Episode Overview

Main Theme:
This episode of History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, hosted by Peter Adamson, explores the philosophical contributions of Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, focusing especially on her intellectual exchange with René Descartes. The episode considers both her historical exclusion from mainstream philosophical narratives and her penetrating critiques of Cartesian dualism and ethics. Adamson highlights how Elisabeth’s correspondence prompted Descartes to clarify and, at times, revise his views—demonstrating their relationship as a rare and significant meeting of intellectual equals across gender and social boundaries.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Historical Marginalization of Women Philosophers

• Exclusion from Philosophical Canon:
  Adamson references Eileen O’Neill’s 1997 essay, Disappearing Ink, to underscore the “mind boggling, possibly scandalous fact that women were…almost entirely absent from standard histories of early modern philosophy.” [01:00]
• Reasons for Exclusion:
  Women often published anonymously or chose not to publish, fearing societal backlash. Elisabeth’s philosophical letters to Descartes, for example, remained unpublished for over 200 years because she refused their dissemination (even considering writing in code to protect their privacy). [02:00]

2. Elisabeth’s Life and Intellectual Context

• Royal Lineage and Political Upheaval:
  Elisabeth, born to Frederick V and granddaughter of James VI/I, lived through exile and turmoil. Her status allowed some intellectual freedoms, but her philosophical impact was not merely a matter of privilege. [04:10]
• Intellectual Reputation:
  Renowned for her intelligence and mastery of languages (“la Grecque”), Elisabeth corresponded with notable figures like Anna Maria van Schurman and William Penn, and was recognized as a source of Cartesian instruction at the University of Heidelberg—“extraordinary given the almost total exclusion of women from university life in this period.” [07:15]

3. The Elisabeth–Descartes Correspondence

• Meeting of Equals:
  Though Elisabeth was “Descartes’ socioeconomic superior,” she treated him as a philosophical authority while he deeply respected her intellect—once remarking, “I think more of her judgment than that of those doctors who, for laws of truth, prefer the opinions of Aristotle to the evidence of reason.” (Descartes, quoted by Adamson at [10:40])
• Topics in the Correspondence:
  Their exchange covered mathematics, natural philosophy, and—most critically—the relationship between mind and body. Notably, Elisabeth allowed their mathematical letters to be published during her lifetime, but retained strict privacy for their philosophical ones. [12:00]

4. Elisabeth’s Challenge to Cartesian Dualism

• Critique of Mind–Body Separation:
  Elisabeth is credited as “the first or one of the first to put her finger on a central problem for Cartesianism: how can two things that are so different interact with one another?” ([15:00])
• Materialist Leanings:
  She provocatively suggests, “it would be easier for me to concede matter and extension to the soul, than to concede the capacity to move a body and to be moved by it to an immaterial thing.” ([16:00])
  • Quote:

    "She admits… she has never been able to understand an incorporeal or unextended substance as anything but a negation of matter." ([16:00])

• Descartes’ Unusual Responses:
  He compares the soul’s effect on the body to “heaviness,” though this analogy is shaky as even he doesn’t accept “heaviness” in Cartesian physics. [18:50]
  He suggests Elisabeth “simply treat the soul as if it were indeed extended, since it is united with the body”—undermining his own dualism. ([20:00])
• Philosophical Implications:
  The debate ends inconclusively, with Adamson noting: "If Elisabeth was left unsatisfied, she wasn't the last to feel that way." ([25:00])

5. Comparisons and Legacy in Mind–Body Causation

• Occasionalism and Modern Interpretations:
  Adamson discusses how later interpreters, like Dan Garber, argued Descartes should have explained to Elisabeth that all physical motion is really caused by God, not physical impacts—implying mind–body causation is the paradigm, not anomaly, in Cartesian philosophy. ([27:30])

6. Debates over Cartesian Ethics and the Good Life

• Elisabeth’s Skepticism of Rational Control:
  Elisabeth is unimpressed by Descartes’ optimistic claims that “the soul ought to exert its power over the body and focus on happier thoughts.” ([30:00])
  • Quote:

    “If my life were entirely known to you, I think the fact that a sensitive mind such as my own has conserved itself for so long amid so many difficulties… would seem more strange to you than the causes of this present malady.” – Elisabeth ([32:40])

• Gender and Vulnerability:
  She references “the weaknesses of my sex,” subtly but sharply pushing back on Descartes’ abstract Stoicism.
  • Quote:

    “If I were as rational as you, I would cure myself as you have done.” ([33:00])

• Limits of Cartesian Ethics:
  Adamson notes, “she is making a crucial philosophical point. It is far from obvious that the soul can simply exert its will over the body in the way Descartes seems to be imagining.” ([33:30])
  • Elisabeth points to diseases that “weaken or wholly destroy the power of reason,” showing that philosophical optimism about self-mastery is at best incomplete.

7. Differences in Political and Social Thought

• On Social Customs and Morality:
  Elisabeth expresses frustration with having to “abide by the impertinent, established laws of civility,” wishing for freedom from “unending stream of tiresome visitors seeking her favors. They deprive me of real goods so that I might give them imaginary ones.” ([36:00])
• Machiavelli vs. Stoicism:
  Elisabeth is more open to Machiavelli’s pragmatic “cutting a few ethical corners” when establishing a new state, while Descartes objects strongly. Her real-life political pressures gave her a more nuanced perspective.

8. The Central Theme: Mind–Body Union in Elisabeth’s Thought

• Influence on Descartes’ "Passions of the Soul":
  Elisabeth’s probing led Descartes to compose his final major work, with themes prompted by her questions on the passions.
• Philosophical Legacy:
  Adamson, drawing on Dominic Perler, frames the difference: for Descartes, happiness is “internalist,” a matter of willpower immune to circumstance, while for Elisabeth, body, mind, and the external world are inextricably linked. ([43:30])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Women in Philosophy:
  “Women often chose to publish anonymously… it was an especially tempting option for a woman author wary of provoking opposition, outrage, or contemptuous dismissal.” – Adamson ([01:50])
• On Mind–Body Problem:
  “She is not so much asking Descartes to explain interaction between soul and body as taking that interaction for granted, and suggesting that it may disprove his theory of the soul.” ([16:40])
• Elisabeth on Life’s Hardships:
  “A sensitive mind such as my own has conserved itself for so long amid so many difficulties, in a body so weak, with no counsel but that of her own reason, and with no consolation but that of her own conscience, would seem more strange to you than the causes of this present malady.” ([32:40])
• On Social Constraints:
  “They deprive me of real goods so that I might give them imaginary ones.” – Elisabeth on being forced to play hostess ([36:00])
• Elisabeth on Rationality:
  “If I were as rational as you, I would cure myself as you have done.” ([33:00])

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:12] Introduction; Eileen O’Neill and marginalization of women
• [04:10] Elisabeth’s royal background and personal hardships
• [07:15] Her intellectual reputation and correspondence with various thinkers
• [12:00] Scope of Elisabeth–Descartes letters
• [15:00] Elisabeth’s critique of Cartesian dualism
• [20:00] Descartes’ responses and analogies for mind–body interaction
• [27:30] Later interpretations and occasionalism
• [30:00] Discussion of ethics and the limitations of willpower
• [32:40] Elisabeth’s lived experience of suffering
• [36:00] Her complaints about social customs and role as hostess
• [43:30] Summing up: internalist vs. externalist ethics and enduring influence

Conclusion

Peter Adamson’s episode not only restores Elisabeth of Bohemia’s philosophical agency but uses her example to highlight persistent issues in both Cartesian metaphysics and the philosophy of happiness. Elisabeth emerges as both a crucial interlocutor for Descartes and a profound thinker in her own right—one who understood, better than most, that minds are embedded in bodies and lives shaped by circumstances.

Next episode: Adamson plans to examine Descartes’ account of the passions—questions that Elisabeth herself prompted, continuing the investigation into their rich philosophical dialogue.