Mechanical Philosophy

Mechanical philosophy was a way of understanding the natural world — including the human body — that spread rapidly across European intellectual life from the mid-seventeenth century onward. In place of Aristotelian elements, humors, and purposive forces, it explained natural phenomena through the shapes, sizes, and motions of invisible particles of matter. The body became, on this view, a machine: a hydraulic pump, a system of levers and pipes, a clockwork organized by physical law rather than animated by soul. This account transformed medicine by giving physicians a new explanatory language and a new set of priorities, but it also created problems that its founders could not solve — above all, the question of what thinking and feeling had to do with a body that was nothing but matter in motion. The tensions it introduced between mechanism and vitalism, between the body as machine and the body as living thing, have not been fully resolved.

Intellectual Origins

The mechanical philosophy did not emerge from a single source. Hall traces the dissolution of Aristotelian natural philosophy as a slow process in which the sixteenth century’s medical factionalism — Arabists against Humanists, Paracelsians against Galenists — generated more heat than light, without decisively replacing the ancient framework.(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954) What shifted things was not the medical disputes but the new physics. When mechanics and observational astronomy were treated as twin keys to understanding the universe — as Hall argues Galileo made central — it became possible to imagine nature as a field of quantifiable motions rather than a hierarchy of purposes.(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954) The shift, as Hall describes it, was profound in character: in place of teleological explanation (asking what something is for), the seventeenth century proposed mechanistic explanation (asking how its parts move).(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954)

Two figures stand at the root of the mechanical philosophy as a systematic programme: Isaac Beeckman and Pierre Gassendi. Cook’s research into the Dutch intellectual environment shows that Beeckman — a schoolmaster whose private journal recorded his ideas with extraordinary precision — developed what Margaret Jacob has called the first systematic mechanical philosophy of the scientific revolution, explaining macroscopic phenomena through the contact of minuscule corpuscles.(Cook, 2007) Dear’s account confirms that when the young Descartes met Beeckman in Breda in 1618, he encountered this physico-mathematical corpuscularism and adopted it as the framework within which he would build his later system.(Peter Dear, 2001) Gassendi took a different route to similar conclusions, substituting the ancient atomism of Epicurus for Aristotelianism while purging the atheistic implications — a strategy that, unlike Descartes, kept one foot in the humanist tradition of classical authority.(Peter Dear, 2001)

Descartes’ natural philosophical system was not accepted primarily because of its metaphysical certainty claims: Dear notes that for contemporaries and followers well into the eighteenth century, its attraction lay in the comprehensiveness of its explanatory coverage and its use of everyday analogies — of pumps, bellows, waterwheels, and other familiar mechanisms — that rendered even highly imaginative explanations plausible.(Peter Dear, 2001) At the epistemological core, Descartes held that only deductive, a priori reasoning could reach eternal metaphysical truths, and his natural philosophy declared that all phenomena could be explained by “purely physical causes” independent of mind and final causes — an explicit elegy on Aristotle’s teleological framework.(French, 1578-1593)

Robert Boyle gave this cluster of ideas its name. Dear notes that Boyle coined the term “mechanical philosophy” precisely to encompass all corpuscular-mechanical approaches, regardless of the metaphysical disagreements between Descartes and Gassendi (notably over whether a true vacuum could exist), stressing throughout that such explanations were hypothetical rather than certain.(Peter Dear, 2001) Boyle’s emphasis on the hypothetical status of mechanistic explanations was not timidity but method: it reflected his conviction that matters of fact, established by witnessed experiment, should precede theoretical commitment.

Descartes and the Body-Machine

René Descartes gave mechanical philosophy its most elaborate early form and its most consequential medical application. His ambition was explicit: as French notes, Descartes sought nothing less than to replace Aristotle as the master of philosophy, sending review copies of his Discourse on Method to his former Jesuit teachers at La Flèche in hopes they would adopt his writings as their curriculum.(Peter Dear, 2001) The philosophical strategy that supported this ambition began with radical doubt: following Dear’s account, Descartes overcame Pyrrhonian scepticism — the devastating ancient arguments against any certain knowledge — by doubting everything, arriving at the cogito as the single undeniable truth, then reconstructing the possibility of reliable knowledge through a God whose perfection guaranteed that clearly and distinctly perceived ideas must be true.(Peter Dear, 2001)

The natural philosophical consequences of this epistemology were radical. If matter’s only clear and distinct property is spatial extension, then matter just is extension: where matter is, space is; where space is, matter is. Dear explains that this identification eliminated the possibility of a true vacuum from Descartes’ universe, making vortical motion — vast circular currents of incompressible matter — the fundamental mechanism by which planets moved and physical change propagated.(Peter Dear, 2001) Sensory qualities such as colour, heat, and taste were displaced from the physical world into the mind: Descartes argued they were psychological impressions, not real properties of objects.(Peter Dear, 2001) All of nature, in this framework, consisted of inert matter in motion, governed by laws that God had established and conserved.

For medicine, the consequence was stark. Hall records how Descartes modelled the human body explicitly as a machine made by the hands of God — arguing that the body was maintained not by life-forces, spirits, or souls, but solely by the interrelations of its mechanical parts, and that death was due to a failure of those parts.(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954) Animals without souls were, in Dear’s account, automata in the strict sense: elaborate clockwork toys.(Peter Dear, 2001) The human body was equally a machine, though it housed in addition an immortal, unextended, and immaterial soul — the res cogitans that constituted thinking substance, entirely distinct from the res extensa of the physical body.

This anatomical settlement had consequences that went beyond physics. French’s biography records that Descartes divorced physiology from psychology by relocating the soul to the pineal gland, severing the connections between body, mind, and soul that had structured Harvey’s Aristotelian vitalism.(French, 1578-1593) Where Harvey’s natural philosophy kept the soul immanent in biological process (the heart moved because the soul animated it), Descartes removed the soul from every organ except one, leaving the rest of the body as machinery operating without reference to thought or feeling.

This division created an insoluble problem. Hall identifies it directly: Descartes was led into the question of how soul and matter could interact, given that on his own account only matter could act on matter through direct physical contact.(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954) The soul was supposed to receive sensory information from the body and transmit volitions to it, but the mechanism by which an unextended thinking thing could push or be pushed by extended matter could not be specified within Descartes’ own system. Dear notes that Leibniz later proposed “pre-established harmony” as a solution — God had arranged mind and body to run in perfect parallel without causal contact, so that mental events and physical events correspond but do not cause each other.(Peter Dear, 2001) This was ingenious, but it settled the problem by making the interaction definitionally impossible rather than mechanically explicable.

Cook’s examination of Descartes’ time in the Dutch Republic adds a complicating dimension to the standard picture. Cook argues that Descartes should be understood primarily as a medical-materialist philosopher rather than a rationalist skeptic: during his twenty years in the Netherlands, he abandoned youthful metaphysical systematizing in favor of intensive empirical medical investigation, spending months studying anatomy in Amsterdam butchers’ shops and writing to Mersenne that he learned something new every day that he could not find in any book.(Cook, 2007) The Discourse on Method contains its fullest sustained argument in the section on animal physiology, not in the sections on mathematics or metaphysics. Dear confirms that Descartes had a deep interest in medicine and that his extensive correspondence with Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia on how to treat depression led him to develop a systematic account of how the soul is passively affected by bodily states — the passions of the soul.(Peter Dear, 2001) This was not philosophy applied to medicine as an afterthought; it was the core of the project.

Harvey’s Circulation and the Mechanical Turn in Physiology

William Harvey’s discovery that the blood circulates — published in De Motu Cordis in 1628 — did not arise from the mechanical philosophy and was not intended to support it, but it became the demonstration piece around which the new approach to physiology organized itself. Hall notes that Harvey’s achievement was not to introduce new facts but to integrate known but ineffective facts into a new and comprehensive generalization, treating the vascular system hydraulically: the heart as a pump, veins and arteries as pipes, valves as mechanical valves, blood as a fluid — and, in doing so, disregarding “spirits” altogether.(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954)

Harvey himself remained an Aristotelian throughout his life. French’s biography records that Harvey derided the mechanical philosophers as “shitt-breeches” and urged disciples to read Aristotle at the fountain head.(French, 1578-1593) In his De Generatione Animalium (1651), he explicitly rejected Descartes’ mechanical interpretation of his own circulation theory, insisting that the heart moved of its own accord because of a “pulsative faculty” or “power of soul” within it — that the organ was an “autonomous living thing” rather than a clockwork pump.(French, 1578-1593) For Harvey, the quantitative and hydraulic analysis of blood flow was in service of an Aristotelian natural philosophy in which the final cause — the purpose that nature served in arranging the heart and vessels as it did — remained the essential question. When Caspar Hofmann challenged the circulation theory at Altdorf in 1636, his most damaging objection was precisely this: Harvey had provided no final cause for why the blood circulated, making his theory philosophically incomplete.(French, 1578-1593)

Yet Descartes adopted Harvey’s circulation in the Discourse on Method as the prime example of his mechanical natural philosophy, even while fundamentally misunderstanding Harvey’s mechanism. French’s dedicated study of this episode records that Descartes was one of the first natural philosophers to champion Harvey’s circulation in print, but he modified the theory considerably: he replaced Harvey’s forceful systole with an active diastole driven by the heart’s heat, comparing the heart to a combustion engine driven by explosions at regular intervals — eliminating every trace of vitalist or purposive faculty from cardiac function.(French, 1578-1593)(French, 1994) Descartes explicitly insisted that the heart’s motion was as mathematically necessary as clockwork, asserting that it followed from the mere disposition of the organs, with no life-force or faculty within the heart itself.(French, 1994) Descartes went further: he said that if what he had written about the heart was wrong, then so was the rest of his philosophy — making the motion of the heart the central test case and exemplar of his entire natural-philosophical system.(French, 1994)

This appropriation was not a neutral act of theoretical alignment. French argues that Harvey’s and Descartes’ natural philosophies were mutually exclusive at the level of epistemology: Harvey sought causal knowledge through sensory observation and the historia-actio-usus structure of Aristotelian inquiry, while Descartes excluded purposive causes and derived knowledge deductively from first principles of particulate mechanism.(French, 1994) Cornelis van Hogelande, a Cartesian physician writing in the generation after Descartes, made the epistemological division explicit: French notes that van Hogelande defined “thinking mechanically” as excluding “reasons sought from purpose,” directly inverting Harvey’s Aristotelian epistemology, in which final causes were not optional supplements but the very goal of inquiry.(French, 1994) French further notes that the medical and university component of the new philosophy has been consistently undervalued by historians of science, who have focused on its physical and mathematical aspects; yet Descartes chose a medical topic — the motion of the heart and blood — as his prime example precisely because physiology was where mechanism could be tested directly against an established rival account.(French, 1994)

The reception of Harvey’s doctrine across Europe illustrates how the mechanical philosophy spread through a mix of selective adoption and systematic misunderstanding. Across the mid-seventeenth century, medical thinkers drew on mechanical devices (clocks, pumps, syringes, bellows) not only as rhetorical analogies but as physical experimental apparatus with which to reconceptualize bodily functions; the devices served both to argue for mechanism and to test it.(French, 1994) Jean Pecquet’s Experimenta nova anatomica (1652) marked a watershed moment in this process: French argues that it symbolized both the acceptance of Harvey’s circulation among the French medical community and the wider spread of a mechanical vision of the body as the organizing framework for anatomical research.(French, 1994) French argues that almost every reader divided Harvey’s message at the articulation between the forceful systole and the circulation, accepting or rejecting each part according to their pre-existing natural philosophy.(French, 1994) Isaac Beeckman accepted the circulation in 1633 because it allowed him to replace the concept of “attraction” — inadmissible to a mechanical philosopher, since it resembled action at a distance — with pressure-based explanations of blood flow.(French, 1994) George Ent, who defended Harvey using the emerging mechanical natural philosophy, could not accept Harvey’s own account of the heartbeat because the forceful systole seemed too close to a vital faculty, and so adopted Descartes’ notion of blood ebullition instead.(French, 1994) The Galenic faculty of attraction — one of the four traditional faculties by which hollow organs drew substances toward themselves — became the central philosophical battleground, with mechanical philosophers denying it as a species of action at a distance and traditionalists like Primrose seeing its denial as destroying the entire Aristotelian-Galenic framework.(French, 1994)

Iatromechanism: The Body as Hydraulic System

The application of mechanical philosophy to medicine as a formal programme — usually called iatromechanism — took its most developed form in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Porter identifies the Scottish physicians Archibald Pitcairne and George Cheyne as the leading British iatromechanists, casting the human body as a system of pulleys, springs and levers, pipes and vessels, with its fluids governed by the laws of hydraulics.(Porter, 2000) Lawlor’s account of how this affected the understanding of depression is concrete: Pitcairne, applying Newtonian mechanical philosophy to melancholy, conceived the body as a system of pipes carrying blood, and explained melancholy as slowing and thickening of blood in the brain, which dampened the animal spirits.(Lawlor, 2012)

Hermann Boerhaave at Leiden became the great synthesizer of Newtonian mechanical medicine for the European medical mainstream. Lawlor describes how Boerhaave promoted a hydraulic model of the body and developed a three-stage account of melancholy’s progression: from generalised symptoms through hypochondriacal disease (which he called “the Spleen”) to full atra bilis affecting all functions through stagnation in the hypochondria.(Lawlor, 2012) Porter notes that Boerhaave’s synthesis represented the culmination of the mechanical approach before its contradictions became unavoidable.

The philosophical shift that made iatromechanism possible had, as Porter describes, replaced the Aristotelian metaphysics of elements, humors, substances, qualities and final causes with models of nature viewed as matter in motion, governed by laws capable of mathematical expression.(Porter, 2000) Thomas Willis, a generation before Boerhaave, had begun this displacement at the level of clinical medicine itself: Lawlor records how Willis broke with humoral theory in his Two Discourses Concerning the Soul of Brutes (1672), denying that melancholy arose from a melancholic humour and attributing it instead to malfunction of the animal spirits, which in melancholics became “obscure, thick, and dark.”(Lawlor, 2012) Willis was not a mechanist in the strict Cartesian sense — he drew on iatrochemistry as much as on physics — but his displacement of the humoral explanation for depression in favour of a chemical and neurological account exemplified the broader pattern by which mechanical and chemical frameworks jointly displaced humoral theory from the centre of pathological explanation.

The Boyle-Hobbes Dispute and the Limits of Mechanism

The philosophical foundations of the mechanical philosophy were not unchallenged from within the new science itself. Dear records Thomas Hobbes’s central objection to Boyle’s experimental philosophy: that experiments could only display phenomena, not demonstrate necessary causes, and that genuine natural science required mathematical demonstration of the kind that geometry provided.(Peter Dear, 2001) Hobbes argued that Boyle could always display natural behaviors to which everyone might assent, but that for any experimental result Hobbes could provide several alternative explanations, each as plausible as Boyle’s, since the experiment could not compel a unique causal account.

This was not merely a technical dispute about experimental method. It was a conflict over what kind of knowledge the mechanical philosophy could actually generate. Hobbes wanted the necessity and universality of mathematical demonstration; Boyle accepted that experimental philosophy could only establish matters of fact, leaving causal explanations as the best available hypotheses. Dear notes how Huygens and other Cartesian natural philosophers later transformed Descartes’ claims to metaphysical certainty into something more modest: mechanism was not guaranteed to describe reality, but was the only framework within which intelligible explanations were available to human minds — a human limitation rather than a guarantee of how God made the universe.(Peter Dear, 2001)

Newton’s Principia (1687) resolved some of these disputes by establishing mechanical principles as universally sufficient for explanation in physical science, demonstrating the unity of nature through identical laws in the heavens and on earth.(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954) But Newton introduced a new problem: his account described forces — above all gravity — without providing any mechanical explanation of how those forces were transmitted between bodies separated by space. Where Descartes had required direct contact between bodies, Newton spoke of “forces” that changed a body’s velocity without feeling it incumbent on himself to identify their source or the mechanism of their communication.(Peter Dear, 2001) Dear records that Continental philosophers including Huygens, Leibniz, and Régis dismissed the Principia on exactly these grounds, arguing that Newton had presented mathematical description dressed as natural philosophy without providing actual mechanical causes.(Peter Dear, 2001) Newton privately acknowledged the difficulty: he wrote to Richard Bentley that it was “inconceivable” that inanimate matter should act upon other matter without contact or mediation, but left the question of what that mediating agent might be to his readers.(Peter Dear, 2001) Dear notes that what counted as “Newtonian” in the later eighteenth century was in many ways quite different from what Newton himself had believed and argued — a hybrid of Newton’s, Descartes’, Leibniz’s and others’ contributions.(Peter Dear, 2001) Two major areas of Newton’s own thought — his theological studies and his decades-long engagement with alchemy — were largely purged from the Newtonianism that spread across Europe, which stressed instead the rational empiricism of his publications and paired it with Lockean epistemology to create the dominant intellectual framework of the era.(Peter Dear, 2001)

Haller’s Challenge and the Problem of Living Matter

By the middle of the eighteenth century, strict mechanism was increasingly judged inadequate to explain living phenomena. Porter identifies the turning point clearly: properties like growth, reproduction, and sensory response did not yield to accounts of pipes, springs, and hydraulic pressure.(Porter, 2000) Albrecht von Haller’s experimental work on the nervous system produced the twin concepts of sensibility and irritability — the capacity of nerve tissue to respond to stimulation, and the capacity of muscle tissue to contract — which, as Lawlor notes, became foundational for Enlightenment understandings of nervous disease and acquired wide currency in the broader culture of the period.(Lawlor, 2012)

Haller’s concepts were not simply addenda to a mechanical account; they pointed toward properties of living tissue that could not be derived from the physics of inert matter. William Cullen, who rejected hydraulics and explained all disease as involving over- or under-stimulation of the nerves, represents one consequence of this shift: a medicine organised around the nervous system rather than the blood, in which the physician’s task was to regulate the degree of excitability rather than the balance of humors or the pressure of fluids.(Lawlor, 2012) John Hunter’s vitalism, as Porter describes, went further still, arguing that organized matter had an inherent vital force that distinguished it from the inorganic — an argument that was paradoxically enlisted to support materialism, since vitalism allowed thinkers like Erasmus Darwin to explain the special features of living matter (generation, growth, sensation) without appealing to an immaterial soul.(Porter, 2000)

Swedenborg illustrates a different kind of response to the limits of mechanism. Haller’s account of Swedenborg’s intellectual development shows that Swedenborg began his career with a mechanistic and mathematical cosmology — positing that all matter was motion arranged in geometric forms — before moving progressively toward a spiritual and vitalistic framework in which the physical world was understood as the material expression of a spiritual reality.(Haller, 2010) This trajectory, from mechanism toward vitalism through the application of mechanism’s own methods to phenomena it could not explain, was not unique to Swedenborg; it characterised a broader intellectual movement of the later eighteenth century.

Tobyn and colleagues note the long-term consequences for herbal medicine: Galen’s pharmacology persisted in practice longer than other aspects of his system, but when it was finally displaced by the mechanical philosophy, the “therapeutic anarchy that followed its destruction made itself felt beyond the middle of the 19th century.”(Tobyn Denham Whitelegg, 2011) The mechanical framework did not produce a ready replacement for the pharmacological infrastructure of humoral medicine; it dismantled the theoretical justification for herbalism while providing few practical alternatives until chemistry could fill the gap.

The Body-Machine and Its Political Consequences

The body-machine metaphor was not merely a scientific theory; it had immediate political and social applications that shaped its reception. French’s biography records that Descartes’ mechanical philosophy, by recasting the heart as a hydraulic pump, made the body-politic organ-monarchy analogy politically irrelevant: if the heart was a machine, no divine or royal analogy held, and Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) described the Harveian heart — filtered through his reading of Descartes — as “a great piece of machinery in which one wheel gives motion to another.”(French, 1578-1593) James Harrington turned Harvey’s ideas to republican ends, claiming that Parliament was the true heart of the body politic.(French, 1578-1593) Harvey himself, a committed royalist who attended Charles I’s sons at the Battle of Edgehill, was distressed to find his discovery celebrated as the great English proof of Descartes’ clockwork universe.(French, 1578-1593)

Dear notes another political consequence of Cartesian dualism: some French women drew from Descartes’ res cogitans the inference that because the mind has no sex — thinking substance is just thinking substance — women’s minds are as rational as men’s, an argument made explicit in Poulain de la Barre’s aphorism “the mind has no sex.”(Peter Dear, 2001) Cook observes that Dutch physicians and political thinkers drew from Cartesian materialism a radical conclusion about governance: if humans are governed by the passions rather than by right reason, political institutions should be designed around how people actually are rather than around idealized virtue — a position that Cook traces into the works of Spinoza and the de la Court brothers.(Cook, 2007)

Cook further argues that Descartes’ rejection of the classical doctrine of “right reason” — which had united the true and the good — separated natural philosophy from moral philosophy in a way his contemporaries recognized as dangerous, placing him alongside Machiavelli and Spinoza as thinkers who derived behavior from material nature rather than rational virtue.(Cook, 2007)

The political suspicion of Cartesian philosophy was not confined to its materialist implications. French records that the Calvinist theologian Gijsbert Voet opposed Descartes’ natural philosophy at Utrecht, arguing that deliberate doubt about God’s existence amounted to atheism, and that philosophical novelty of this kind was linked to social revolution, not merely an intellectual deviation but a threat to the order of Christian society.(French, 1994) Voet’s objection illustrates how thoroughly the mechanical philosophy was understood, by friend and foe alike, as something more than a change in explanatory vocabulary.

The Phenomenological Critique

The longest-running challenge to the mechanical philosophy has not been from biology or physics but from philosophy. Aho and Aho trace the Romantic response to what they see as mechanism’s defining consequence: the reduction of the human body to quantifiable, de-animated matter manageable by objective calculative procedures — what they describe as the body as Körper rather than Leib, as measurable substance rather than lived experience.(James Aho, Kevin Aho, 2009) Nietzsche’s proclamation of the death of God was, in their reading, not simply an attack on Christianity but a diagnosis that scientific skepticism and industrial technology had stripped the European lifeworld of transcendent value, reducing human beings to expendable cogs in a mechanistic universe.(James Aho, Kevin Aho, 2009)

The tradition that emerged from this critique — phenomenology, running through Dilthey, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Sartre — held that lived experience is too complex, nuanced, and dynamic to be captured by scientific analysis, because science itself is a living act and cannot stand outside the life it seeks to explain.(James Aho, Kevin Aho, 2009) Mechanistic biomedicine, Aho and Aho argue, promises total mastery over the instability of human nature — including the elimination of disease and death — by treating the body as a system of brute matter observable, measurable, and controlled by objective calculative procedures.(James Aho, Kevin Aho, 2009) Whether that promise is achievable, and what is lost in pursuing it, remains contested.

Contradictions and Honest Assessments

The mechanical philosophy’s history is a history of genuine intellectual achievement entangled with problems that remain unresolved. Its proponents were correct that purposive explanation alone was insufficient to understand the body; the Galenic faculty of “attraction” — the power exerted by organs to draw substances toward themselves — was indeed an explanatory placeholder that blocked inquiry into the actual physical mechanisms by which things moved.(French, 1994) French argues that traditional final causes and faculty concepts could not even be represented in geometrical diagrams, so that the shift to diagrammatic and mechanical explanation contributed materially to displacing teleological from mechanistic reasoning as the default mode of inquiry.(French, 1994)

But the bodies that humans actually inhabit are not well described as machines. Cook’s reading of the Dutch microscopical tradition shows that the grip of the mechanical philosophy in practice derived not from metaphysical certainty but from the promise of actually seeing the invisible machines on which life was built — a promise that microscopy seemed to be beginning to deliver.(Cook, 2007) When that promise proved more difficult to fulfill than anticipated, the mechanical framework was increasingly supplemented by, and eventually partially displaced by, vitalist and neurological accounts that restored something like agency or intrinsic force to living matter.

The questions the mechanical philosophy raised remain live: What is the relationship between brain states and conscious experience? Can psychology be reduced to physiology, and physiology to chemistry and physics? What is a living body, as distinguished from an elaborate machine? Hall notes that Descartes’ justification of experimental inquiry in biology was of permanent value — by treating physiological processes as subject to material causes rather than vital spirits or occult agencies, it made such processes investigable in principle.(Hall, A. Rupert, 1954) The barrier between organic and inorganic, between the living and the non-living, had to be crossed. But the question of what distinguishes them has not been answered by mechanism, and it remains, in different vocabulary, the central problem of the philosophy of biology.

Editorial Notes

Gaps the encyclopaedia compiler flagged for future evidence work, collected from inline markers in the body and frontmatter.

Contradictions and Honest Assessments

See Also