>Descartes wrote La Géométrie in French rather than the language used for most scholarly publication at the time, Latin. His exposition style was far from clear, the material was not arranged in a systematic manner and he generally only gave indications of proofs, leaving many of the details to the reader.[7] His attitude toward writing is indicated by statements such as "I did not undertake to say everything," or "It already wearies me to write so much about it," that occur frequently. Descartes justifies his omissions and obscurities with the remark that much was deliberately omitted "in order to give others the pleasure of discovering [it] for themselves."
>>24958161unironically based
is descartes worth reading
>>24958180OP is about the most influential work of math since Euclid, but Descartes founded modern philosophy if that's what you're talking about, in the sense that he started without assuming any religious doctrine or revelation as a given
>>24958193the first is new to me, the latter factoid i know, you didn't answer my question
>>24958202He's extremely worth reading if you are interested in any philosophy that came after him. If you don't care about that stuff, then less so
>>24958180Rules for direction of the mind is a must. Geometry and optics are nice if you are in to those fields. You can discard his two philosophic works especially meditations entirely.
>>24958208>>24958212thanks, i'll do Rules
