Emilie du Chˆatelet and Mary Astell both contributed to the feminist movement during the early modern philosophical era. Both delved into the metaphysical, as well as some more concrete ideas, such as religion, marriage, and happiness (Detlefsen). Throughout this portion of the Philosophical Adventure Project, I will be comparing and contrasting the ideologies and philosophies of these two philosophers, and making distinctions between their thoughts, while also tying them together.
To begin, a detailed description of the philosophies of Emilie du Chˆatelet will be given. She spent the majority of her philosophical career focusing on her ideas in the realm of natural philosophy. She worte “Elements de la philosophie de Newton” in 1738, and used this work, one of her most famous works, to discuss Newtonian physics, and the metaphysical aspect of them that she considered to be true (Detlefsen).
She wrote extensively about God and religion – something she has in common with Mary Astell. She provides an argument outlining her belief in God cosmologically, just as Astell has done. Metaphysically, Emilie du Chˆatelet had a lot to say as well. She argues that, since atoms are not conceptually divisible by God, that they are not even remotely divisible by us as humans (Detlefsen). Things that are not extended in any way must be the building blocks of all things. However, as metaphysics was not one of the larger topics discussed by Mary Astell, other topics discussed by Emilie du Chˆatelet will be focused on for this work.
Her more relevant philosophical ideas and theories to this assignment revolve around the lives and freedoms of women within her ideas of natural philosophy. For example, in her “Discourse on Happiness,” Emilie du Chˆatelet argues that in order to feel true happiness, one must essentially be held in the grasp of illusions, illusions that are creating pleasure (Detlefsen). Some forms of pleasure can be felt without illusions, namely different foods and sensual pleasures (Necessary Illusions).
Emilie du Chˆatelet argues for education – which is right along the lines of the proclamations of Mary Astell, who was a huge proponent of education (specifically for women). Emilie du Chˆatelet states that a “love of study” is a guaranteed path to happiness – especially for those who choose to remain independent throughout their lives. Astell argued against marriage for women, which can be tied to the argument made by Emilie du Chˆatelet here (Detlefsen).
Emilie du Chˆatelet furthers her argument in her Discourse by stating that a person has the ability to correct the illusions that they find themselves in, but cannot really control their becoming caught in an illusion in the first place (Necessary Illusions). She also touches briefly on love, in contrast to Mary Astell, who tends to keep her discourse more focused on the concrete. As Astell was focused on the political and societal furthering of women, she tended to stray away from ideologies focused around abstract concepts like love. These things are unable to be easily defined, and as such, found no place in Astell’s discussions.
However, Emilie du Chˆatelet’s discussion of love is quite interesting, and useful for contrast with Astell. To exemplify this difference, it is important to keep in mind the ideologies of Mary Astell. Astell argued for the education of women – in an environment entirely free of men. She argued that women be extremely cautious of men, and almost against the concept of love as a defense mechanism for women against the patriarchy that consumed society at the time. She urged women, that if they were to marry, they should keep in mind that the union is intended to be holy, in front of the eyes of God. Although marriage has fallen away from this holy status throughout history, women can still try to ensure the holiness of their marriage by educating themselves before entering into it (Necessary Illusions).
To continue outlining Mary Astell’s beliefs for comparison with Emilie du Chˆatelet’s: Astell argued for the existence of God, in a very similar fashion to that of Emilie du Chˆatelet. They also found themselves concurring in terms of the metaphysical analysis they performed.
Where they differ greatly in their ideologies is their discussion of love. Astell doesn’t really dive into this topic, at least not romantic love, and as such it can be concluded from some of her other works that the only love she cared to discuss was that of God. Astell discussed the love of God in an idealistic way – as though God is the only one who can provide a perfect love – and receive that perfect love in turn from his children. Emilie du Chˆatelet, on the other hand, dives into the topic of romantic love, and what it can offer a person (Detlefsen). She discusses this topic most deeply in her “Discourse on Happiness,” where she calls love a force that gives the will to live to us. She states that romantic love gives us gratitude to God. She gives the argument that love allows us to see the big picture of the world, and allows us to be more observant, better people all together (Necessary Illusions).
This can be tied to the argument that Astell makes, through the use and placement of God in the separate arguments. Astell argues that God is the only one who can provide us with love, and that his love for us should drive us to the most perfect life. Emilie du Chˆatelet argues that romantic love can lead us to a deeper understanding of and gratitude for God in our lives (Necessary Illusions).
To summarize, both Mary Astell and Emilie du Chˆatelet have furthered the philosophical field for women through their works in the early modern era. They both have ideologies and theories on metaphysics, education, religion, and happiness. They both also touch on their preferred theory on love. While Emilie du Chˆatelet argues that love can drive one’s will to live, and make them more in touch with nature; Astell argues that love is most well received and given directly to and from God. However many differences they may have in their ideologies, both women contributed a great deal to establishing a woman’s place in philosophical discourse in the early modern period of philosophy.
Word Count: 1022
“Necessary Illusions in Love and the Great Machines of Happiness: On Emilie Du Châtelet’s Discourse.” Digressions&Impressions, https://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2016/05/necessary-illusions-happy-on-du-ch%C3%A2telets-discourse.html.
Detlefsen, Karen. “Émilie Du Châtelet.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 13 June 2014, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emilie-du-chatelet/#FirPriKno.