Sorry I posted this on Blueline2 instead of here and just realized now that it's 5 hours late.

Kline begins this chapter in his work on the history of mathematics by bridging a gap that is not often subject to questioning, the gap in question being the transition from Medieval thought to the ideas of the Renaissance.  Kline uses Jerome Cardan, who had a notable impact on the aforementioned progression, in two senses; Kline employs Cardan's personal life and philosophy as a sort of illustration of the change while also discussing Cardan's contributions.  After leaving the topic of Cardan, Kline takes a step back and approaches the forces behind the transition from a more universal perspective.  Some of the forces, or causes, of the change include the entrepreneurial motives of a developing middle class, ambitious states seeking power through warfare, and the Protestant Reformation, which put a crack in the monolith of thought-oppression known as the Catholic Church.  Despite the impact these forces had, none of them were the primary factors involved in the iconic and world-transforming renaissance men discussed afterward.  

Kline describes some of these major contributors and their contributions, including Newton, Descartes, Huygens, and Galileo.  The one that was particularly interesting to me was Descartes, as his transition from Euclidean Geometry to a knowledge of the world using space was an interesting development of the work of Euclid, who we'd already discussed in class.  "The essence of objects or matter is space, and objects are essentially chunks of space, space solidified, or geometry incarnate."  (Kline, 106)  This new understanding of the material world was truly revolutionary, and it also went well with his understanding of time, and how space and time were not only "the machinery" of the universe, but also the things that made nature knowable.  But the most interesting thing to me is the motivation behind why Descartes and his peers were uncovering the mysteries of the natural world using mathematics; their motive being a desire to know God.  

According to Kline, these renaissance men worked not for the glory of the Ancient Greek idea of a "hero-scholar," for the money and opportunities, or for the development of science and mathematics in order to know more about the world, but in order to know and glorify God.  The Islamic scholars in Lindberg's article are motivated by the idea of "completing the Greek project." (Lindberg, 176)  Do you think Kline is right when he attributes their efforts to a desire for the divine, or do you think that some of the other aforementioned forces played more significant roles than are otherwise indicated?  Does it matter to you personally "why" the progress was made so long as it was actually made?