the atomic theory, Gassendi proved the objectivity, uncreateability and indestructibility of space and time; 3) ethics, where Gassendi opposed ascetic church morality and, following Epicurus, argued that all pleasure is good in itself, and all virtue is good insofar as it provides “serenity.” Gassendi made many important observations and discoveries in the field of astronomy (about the passage of Mercury across the solar disk, the discovery of five satellites of Jupiter in addition to the four previously discovered, etc.) and works on the history of science. In the historical conditions of the 17th century, Gassendi played a progressive role as a philosopher and scientist. However, his materialism was inconsistent; his concept contained a number of religious ideas. He recognized, for example, God as the creator of atoms, and believed that in addition to the materialistically understood “animal soul,” man also has a supersensible “rational soul.”

Philosophical Dictionary. Ed. I.T. Frolova. M., 1991, p. 81.

Gassendi Pierre (January 22, 1592, Chantersiers, near Digne, October 24, 1655, Paris), French materialist philosopher. Professor of philosophy at the College of Aix-en-Provence, from where he was expelled in 1623 by the Jesuits for his philosophical beliefs. From 1626 he was a canon and then rector of the cathedral in Digne. Gassendi was also engaged in astronomical and mathematical research. In 1645, Gassendi moved to Paris, where he was a professor of mathematics at the Royal College. In Paris, Gassendi met with F. Bacon , T. Hobbes , G. Grotius , T. Campanella .

Gassendi's first philosophical work is “Paradoxical Exercises against the Aristotelians” (published anonymously in 1624, Russian translation 1968) - a pamphlet against scholastic pseudo-Aristotelianism. Gassendi set the task of developing philosophy on a scientific basis, seeing the latter in the atomistic materialism of Epicurus, brought into line with the discoveries of natural science. Gassendi's main philosophical works - "The Code of Philosophy" (Russian translation, 1966) and "The Code of Philosophy of Epicurus" (Russian translation, 1966) - were published only posthumously in 1658. The Code of Philosophy consists of three parts: Logic, Physics and Ethics. In Logic, Gassendi adheres to the principle of materialistic sensationalism, which serves as the foundation of his epistemological teaching. In “Physics” he defends the material unity of the world, consisting of a variety of self-propelled atoms. Gassendi's "Ethics", following Epicureanism, considers happiness as the highest good, asserts the inseparability of happiness and civil virtue, based on "prudence" - the criterion of good. Gassendi's philosophy had a peculiar form of teaching about dual truth. According to Gassendi, truth is discovered through two different sources of light - evidence and revelation; the first of them is based on experience and reason, illuminating natural phenomena, the second - on divine authority, illuminating supernatural phenomena. According to K. Marx, where Gassendi deviates from the materialist teachings of Epicurus, “... he does this in order not to contradict his religious premises” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, vol. 40, p. 44). However, this compromise did not save Gassendi from the harsh attacks of orthodox theologians and the long-term neglect of historians of philosophy.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983.

Works: Opera omnia, v. 1-β, Lugduni, the same, v. 1-6, 1658; Floren-tlae, 1727; in Russian Per.-Soch., vol. 1-2, M., 1966-68.

Literature: Konyo J., P. G. - renewer of epicureanism, “VF”, 1956, M 3; Bykhovsky B. E., Gassendi, M., 1974; Rochot V., Les travaux de Gassendi..., P., 1944; P. Gassendi, 1592-1655. Sa vie et son oeuvre, P., .

Gassendi opposed the doctrine of Cartesius (Descartes) about the innateness of ideas. He believed that even mathematical concepts have an experimental origin, and the clarity and distinctness that Descartes referred to to show the innateness of geometric axioms is just a fallacy, since over time, those ideas that at first seem clear can later turn out to be vague. Gassendi tried to revive the philosophy of Epicurus. In this endeavor, he was guided mainly by the desire to rehabilitate Epicureanism in the face of Christianity. Therefore, central to Gassendi’s teachings are his ethical views. He believes that Epicure's doctrine of hedonism has been misinterpreted. First of all, this concerns the concept of pleasure, which should be understood not as sensual pleasure, but as the desire for happiness. The main virtue that a person should follow is prudence. This leads to Gassendi’s main conclusion: “The philosophy of happiness is nothing more than a philosophy of health” [Op. T. 1. P. 318]. Gassendi considers the main condition for a happy life to be the absence of fear of death, believing that it is necessary to proceed from the position: death cannot cause suffering either to the living or to the dead.

Blinnikov L.V. A brief dictionary of philosophical personalities. M., 2002.

Descartes' metaphysical system was criticized from a materialist point of view back in the first half of the 17th century. The main opponent of Descartes' doctrine of innate ideas was the largest representative of the materialist trend in French philosophy of the 17th century, the outstanding thinker and natural scientist Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655).

Marx characterized this ideological polemic as follows: “The metaphysics of the 17th century, the main representative of which in France was Descartes, had materialism as its antagonist from the day of its birth. Materialism opposed Descartes in the person of Gassendi, who restored Epicurean materialism." Gassendi, who wrote a work entitled “Against the Aristotelians” back in 1624, acted as an ally of Descartes in the fight against medieval scholasticism. At the same time, he sharply criticized the dualistic nature of Descartes' philosophy, the latter's desire to oppose consciousness and matter. Gassendi materialistically resolved the question of the relationship between thinking and being and declared sensory experience to be the main source of knowledge.

In his doctrine of the structure of matter, Gassendi proceeded from the views of Epicurus. He taught that matter is eternal and indestructible, saw objective categories of reality in space and time, and insisted on their infinity. Affirming man's right to earthly happiness, justifying his desire to satisfy his needs, Gassendi followed Epicurus in matters of ethics. Gassendi consciously contrasted his ethical views with the ascetic worldview instilled by the church. Representatives of the reactionary camp, trying to discredit Gassendi’s Epicurean philosophy at any cost, accused it of immorality. In his works (the main one, “System of Philosophy,” was published after the philosopher’s death, in 1658), Gassendi set out to smash these attempts and restore the truly humanistic image of Epicurus’s moral views.

Gassendi was not consistent in his philosophical aspirations. Strong materialistic tendencies were combined in his philosophy with concessions to theology and recognition of divine providence. However, these concessions were largely external and forced.

Despite the presence of certain contradictions, Gassendi's philosophy played a very significant historical role. In particular, her influence on the development of advanced French literature was very fruitful. A follower of Gassendi was such a unique and progressive writer as Cyrano de Bergerac. Gassendi's teaching had a serious influence on the worldview of Moliere and La Fontaine. Thus, Gassendi’s influence in the literary life of the country is associated primarily with the development of realistic tendencies and therefore becomes especially noticeable in the second half of the 17th century.

Notes

* K. Marx, The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism, K. Marx and F. Engels Works, vol. 2, p. 140.

Quoted from: World History. Volume IV. M., 1958, p. 242-243.

Read further:

Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).

Essays:

Opera omnia.v. 1-6. Lugduni, 1658;

Works, vol. 1-2. M., 1966-68.

Literature:

Bykhovsky B. E. Gassendi. M., 1974;

Konyo J., P. G. - renewer of epicureanism, “VF”, 1956, M 3;

Brett G. S. The philosophy of Gassendi. L., 1908.

Rochot V., Les travaux de Gassendi..., P., 1944; P.

Gassendi, 1592-1655. Sa vie et son oeuvre, P., )