clearly, his project succeeded, leaving behind a rich intellectual legacy, but it was a rather... extreme approach. a binary one, splitting the world in two. a sort of dualism, one might say, even. you wouldn't be remiss to suggest his conclusions were a function of his process.

one might compare his approach to the Big Rewrite antipattern infamous to software engineers, wherein a team, frustrated with the legacy pile of machinery they have inherited, effectively ragequit to build a shiny new pile, swearing to not make the mistakes of their forebearers

ofc, unless they've actively sought out the root causes (often cultural issues), they naturally replicate the same assumptions, ontological pathologies, & blind spots in the design of the shiny new cruft pile. and so, Cartesian dualism was inevitable for a Christian scholar.

that was a bit unfair, but forgive me, I couldn't resist; I do so love mocking dualists. it's one of my many vices.

there are ways to avoid this failure mode, but instead of explaining, I'll direct you to the software architecture canon. it addressees this very problem in depth.

if you find this hard to believe, consider that there is an isomorphism between the dualistic models of code/data and agent/object, both of which lie at the heart of their fields' respective challenges. dualism is a useful but deeply flawed model, no matter where it is applied.