Disillusioned by the emptiness of his education, a young Poulain found his way out of personal crisis when he discovered Cartesian philosophy. In the Education, the character of Stasimachus (understood to roughly represent Poulain himself) tells the story of how he attended a lecture given by a Cartesian philosopher and found Cartisian principles so compelling that he dedicated himself to studying them and learned more in the following six months than he had in the previous six years of education (La Vopa, 60). Not only does this story illuminate the Cartesian influence on Poulain, but it echoes Descartes’ own experience of the search for truth. Both begin with a period of intense doubting and lead to the development of theories of discerning what is true. In this and many other ways, Poulain’s philosophy is undeniably Cartesian, deploying Descartes’ mind-body dualism and theory of prejudice for “liberatory ends” (Schmitter, 9).
Methodologically, Poulain and Descartes are very similar. In the Equality, Poulain states, “we are full of prejudices” and “we have to make a real effort to get rid of them before we can hope to come to a clear and distinct understanding” (Three Cartesian, 49). This gloss of Descartes’ take on the subject of truth literally uses Descartes’ vocabulary of clarity and distinctness. Poulain’s use of the Cartesian method is made explicit by Stasimachus. The character calls Descartes’ method “most likely to distinguish the true from the false even in the works of the one who is their author” (Three Cartesian, 243). While Poulain does not consider Descartes’ work infallible (this would be antithetical to his strong condemnation of appeals to authority), he clearly favors Descartes’ philosophical method.
​
Descartes is known for his theory of mind-body dualism, the notion that the mind and body are ontologically distinct. While Poulain does not echo Cartesian dualism outright, his argument that “the mind has no sex” is loosely connected to it. Poulain adopts what University of Helsinki lecturer Martina Reuter calls “unorthodox Cartesianism” (Reuter, François Poulain). He argues that minds and bodies are interdependent and that “one almost never acts without the other” (Three Cartesian, 223) yet he does not provide any account of the metaphysical distinction between bodies and minds. Poulain claims that “since the mind functions no differently in one sex than in the other, it is capable of the same things in both” (Three Cartesian, 82). This argument aligns with Cartesian dualism, but Poulain does not actually argue from that theory.
“Since the mind functions no differently in one sex than in the other, it is capable of the same things in both”
In his ontology of minds and bodies, Descartes does not address the topic of sex, but he argues that, since the mind is “cleanly detached from corporeal substance,” physical variance among human bodies have no direct connection to differences between human minds (La Vopa, 68). It does not require much philosophical labor to see how Poulain extends this account to the conclusion that sexual differences between human bodies has no bearing on differences between minds.
​
Education does not prevent men from “remaining eternally ignorant or even becoming more stupid than they were before”
Poulain and Descartes also share notions about prejudice and error. Both provide causal accounts to explain the origin of prejudice. In Descartes’ 6th Meditation, he explains how initial errors that are accepted during childhood become entrenched and are used to form later beliefs. Poulain is similarly critical of the process of belief formation, arguing that male bias is baked into the educational system. Scathingly, Poulain writes that education does not prevent men from “remaining eternally ignorant or even becoming more stupid than they were before.” (Three Cartesian, 61) He also provides a historical account of the origin of the idea of male superiority, imagining a Hobbes-like primitive world where patriarchy arbitrarily emerged out of men’s exclusion and subjugation of women.
Drawing on their understandings of where prejudice comes from, both Poulain and Descartes emphasize how difficult it is to overcome false beliefs. Descartes’s position is that judgements involve the active affirmation or denial of things that are not clearly and distinctly perceived. In other words, judgements are not a passive process of absorbing beliefs, but an active commitment to the truth of something. (Schmitter, 3) Given his claims about how people build webs of other beliefs based on false foundations acquired as children, it becomes nearly impossible to get a person to doubt their initial prejudices on which so much of their later beliefs rest. Descartes implies that this extends beyond a person’s lifetime. As written by University of Alberta professor of Philosophy Amy Schmitter, “His analysis of the grip of scholastic empiricism suggests that those impairments can spread across generations.” (Schmitter, 4)
​
“The more pervasive and socially reinforced these commitments become, the more difficult they are to dislodge”
In the case of Poulain, the resilience of prejudice is tied to authority. He argues that people too readily accept the authority of historical sources without critically analyzing them against any definition of truth. In the Equality, Poulain responds that ancient writers “were no less men than we are nor less subject to error, and there is no more reason to trust their opinions today than there was during their lifetime” (Three Cartesian, 76). He also points out that a popular belief is no more likely to be true than an unpopular one. In reference to criticisms of women, Poulain asserts, “Even if the charges brought against them are backed by the opinions of a thousand authors, the entire brief should be taken as a chronicle of prejudice and error” (Three Cartesian, 76). Between appeals to authority and this “bandwagon” approach to belief-formation, false beliefs pervade social thought. And, as summarized by Schmitter, “The more pervasive and socially reinforced these commitments become, the more difficult they are to dislodge” (Schmitter, 6).
The two writers take these very similar accounts about the nature of prejudice and apply them to different things. While Descartes is primarily focused on doubting the reliability of sense experience, Poulain directs his doubt towards long-held opinions about social roles. Each of these targets of doubt - the epistemological privilege of senses and the socio-cultural privilege of men - were extremely widely accepted frameworks among the societies in which Descartes and Poulain produced their work. Therefore, both Descartes and Poulain can justifiably be considered philosophical trailblazers in their own right.