Hello is there anyone that can help me with my Discussion questions.  I have multiple discussion questions for different chapters. I will have the instruction in the upload.

READ THE5E GUIDELINE5

!

Completion: Students ore responsible for completing oll fourteen of these primory
source exercises ond for onswering oll guestions in a given exercise. Posts will be
groded for quolity ond length. No lote posfs will be accepted.

Formof: Complel e sentences ond occurote grommor ore required. ff you do use
direct guototions, you must provide proper in-text citotions – see out oddendum
for detoils.

Originolity: Do not repeot the some informotion onother student hos olready

Posted – odd something new lo secure os mony points os possible! Breoking ground
eorly moy be odvontogeous. Eleventh hour posts thot simply restote moteriol
olneody discussed will not secure the highest scores. Cutting ond posting from on
internet source does nof guolify os completing on exercise.

Student Replies: Replying to, or oddressing, onother student’s post is encouroged
ond is o greot woy to moke certoinyou’re not simply repeating informotion ond
losing points for redundoncy. Respecfful debale is welcomed.

Word Count: Posts must meel lhe 200-word minimum to eorno possing score
(“C”). Quolity posts thot exceed this minimum length will secure points thot
proportionolity exceed the minimum possing grode. For instonce, quolity posts of
300 words or more eorn “B’s” while quolity posts of 400 words or more secure
“A’s.” But guolity is better thon quantity! 5o o greot post with 200 words will do
well. This is not on occosion for lersereplies. Contextuolize the guestions inyour
chopter reodings.

T
Gassendi on the Science of Observation and the tluman Soul

Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) was a seventeenth-century French Catholic priest and philosopher. A contemporary of l,
D escarte s, G as sen di was part of a group of intellectuals in France who sought a new philosophy of nature that could
replace the traditional tea chings of Aristotle that Copernicus and his t’ollowers had so severely criticized. Gassendt had no*,
doubt that his laith as a Chrrstian was compatible with his enthusiasm for the new sctences of observation, but in order to
demonstrate this to his contemporaries, he had to show that the mechanical explanations of the universe and the natural
world did not necessarily lead to a heretrcal materialism or atheism. ln the following passage, taken from his posthumously;
publtshed work Syntagma Philosophicum (1658), Gassendi attempted to demonstrate that one might infer the existence
of the human soul, even if it was not accessible to the senses.

here are many such
things for which with
the passage of time
helpful appliances are
belng found that will

make them visible to the senses. For
example, take the little animal the mite,
which is born under the skin; the senses

perceived it as a certain unitary little
point without parts; but since, however,
the senses saw that it moved by itself,
reason had deduced from this motion
as from a perceptible sign that this little
body was an animal and because its for-

ward motion was somewhat Iike a turtle’s,

reason added that it must get about by
the use of certain tiny legs and feet. And

although this truth would have been hid-

den to the senses/ which never perceived

these limbs, the microscope was recently

invented by which sight could perceive
that matters were actually as predicted.

Likewise, the question had been raised
what the galaxy in the sky with the name

of the lr4ilky Way was. Democritus,
concerning whom it was said that even
when he did not know somethrng he was

knowing, had deduced from the percep-

tible sign of its filmy whiteness that it
was nothing more than an innumerable

multitude of closely packed little stars
which could not be seen separately, but
produced that effect of spilt milk when

many of them were joined together. This

truth had become known to him, andyet

had remained undisclosed to the senses
until our day and age, until the moment
that the telescope, recently discovered,
made it clear that things were in fact
what he had said. But there are many
such things which, though they were hid-

den from the ancients, have now been
made manifest for our eyes. And who
knows but a great many of those which

are concealed in our time, which we per-

ceive only through the intelligence, will
one day also be clearly perceived by the

senses through the agency of some help-

ful appliance thought up by our descen-
dants?…

Secondly, if someone wonders
whether a certain body is endowed with

a soul or not, the senses are not at all
capable of determining that by taking a
look as it were at the soul itself; yet there

are operations which when they come to

the senses’ notice, lead the intellect to
deduce as from a sign that there is some

soul beneath them. You will say that this

sign belongs to the empirical type, but it
is not at all of that type, for it is not even
one of the indicative signs since it does
not inform us of something that the
senses have ever perceived in conjunc-
tion with the sign, as they have seen fire

with smoke, but informs us instead of
something that has always been impen-
etrable to the senses themselves, like
our skin’s pores or the mite’s feet before

the microscope.

You will persist with the objecti
that we should not ask so much whether

there is a soul in a body as what its nature

is, if it is the cause of such operations,
just as there is no question that there is a
force attracting iron in a magnet or that

there is a tide in the sea, but there are
questions over what their nature is or
what they are caused by. But let me omit

these matters which are to be” fully
treated elsewhere, and let it be enough

we say that not every truth can be k
by the mind, but at least some can con-

cerning something otherwise hidden, or

not obvious to the senses themselves,
And we bring up the example of the soul:

both because vital action is proposed by
Sextus Empiricus as an example of an
indicative sign and because even though

it pertains not so much to the nature of
the soul as to its existence, still a truth of
existence of such magnitude as this,
which it is most valuable for us to know,’
is made indisputable. For when among

other questions we hear it asked if God
is or exists in the universe, that is a truthl

of existence which it would be a great
service to establish firmly even if it is not

proven at the same time what he is or
what his nature is. Although God is such :

that he can no more come under the
perusal of the senses than the soul can,

still we infer that the soul exists in the
body from the actions that occur before

the senses and are so peculiarly

542 I cHnerrn ro TheNew Science of theseventeenthCentury

appropriate to a soul that if one were
not present, they would not be either. ln
the same way we deduce that God exists
in the universe from his effects per-
ceived by the senses, which could not be
produced by anything but God and
which therefore would not be observed
unless God were present in the world,
such as the great order of the universe,
its great beauty, its grandeur, its har-
mony, which are so great that they can

only result from a sovereignly wise,
good, powerful, and inexhaustible cause.
But these things will be treated else-
where at greater length.

Source: Craig B, Brush, ed., The Selected Worhs ot’
Pierre Gassendi (New York: 1972), pp.334-36,

Questions for Analysis
1. What is the relationship between new

knowledge and new scientific tools
(the microscope and the telescope) in

Gassendi’s examples of the mite and
the l\4ilky Way? ls he a Baconian or a
Cartesian?

2. What are the limitations of the senses
when it comes to questions of the
human soul, according to Gassendi?

3. Given these limitations, does Gas-
sendi conclude that science will never
be able to say anything about his reli-
gious faith?

speculative natural philosophy and using lr ro cririque rhose
who would exclude her from scientific debate. The ,,tyran-

nicai government” of men over women, she wrote, ,,hath so
dejected our spirits, that we are become so stupid, rhat beasts
being but a degree below us, men use us but a degree above
beasts. Whereas in nature we have as clear an understanding
as men, if we are bred in schools to mature our brains.,,

The construction of observatories in private residences
enabled some women living in such homes to work their
way into the growing field of astronomy. Between 1650 and
i710, 14 percent of German astronomers were women, the
most famous o[whom was Maria Winkelmann (1670_1720).
Winkelmann had collaborated with her husba4d, Gouflried
Kirch, in his observatory, and when he died she had already
done significant work, discovering a comer and preparing
calendars for the Berlin Academy of Sciences. When Kirch
died, she petirioned the academy to allow her to mke her
husband’s place in that presrigious body bur was rejected.
Gottfried Leibniz, rhe academy’s presidenr, explained,
‘hlready during her husband’s lifetime the society was bur-
dened with ridicule because its calendar was prepared by
a woman. If she were now to be kept on in such capacity,
mouths would gape even wider.” In spite of this rejection,
Winkelmann continued to work as an astronomer, training
both her son and two daughters in rhe discipiine.

Like Winkelmann, the entymologisr Maria Sibylla
Merian (1647-17\7) also made a career based on observa_
tion. And like Winkelmann, Merian was able ro carve our
a space for her scientifrc work by exploiting the precedent
o[ guild women who learned their trades in family work-
shops. Merian was a daughter of an engraver and illus_
trator in Frankfurt and served as his informal apprentice

FROM MEIAMORPHOS’s OF THE
‘NSECIS

OFSUR’NAM,
BY MARIA SYBTLLA MERTAN (1705). Merian, the daughter
ofa Frankfurt engraver, learned in her father,s workshop the
skills necessary to become an important early entymologist
and scientific illustrator and conducted her research on two
continents.

“..a-4..,ly’.

lvlcthnd< fnr n \low Dhil^"^-l^.,. a^--^ -.^) ^^----..^-

I

?^ rt1

t
| ,:.
,:

I
!

t..

READ THESE oUIDELINES!

Completion: Students ore responsiblefor completing oll fourteen of lhese primory
source exercises ond for onswering oll guestions in o given exercise. Posts will be
groded for guolity ond length. No lote posts will be accepled.

Formot: Complet e sentences ond occurote grommor ore reguined. If you do use
direct guototions, you must provide proper in-text citotions – see our addendum
for detoils.

Originolity: Do not repeot the some informotion onother student hos olreody
posted – odd something new to secure os mqny points os possible! Breoking ground
eonly moy be odvontogeous. Eleventh hour posts thot simply restote moteriol
olreody discussed will not secure the highest scores. Cutting ond posting from on
internet source does not quolify os completing an exer cise.

Sfudent Replies: Replying to, or oddressing, onother student’s post is encouroged
ond is o gneot woy to moke certoin you’re not simply repealing informotion ond
losing points for redundoncy. Respectful debote is welcomed.

Word Count: Posts must meet the 2OO-word minimum to eorn o possing score
(“C”). Quolity posts thot exceed this minimum length will secure points thot
proportionolity exceed the minimum possing Tade.For instonce, guolity posts of
300 words or more eorn “B’s” while guolity posts of 400 words o? mote secute
“A’s.” But guolity is better thon guontity! So o greot post with 200 words will do
well. This is not on occasion for terse replies. Cont exl ualize the questions inyour
chopter reodings.

Cho, r

Emilie du Chdtelet on the Education of Women

Gabrielle tmilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil, marquise du Chhtelet (1706-1749) was born into a prominent aristocratic family

at the royal court of France. lJnlihe most women of her station, however, after her marriage and the birth of her children,

she devoied much i7 her life to the study of the sciences, with a particular Jocus on physics and mathematics. She is an

author of many bookt ord pamphlets, and is celebrated as the translator of lsaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica

into Freich. ti this pasage, fro’m the preJace to her translation of Bernard Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, du ChAtelet
reflects on the obst:aclrrlhot *orrn surh as herself face in receiving an education. The draft of the preface was written
bitween 1735 and 1739, but it was not published during her lifetime’

feel the full weight of
prejudice that excludes

us [women] so univer-

sally from the sciences,

this being one of the
ons of this world, which has

astonished me, as there are Sreat
whose laws allow us to decide

destiny, but none where we are
up to think.

Another observation that one can
about this prejudice is that acting

only occupation requiring some

and a trained mind to which
are admitted, and it is at the

time the only one that regards its

as infamous.

Let us reflect brieflY on whY for so

one beautiful painting, one good book of

physics, has come from the hands of
women. Why do these creatures whose

understanding apPears in all things equal

to that of men, seem, for all that, to be
stopped by an invincible force on this side

of a barrier; let someone give me an expla-

nation, if there is one. I leave it to natural-

ists to find a physical explanation, but until

that happens, women will be entitled to

protest against their education. As for me,

I confess that if I were king I would wish to

make this scientific experiment. I would

reform an abuse that cuts out, so to speak,

half of humanity. I would allow women to

share the rights of humanity, and most of

all to those of the mind.

Source: Emilie du Chitelet, 5elected Philosophical

and Scientific Writings (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2009), PP. a8-a9.

Questions for Analysis

1. What comparison is du ChAtelet mak-

ing between women who are allowed

by law to “decide the destinY” of
countries and the fact that women as

a group are not educated?

2. What point does du ChAtelet wish to

make by alluding to the notorious rep-

utation of professionals in the theater,

and actresses especial lY?

3. ln whatway does du ChAtelet show her

confidence in the scientific method
as she calls for an “experiment” that
would give women the same rights to

education as those enjoYed bY men?

centuries, not one good tragedY,

good poem, one esteemed historY,

safeguarding traditions in the arts (the various acad-
of painting). In smaller cities in the countryside,

academies played much the same role, provid-

a way for Enlightenment discussions to spread beyond

capitals

Salons provided an alternative venue for discussion but

informally. They were organized usually by well-

and learned aristocratic women who invited
personalities to thelr homes to meet with authors and

their latest works. The prominent role o[ women

the salons from the academies and universi-

Salons brought together men and women of letters with

and food. Rousseau loathed this kind o[ ritual and viewed

salons as a sign of superficiality and vacuity in a privileged

and overcivilized world. Thomas Jefferson thought the

influence of women in salons had put France in a “desper-

ate state.” Some o[ the salons reveled in parlor games. Oth-

ers, such as the one organized in Paris by Madame Necker,

the wife o[ the future French reform minister, lay quite

close to the halls of power and was a testing ground for

new policy ideas. Madame Marie-Th€rEse Geoffrin, another

celebrated French saloniZre, became an important patron of

the Encyclopedia and exercised influence in placing schol-
ars in academies. Moses Mendelssohn held an open house

for intellectuals in Berlin. Salons in London, Vienna, Rome,ofthe aristocracy fot conversation, debate, drink,

hc(

An alyzing Pr lmary Sources