DOCSLIB.ORG

PANTHEISM in SPINOZA, HEGEL, and CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY of RELIGION by Mike Popejoy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PANTHEISM IN SPINOZA, HEGEL, AND CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION by Mike Popejoy A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy West Lafayette, Indiana December 2019 THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE APPROVAL Dr. Christopher Yeomans, Chair Department of Philosophy Dr. Daniel Frank Department of Philosophy Dr. Paul Draper Department of Philosophy Dr. Vittorio Hösle Departments of German, Philosophy, and Political Science, University of Notre Dame Approved by: Dr. Christopher Yeomans 2 “What is a man but nature’s finer success in self-explication?” -Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays, First Series, Art 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to all those that have helped this project come to fruition, in ways both large and small: to my partner Myra, whose encouragement and support in finishing this project, along with many conversations through the years, were integral in bringing this project to completion; to my committee members for stimulating conversations through the years, comments on drafts of this project, and challenging me in ways that helped to improve both my thinking and writing; to the faculty and fellow graduate students at Purdue University for spirited discussions about issues of existential import, and for helping to make me a better philosopher; to cross-country teammates of mine at the University of Notre Dame, for some of the most memorable extended philosophical discussions, had while running around South Bend; to others who encouraged me to finish this project, especially my parents Ken and Karen; and to various of my current colleagues at the Grand Canyon Trust who encouraged me in the final stages of this effort. This project is dependent upon these influences and many others, both known and unknown, and I am grateful for their confluence in my life and in this project. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 8 I. General Framework ............................................................................................................... 8 II. Chapter Summaries ........................................................................................................... 16 III. References ......................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 1: SPINOZA & PANTHEISM ................................................................................. 21 I. Basic Concept of God/Nature ............................................................................................. 22 II. Pantheism .......................................................................................................................... 28 III. Necessitarianism ............................................................................................................... 31 IV. Unity of Thought and Extension? ..................................................................................... 36 V. Human Project of Knowing God & Eternality of the Mind .............................................. 45 VI. Good & Evil ...................................................................................................................... 57 VII. Teleology ........................................................................................................................ 62 VIII. Spinoza on Pantheism & Atheism ............................................................................... 64 IX. References ......................................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 2: KANT’S CRITIQUE OF RATIONAL THEOLOGY, THE PANTHEISM CONTROVERSY, & HERDER’S CONTRIBUTION ................................................................ 70 I. Kant’s Critique of Rational Theology ................................................................................. 73 i. Kant’s Account of an Absolutely Necessary Being .......................................................... 74 ii. Objections to Taking ‘Being’ to Be an Absolutely Necessary Being from Kant’s Position ............................................................................................................................................... 82 iii. The Abyss? ...................................................................................................................... 84 II. The Pantheism Controversy & Herder’s Contribution ..................................................... 85 i. Herder’s Revision of Spinoza’s Metaphysics in Gott: Einige Gespräche – Introduction . 88 ii. Substantial Force & Organic Forces................................................................................. 89 iii. Natural Science & Metaphysics ...................................................................................... 93 iv. Thought & Necessity ....................................................................................................... 96 v. The All-Encompassing Nature of God ........................................................................... 104 vi. God, Reason, and Personality ........................................................................................ 107 5 vii. The Relation of God to the Human Being .................................................................... 111 viii. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 114 III. References ....................................................................................................................... 115 CHAPTER 3: HEGEL & PANTHEISM ................................................................................... 117 I. Hegel’s Pantheistic Framework ........................................................................................ 118 II. God as Necessary and Independent ................................................................................ 123 III. God as Reason and the True ........................................................................................... 125 IV. God as Concrete vs. Abstract .......................................................................................... 127 V. God as Self-Consciousness ............................................................................................. 130 VI. God & Nature .................................................................................................................. 134 VII. Hegel’s Idealism: The Unity of Being & Thought ...................................................... 139 VIII. Hegel on Pantheism.................................................................................................... 142 IX. Hegel on Spinoza ............................................................................................................ 145 X. God as Subject vs. Substance.......................................................................................... 150 XI. The Method of Philosophy.............................................................................................. 154 XII. References .................................................................................................................... 158 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 160 I. The Resultant View: Rationalistic Pantheism .................................................................. 161 II. Additional Argumentative Resources ............................................................................. 174 III. Philosophical Advantages Over Perfection Theism ....................................................... 178 IV. Religiosity ....................................................................................................................... 183 V. References ....................................................................................................................... 186 6 ABSTRACT In this project I examine pantheistic views in the history of philosophy and advocate for pantheism as a philosophical position in contemporary philosophy of religion. I take pantheism to be the view that everything that exists constitutes a unity, and that that unity is divine. My contention is that what I call rationalistic pantheism, sufficiently articulated with the help of historical figures, is a position worthy of consideration in contemporary philosophy of religion and metaphysics and not merely as an historical artifact. Pantheism is usually not even considered as an alternative to the belief in the God of perfection theism, a perfect personal God. Often people see atheism as the only alternative to the perfect God of traditional theism. A primary aim of this project is to articulate a version of pantheism that is distinct both from perfection theism and atheism. I discuss in what way the rationalistic pantheist sees all of existence as forming a unity, and what it is about this unity that warrants calling it divine or God. Pantheism has a powerful tradition in the history of philosophy, and the rationalistic pantheism that I develop is based on the views of Spinoza, Herder, and Hegel. In the first three
Recommended publications
  • On Natural Causes: Implications for a Teleological View of the World

    On Natural Causes: Implications for a Teleological View of the World

    ON NATURAL CAUSES Implications for a teleological view of the world Joseph D. Renick1 March 15, 2020 Methodological naturalism is a guiding principle imposed on scientific methodology that limits science to the consideration of natural causes alone where “natural causes” explicitly means “non- supernatural causes”. Its principle role is to protect the teaching of biological evolution in public schools from challenges to its veracity posed by evidence of design in nature where, under the scrutiny of methodological naturalism, all such evidence is labelled “religion, not science”. However, an objective consideration of the reasoning involved in scientific methodology leads to the conclusion that the meaning of “natural causes” should be based on what a natural cause is, not on what it is not. This observation surprisingly leads to the proposition that both law and design must be viewed as natural causes. Further, it is evident that law and design are unified in nature and if they are unified in nature, they must also be unified in the natural sciences. This leads to the proposition that if law and design are unified in the natural sciences, they must also be unified in science education in public schools. We conclude that methodological naturalism has a legitimate role in its oversight of the methods of science, but that oversight must be limited to the methods themselves, not the metaphysical implications that might arise as a result of those methods. Otherwise, methodological naturalism functions as metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a guiding principle imposed on scientific methodology that limits science to the consideration of natural causes alone.
  • The Encounter Between Naturalistic Atheism and Christian Theism

    The Encounter Between Naturalistic Atheism and Christian Theism

    Michael Peterson The Encounter Between Naturalistic Atheism and Christian Theism Michael Peterson (b. 1950) sets the debate between atheism and theism in the larger context of a worldview conflict between naturalism, which entails atheism, and Christian belief, which entails theism. He tries to show that Christian theism has intellectual resources that can handle both arguments against theism and arguments for atheism. Then he compares the capacity of atheistic naturalism and Christian theism to generate credible explanations of many important features of reality, such as consciousness, mind, morality, and personhood. He concludes that such impressive phenomena are not likely to occur in a naturalistic universe and that naturalists provide explanations of them that are reductionistic and strained. However, in a universe described by Trinitarian Christian theism, which was cre­ ated by a supremely intelligent, moral, personal, and relational being, it is much more likely that finite consciousness, mind, morality, and personhood would arise. n academia and broader society, the intellectual of reality. An explanation of everything is a I conflict between theism and atheism continues. worldview-a comprehensive conceptual frame­ Theism is the belief that an omnipotent, omniscient, work that makes sense of important features of life and perfectly good personal spiritual being exists and the world. Both theists and atheists advance who is creator and sustainer of the universe; this key arguments and cite significant evidence for being is designated God. Positive atheism is the their positions. Thorough worldview assessment belief that God does not exist, i.e., the denial of must evaluate all of the arguments, pro and con, theism.
  • Pandeism - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Pandeism - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Pandeism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism Pandeism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pandeism or Pan-Deism (from Greek: πάν pan "all" and Part of a series on Latin: deus meaning "God" in the sense of deism), is a term describing religious beliefs incorporating or mixing logically God reconcilable elements of pantheism (that "God", or its metaphysical equivalent, is identical to the Universe) and General conceptions deism (that the creator-god who designed the Universe no Agnosticism · Apatheism · Atheism · Deism longer exists in a status where it can be reached, and can Henotheism · Monolatrism · Monotheism instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most Panentheism · Pantheism · Transtheism particularly the belief that the Creator of the Universe actually became the Universe, and so ceased to exist as a [1][2] Specific conceptions separate and conscious entity. Creator · Architect · Demiurge · Devil Sustainer · Lord · Father · Monad It is through this incorporation pandeism claims to answer Oneness · Mother · Supreme Being · The All primary objections to deism (why would God create and Personal · Unitarianism · Ditheism · Trinity then not interact with the Universe?) and to pantheism (how in Abrahamic religions did the Universe originate and what is its purpose?). (Bahá'í Faith, Christianity, Islam, Judaism) in Ayyavazhi · in Buddhism · in Hinduism in Jainism · in Sikhism · in Zoroastrianism Contents Attributes Eternalness · Existence · Gender 1 A pantheistic form of deism Names (God)
  • Making History – Alex Callinicos

    Making History – Alex Callinicos

    MAKING HISTORY HISTORICAL MATERIALISM BOOK SERIES Editorial board PAUL BLACKLEDGE, London - SEBASTIAN BUDGEN, London JIM KINCAID, Leeds - STATHIS KOUVELAKIS, Paris MARCEL VAN DER LINDEN, Amsterdam - CHINA MIÉVILLE, London WARREN MONTAG, Los Angeles - PAUL REYNOLDS, Lancashire TONY SMITH, Ames (IA) MAKING HISTORY Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory BY ALEX CALLINICOS BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Callinicos, Alex. Making history : agency, structure, and change in social theory / Alex Callinicos – 2nd ed. p. cm. — (Historical materialism book series, ISSN 1570-1522 ; 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-13627-4 (alk. paper) 1. Agent (Philosophy) 2. Act (Philosophy) 3. Structuralism. 4. Historical materialism. 5. Revolutions—Philosophy. 6. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. I. Title. II. Series. BD450.C23 2004 128’.4—dc22 2004045143 second revised edition ISSN 1570-1522 ISBN 90 04 13827 4 © Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS To John and Aelda Callinicos This page intentionally left blank Contents Preface ............................................................................................................ ix Introduction to the Second Edition ............................................................ xiii Introduction ...................................................................................................
  • The Shortcomings of a Concept Inertia and Conatus in the Philosophy of Spinoza

    The Shortcomings of a Concept Inertia and Conatus in the Philosophy of Spinoza

    http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/8142-286-4.36 Alexandre Rouette Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada THE SHORTCOMINGS OF A CONCEPT INERTIA AND CONATUS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA n the third part of the Ethics, Spinoza express the desire to talk about “human actions and appetites just as if it were a question of lines, planes, and bodies” (E3, Appendix).1 With this sentence, it seems clear that Spinoza sides with Hobbes and Descartes and that he wants to con- struct a mechanistic theory of the affects. In the same part of the Ethics, Spinoza also introduces the concept of conatus: “Each thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being” (E3P6), Spinoza says. One will immedi- ately understand this concept of conatus as the core concept of his mechanistic theory of the affects, the concept without which this mechanistic account of the affects would be impossible. However, in the second part of the Ethics, there is another concept that could have accomplished that same goal, namely, the principle of inertia. In the words of Spinoza, “A body which moves or is at rest must be determined to motion or rest by another body, which has also been determined to motion or rest by another, and that again by another, and so on, to infinity” (E2L3). Inter- estingly enough, in the philosophy of Hobbes, the concept of endeavour/conatus is much nearer to the Spinozistic principle of inertia in its meaning than it is to the Spinozistic version of the conatus.
  • Creationism Or Evolution

    Creationism Or Evolution

    I CONVERSATIONS WITH CHARLES Creationism* or evolution: is there a valid distinction? Pressure to impose extreme philosophies seems to be I tried a different tack. ‘Many scientists argue that Clin Med increasing throughout the world, including in the so- the mechanisms that they observe, for example 2006;6:629–30 called liberal democracies. I raised one example with evolution, are so beautiful that they are sufficient in Charles and he likened it to another form of themselves to negate the need for a god.’ extremism that I had hardly recognised as such. ‘Is that not pantheism? This holds that creation ‘Charles, do you not think that those in America and creator are one and the same, which is in effect who advocate teaching creationism in primary their position: a position that many of them appear schools are arrogant in the extreme?’ to find emotionally as well as intellectually satisfying. Further, most monotheistic approaches ‘Yes, if the approach is absolute,’ he replied, adding, have a pantheistic element in suggesting that we see ‘but no more so than those who advocate the God in his creation and its beauty. So the two views teaching of absolute Darwinism in this country! may not be as different as the protagonists might One is fundamentalist Christianity and the other wish. Both accept the concept of beauty which fundamentalist pantheism, much as the surely is metaphysical!’ protagonists might not recognise or like the label.’ I turned to the creationists. ‘What are the major ‘But surely the first requires imposing one’s faith on problems for the other side?’ others and the second does not?’ ‘How does God who is outside this world intervene?’ ‘The difference is less than you suggest, Coe! If knowledge implies proof and belief acceptance of ‘Heaven only knows!’ the unprovable then the fundamentalists in both camps are depending on belief, or faith, and not on ‘An appropriate response, Coe! But, once again, just knowledge.’ because you cannot conceive how it happens, it does not mean it does not happen.
  • Tese Bárbara a V Da SILVA

    Tese Bárbara a V Da SILVA

    UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS FACULDADE DE FILOSOFIA E CIÊNCIAS HUMANAS PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM FILOSOFIA BÁRBARA ASSIS VIANNA DA SILVA A PERGUNTA PELO REAL NA OBRA DE FRIEDRICH HEINRICH JACOBI: DAVID HUME SOBRE A CRENÇA OU IDEALISMO E REALISMO, UM DIÁLOGO (1787) Belo Horizonte 2019 BÁRBARA ASSIS VIANNA DA SILVA A PERGUNTA PELO REAL NA OBRA DE FRIEDRICH HEINRICH JACOBI: DAVID HUME SOBRE A CRENÇA OU IDEALISMO E REALISMO, UM DIÁLOGO (1787) Tese apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia da Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, como requisito para a obtenção do título de doutor em filosofia. Orientador: Prof. Dr. Joãosinho Beckenkamp Belo Horizonte 2019 Nossas ciências, meramente como tais, são jogos que o espírito humano inventa para si a fim de passar o tempo. Inventando esses jogos ele somente organiza sua ignorância sem se aproximar do caminho do conhecimento do verdadeiro. Em um certo sentido, ele, com isso, antes se afasta do verdadeiro, pois ele somente se dispersa, ele não sente mais a pressão da ignorância, inclusive passa a amá-la porque ela - é infinita; porque o jogo, que ela joga com ele, torna-se sempre mais variado, mais divertido, maior e mais arrebatador [...] O jogo fica arruinado para nós pelo fato de que nós o compreendemos, pelo fato de que nós o sabemos. JACOBI. Jacobi an Fichte (1799). Werke. Band 2/1: Schriften zum transzendentalen Idealismus, p. 206. AGRADECIMENTOS Em especial e com grande admiração ao professor Joãosinho Beckenkamp pela orientação e por todos os ensinamentos destes anos.
  • The Naturalist Challenge to Religion

    The Naturalist Challenge to Religion

    Michael Ruse The Naturalist Challenge to Religion Michael Ruse (b. 1940) presents a comprehensive case for a naturalist worldview that embraces both methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Rather than seeing methodolog­ ical naturalism as worldview neutral, Ruse argues that it actually helps the case for metaphysical naturalism because it rules out forms of explanation that look for causes beyond the natural realm. So, Ruse's case for metaphysical naturalism is heavily influenced by how he sees the role of methodological naturalism. He cites methodological naturalism's ability to explain the origin and structure of organisms without appeal to divine design and even it~ ability to explain religion as a purely human phenomenon without assuming it relates to a divine realm. ((Naturalism'' is one of those words with many naturalism;' claiming that there is nothing beyond this meanings. When I was a teenager growing up natural world. No gods or such things. Today, many in England, it was a euphemism for "nudism:' With methodological naturalists are also metaphysical natu­ some regret, it is not this sense that is the subject of this ralists. This would be true of so-called "New Atheists" discussion. Another sense is that of "philosophical like Richard Dawkins. 1 But today and in the past there naturalism:' Here one is referring to an intention to let have been methodological naturalists who deny meta­ one's philosophical discussions be as science-like and physical naturalism. This is true of the great seven­ science-based as possible. You will see evidence of this teenth-century chemist Robert Boyle who spoke of the philosophy in action in this paper, but again it is not "wisdom of God" in making the world like a clock the main focus of discussion.
  • Spinoza on the Body Politic

    Spinoza on the Body Politic

    _full_journalsubtitle: A Journal for the Study of Science, Technology and Medicine in the Pre-modern Period _full_abbrevjournaltitle: ESM _full_ppubnumber: ISSN 1383-7427 (print version) _full_epubnumber: ISSN 1573-3823 (online version) _full_issue: 1 _full_issuetitle: The Body Politic from Medieval Lombardy to the Dutch Republic _full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien J2 voor dit article en vul alleen 0 in hierna): 0 _full_alt_articletitle_running_head (rechter kopregel - mag alles zijn): From the King’s Two Bodies to the People’s Two Bodies _full_is_advance_article: 0 _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0 46 Early Science and Medicine 25 (2020) 46-72 Terpstra www.brill.com/esm From the King’s Two Bodies to the People’s Two Bodies: Spinoza on the Body Politic Marin Terpstra Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract In this article, using Spinoza’s treatment of the image of the political body, I aim to show what happens to the concept of a healthy commonwealth linked to a monarchist model of political order when transformed into a new context: the emergence of a democratic political order. The traditional representation of the body politic becomes problematic when people, understood as individual natural bodies, are taken as the starting point in political theory. Spinoza’s understanding of the composite body, and the assumption that each body is composed, raises the question of the stability or instability of this composition. This has implications for the way one looks
  • SPINOZA's ETHICS: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero

    SPINOZA's ETHICS: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero

    SPINOZA’S ETHICS: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero-Montaño 1. What remains alive of a philosopher's thought are the realities that concern him, the problems that he addresses, as well as the questions that he poses. The breath and depth of a philosopher's thought is what continues to excite and incite today. However, his answers are limited to his time and circumstances, and these are subject to the historical evolution of thought, yet his principal commitments are based on the problems and questions with which he is concerned. And this is what resounds of a philosopher's thought, which we can theoretically and practically adopt and adapt. Spinoza is immersed in a time of reforms, and he is a revolutionary and a reformer himself. The reforming trend in modern philosophy is expressed in an eminent way by Descartes' philosophy. Descartes, the great restorer of science and metaphysics, had left unfinished the task of a new foundation of ethics. Spinoza was thus faced with this enterprise. But he couldn't carry it out without the conviction of the importance of the ethical problems or that ethics is involved in a fundamental aspect of existence: the moral destiny of man. Spinoza's Ethics[1] is based on a theory of man or, more precisely, on an ontology of man. Ethics is, for him, ontology. He does not approach the problems of morality — the nature of good and evil, why and wherefore of human life — if it is not on the basis of a conception of man's being-in-itself, to wit, that the moral existence of man can only be explained by its own condition.
  • Is "Nontheist Quakerism" a Contradiction of Terms?

    Is "Nontheist Quakerism" a Contradiction of Terms?

    Quaker Religious Thought Volume 118 Article 2 1-1-2012 Is "Nontheist Quakerism" a Contradiction of Terms? Paul Anderson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt Part of the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Anderson, Paul (2012) "Is "Nontheist Quakerism" a Contradiction of Terms?," Quaker Religious Thought: Vol. 118 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt/vol118/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quaker Religious Thought by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IS “NONTHEIST QUAKERISM” A CONTRADICTION OF TERMS? Paul anderson s the term “Nontheist Friends” a contradiction of terms? On one Ihand, Friends have been free-thinking and open theologically, so liberal Friends have tended to welcome almost any nonconventional trend among their members. As a result, atheists and nontheists have felt a welcome among them, and some Friends in Britain and Friends General Conference have recently explored alternatives to theism. On the other hand, what does it mean to be a “Quaker”—even among liberal Friends? Can an atheist claim with integrity to be a “birthright Friend” if one has abandoned faith in the God, when the historic heart and soul of the Quaker movement has diminished all else in service to a dynamic relationship with the Living God? And, can a true nontheist claim to be a “convinced Friend” if one declares being unconvinced of God’s truth? On the surface it appears that one cannot have it both ways.
  • Descartes' Optics

    Descartes' Optics

    Descartes’ Optics Jeffrey K. McDonough Descartes’ work on optics spanned his entire career and represents a fascinating area of inquiry. His interest in the study of light is already on display in an intriguing study of refraction from his early notebook, known as the Cogitationes privatae, dating from 1619 to 1621 (AT X 242-3). Optics figures centrally in Descartes’ The World, or Treatise on Light, written between 1629 and 1633, as well as, of course, in his Dioptrics published in 1637. It also, however, plays important roles in the three essays published together with the Dioptrics, namely, the Discourse on Method, the Geometry, and the Meteorology, and many of Descartes’ conclusions concerning light from these earlier works persist with little substantive modification into the Principles of Philosophy published in 1644. In what follows, we will look in a brief and general way at Descartes’ understanding of light, his derivations of the two central laws of geometrical optics, and a sampling of the optical phenomena he sought to explain. We will conclude by noting a few of the many ways in which Descartes’ efforts in optics prompted – both through agreement and dissent – further developments in the history of optics. Descartes was a famously systematic philosopher and his thinking about optics is deeply enmeshed with his more general mechanistic physics and cosmology. In the sixth chapter of The Treatise on Light, he asks his readers to imagine a new world “very easy to know, but nevertheless similar to ours” consisting of an indefinite space filled everywhere with “real, perfectly solid” matter, divisible “into as many parts and shapes as we can imagine” (AT XI ix; G 21, fn 40) (AT XI 33-34; G 22-23).