WI: Seventeenth-century translations of Descartes and Harvey into Persian are more influential

Danishmand Khan Shafi‘a Yazdi (1578–1657), a Mughal courtier, commissioned the French doctor Francois Bernier to translate the philosophy of Descartes and Pierre Gassendi, and the anatomic discoveries of William Harvey and Jean Pecquet, into Persian. Indeed, Danishmand Khan was famous in the Mughal court for being fascinated by "European sciences" ('ilm-i ahl-i farang) and had vast libraries of "Frankish books."

Unfortunately, Bernier's translations were not circulated and were lost after the khan's death.

How much of an impact could these Persian translations of the best of Europe's seventeenth-century philosophy and anatomy make in India and the Middle East?
 
Could a more rationalist philosophy have aided the Safavids, whose collapse is generally thought to have been speeded by Twelver zealotry?
Can the Safavids moderate? Consider what they were facing. You can't convert an entire ethno-region to another religion if you are not zealous. A longer lived Safavid dynasty could have major implications. You could have half of modern day Afghanistan with a Shia majority with spillover into Central Asia.
 
How is having a more "rationalist" philosophy making you militarily more capable or helping in preventing internal rivalries? I mean, the Bourbon monarchy under which Descartes developed lasted even less than the Safavids, almost exactly 200 years vs 235, and the French Revolution that carried the "rationalist" ideals of the Enlightenment that many say started with Cartesian philosophy lasted only a single decade before being taken over by a reactionary monarchist. Even if Napoleon can be said to carry the ideals of the Enlightenment in part, he got defeated by Russia, which still kept a medieval Orthodox Christian worldview with an absolute monarchy.

I believe it is rather absurd to think that adopting Cartesian philosophy, as well as the scientific worldview of Gassendi, Harvey, and others, is somehow helping a state, any state, survive.
 
Could a more rationalist philosophy have aided the Safavids, whose collapse is generally thought to have been speeded by Twelver zealotry?

I think this "general thought" is hokum. The reason the Safavids fell is because there was massive population decline (most likely a cholera epidemic) and her artisans were becoming less productive than those of Russia and India, meaning Persia during this period was haemorrhaging silver as farms fell abandoned for lack of people to work them and Persian exports were being squeezed by foreign competition. Add on top of this the usual dynastic and bad neighbour problems, and you have a good setup for all your neighbours invading you.

As far as rationalist philosophy... What specific features of Descartes and Harvey's writings are not present in Persian rationalist philosophy at this point?

Better anatomy is certainly useful for medicine. Especially battlefield medicine at this point. Maybe Harvey's writings might result in less soldier deaths over the next century?

fasquardon
 
Top