DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter Five

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter Five chapter five DESCARTES, BASSO, AND TOLETUS: THREE KINDS OF CORPUSCULARIANS There is a general consensus that one of the more important changes in seventeenth century philosophy is the movement from what is various- ly called scholasticism, naturalism, or animism (what the Aristotelians hold) to what is variously called the mechanical philosophy, corpuscu- larianism, or atomism (what the moderns hold): “of central importance to the history of the physical sciences in the seventeenth century and beyond was the revival of the ancient atomistic doctrines of Democri- tus, Epicurus, and Lucretius.”1 This revival is understood as the attempt to explain the characteristic behavior of bodies in terms of the size, shape, and motion of the small particles that make them up; it is usually accom- panied with the elimination of sensory qualities such as heat and cold, color, and taste. Given that atomism was rejected by Aristotle, the emer- gence of the mechanical philosophy appears to entail the rejection of scholastic philosophy. Historians and philosophers do seem to agree on these points: Throughout the scientific circles of western Europe during the first half of the seventeenth century we can observe what appears to be a sponta- neous movement toward a mechanical conception of nature in reaction to Renaissance naturalism. Suggested in Galileo and Kepler, it assumed full proportions in the writing of such men as Mersenne, Gassendi, and Hobbes, not to mention less well known philosophers. [One can add Descartes, Boyle and Newton to the list].2 Even the latest history of the “scientific revolution” accepts this phe- nomenon and its accompanying demarcation into two camps, the Aris- totelians and the moderns, in order to argue that 1 Garber , p. 2 Westfall, , pp. –. Westfall argues (from a Newtonian perspective) that the conjunction of mechanism and corpuscularianism was detrimental to the scientific revolution, which needed to detach corpuscularian matter theory from mechanical or mathematical theory of motion (chap. ). chapter five the superior intelligibility, and therefore the explanatory power, of the mechanical philosophy was more limited than its proponents claimed. Adherents’ conviction that mechanical accounts were globally superior to alternatives, and more intelligible, has to be explained in historical rather than abstractly philosophical terms.3 Indeed, it has been argued that the central philosophical and method- ological problems of early modern philosophy were not posed by Gali- leo’s mechanics or Copernican astronomy, but by the so-called corpus- cular or mechanical philosophy: One of the most persistent, and philosophically disturbing, features of most sciences of the th century was the radical observational inacces- sibility of the entities postulated by their theories. As numerous scholars have shown, it was the epistemological features of this type of theory which occasioned much of the philosophizing of the th and th centuries.4 Now, it happens that Descartes would not have fully agreed with these characterizations. In Principles IV, article , “The philosophy of Dem- ocritus differs from my own just as much as it does from the standard view of Aristotle and others,”5 Descartes explains the relations between his philosophy and those of Aristotle and Democritus in a symmetrical fashion. In the preceding article, Descartes had already claimed that there are particles in each body that are so small they cannot be perceived by the senses. That claim is the only point of agreement between his phi- losophy and that of Democritus: “It is true that Democritus also imag- ined certain small bodies having various sizes, shapes and motions, and supposed that all bodies that can be perceived by the senses arose from the conglomeration and mutual interaction of these corpuscles.”Surpris- ingly, Descartes also presents the claim as a point of agreement between his philosophy as that of Aristotle. Descartes first puts aside the possi- ble objection that the rejection of Democritus’ philosophy might have been based on the fact that it “deals with certain particles so minute as to elude the senses, and assigns various sizes, shapes and motions to them.” According to him, “no one can doubt that there are in fact many such 3 Shapin , p. 4 Laudan , “A Revisionist Note on the Methodological Significance of Galilean Mechanics,” p. 5 Of course, the Principles has to be put into context as a teaching text, a work which Descartes hopes might be used in the schools; for that reason, Descartes is surely minimizing the differences between himself and Aristotle and maximizing the differences between himself and Democritus in the Principles. See Ariew ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Epistemology Under Locke's Corpuscularianism
    THE EPISTEMOLOGY UNDER LOCKE’S CORPUSCULARIANISM Michael Jacovides 1. MACHINES AS MODELS OF INTELLIGIBILITY The intelligibility of our artifacts suggests to many seventeenth century thinkers that nature works along analogous lines, that the same principles that explain the operations of artifacts explain the operations of natural bodies.1 We may call this belief ‘corpuscularianism’ when conjoined with the premise that the details of the analogy depend upon the sub-microscopic textures of ordinary bodies and upon the rapidly moving, imperceptibly tiny corpuscles that surround these bodies.2 Locke’s sympathy for corpuscularianism comes out clearly where he describes the implications of our inability to perceive the sub-microscopic world. If we could, he conjectures, various perplexities would be unknotted. We would solve mysteries of pharmacology, since did we know the Mechanical affections of the Particles of Rhubarb, Hemlock, Opium, and a Man, as a Watchmaker does those of a Watch, whereby it performs its Opera- tions, and of a File which by rubbing on them will alter the Figure of any of the Wheels, we should be able to tell before Hand, that Rhubarb will purge, Hemlock kill, and Opium make a man sleep; as well as a Watch-maker can, that a little piece of Pa- per, laid on the Balance, will keep the Watch from going, till it be removed; or that some small part of it, being rubb’d by a file, the Machin would quite lose its Motion, and the Watch go no more3 (4.3.25). Locke borrows the expression ‘mechanical affections’ from Robert Boyle, who uses it to denote mo- tion, size, figure, and arrangement of parts “because to them men willingly refer the various opera- tions of mechanical engines”4.
    [Show full text]
  • Styles of Experimental Reasoning in Early Modern Chemistry
    Styles of Experimental Reasoning in Early Modern Chemistry By Victor Dan Boantza A thesis submitted in conformity with requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright by Victor Dan Boantza 2009 Styles of Experimental Reasoning in Early Modern Chemistry Victor Dan Boantza Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto 2009 Abstract The science of chemistry has undergone two major transformative changes during the early modern period, both closely related to two of the most revolutionary episodes in the history of Western science. The dissertation consists of a historical-analytical comparative exploration of early modern chemical thought and practice based on two series of interconnected case studies related, respectively, to the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution and the eighteenth-century Chemical Revolution. Although rarely considered together in the context of the history of chemistry, during both Revolutions, similar forces combined to generate crises in chemical knowledge and practice, to use a well-known Kuhnian notion. Differences in nature and historical evolution notwithstanding, both instances featured attempts at quantification and physicalist reductions of chemistry: during the 1660s-1680s Boyle advanced a reconciliation of chymical experimental knowledge with the budding mechanical philosophy, predicated upon the physically governed laws of matter and motion; during the last third of the eighteenth-century, Lavoisier (et al.) submitted chemical phenomena to the ‘rule of the balance’, as a part of an all-encompassing experimentalist, theoretical and linguistic reformation anchored in the conservation of weight principle.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Support for the Corpuscular Theory in the Seventeenth Century
    EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR THE CORPUSCULAR THEORY IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the empirical content and experimental foundation of the early seventeenth-century corpuscular hypothesis. Supported by ontological, epistemological, and mathematical arguments, observational and experimental evi• dence played an important part in creating those patterns of thought that were instrumental in the transformation and, even• tually, acceptance of the corpuscular theory of matter. Compared to the rise of astronomy and mechanics, the success of seventeenth-century atomism is ambiguous. Unlike other physical theories of the time the atomic doctrine was not based on exper• iments likely to be accepted by today's scientific standards. In Galileo's inclined plane and his law of falling bodies or in Newton's theory of colors and his experimentum crucis with the prism, for example, theory and experiment, observation and conclu• sion were connected in a way still acceptable to us. In atomism, however, this is not the case, although almost all corpuscular theories of the seventeenth century explicitly claimed to be derived from and based upon experience. Yet, it was not until the nineteenth century that experimental results made the atoms at least plausible. The difficult relationship between seventeenth century atomism and its experimental foundation has been obscured to some extent by later historians. When the standard histories of atomism were written at the end of the nineteenth century1, a final experi• mental confirmation of the corpuscular nature of matter was still lacking. Twentieth-century historians, on the other hand, have underestimated the empirical difficulties involved in early modern atomism.2 Knowing that there are atoms in nature, they could hardly imagine how the protagonists of the scientific revolution should not have arrived at this same conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grounds for and Excellence of the Corpuscular Or Mechanical Philosophy
    The Grounds for and Excellence of the Corpuscular or Mechanical Philosophy Robert Boyle 1674 Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions are reported between brackets in normal-sized type.—This short piece by Boyle opens and closes in the form of a letter; there is no known addressee; and most of the thing reads as though it wasn’t really addressed to any individual.—The section-breaks and -headings are not Boyle’s. First launched: March 2010 Excellence of mechanism Robert Boyle Contents Introduction 1 Four points 2 The versatility of mechanism 3 The world’s soul etc. 6 The top trio 7 Challenges that mechanisms could survive 8 Mechanism isn’t scary 10 Decoding the world 11 Recapitulation 12 Excellence of mechanism Robert Boyle Glossary a priori: When Boyle uses this phrase on page 11 he principle: Throughout the early modern period ‘principle’ isn’t using it in the sense that Kant made famous 80 years (like its cousins in French and Latin) sometimes meant, as it later. That is, he isn’t talking about proving independently does today, a proposition that has some privilege of basicness of all experience that your theory is true.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Philosophy: Early Modern (PHIL 210-3)
    History of Philosophy: Early Modern (PHIL 210-3) Professor Baron Reed Spring Quarter, 2019 office: 3-421 Kresge Hall Lutkin Hall email: [email protected] T/TH 12:30-1:50 office hours: T 2:00-3:00, and by appointment Course Description: The transition from the Medieval to the Modern era in philosophy began, roughly, in the late 16th and early 17th centuries and ended, again roughly, in the late 18th century. New methods of acquiring knowledge, along with a radically different conception of the world, permanently transformed the philosophical enterprise and the broader culture. In this course we will examine the views of some of the most important modern philosophers—especially Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Bayle, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume—on the nature of God, causation, substance, mind, knowledge, and the material world. Additional readings will be drawn from Elizabeth, Galileo, Masham, Boyle, Shepherd, and Du Châtelet. Course Objectives: The course has two primary objectives: (A) To reach a deeper understanding of the philosophical developments that followed in the wake of the Reformation and that accompanied, and made possible, the rise of modern science and the broader Enlightenment; and (B) To develop critical thinking, reading, and writing skills, particularly in light of the new attention to philosophical method in the Early Modern period. Emphasis will be placed on both philosophical and historical methods of reading primary sources, as we attempt to understand both the views of these philosophers in their own terms and as they relate to the work of other philosophers and to broader cultural developments. Required Texts: Ariew, Roger and Watkins, Eric (eds.).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Locke on Newton's Principia Mathematica: Mathematics but Not
    Locke on Newton’s Principia mathematica: Mathematics but not Natural Philosophy? Michael J. White In his Essay concerning Human Understanding, John Locke explicitly refers to Newton’s Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica in laudatory but restrained terms: “Mr. Newton, in his never enough to be admired Book, has demonstrated several Propositions, which are so many new Truths, before unknown to the World, and are farther Advances in Mathematical Knowledge” (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. P. H. Nidditch [Clarendon Press, 1975], 4.7.3). Locke’s restraint stands in contrast to such effusive tributes as Edmund Halley’s Ode (“Come celebrate with me in song the name/ Of Newton, to the Muses dear; for he/ Unlocked the hidden treasuries of Truth:/ So richly through his mind had Phoebus cast/ The radiance of his own divinity./ Nearer the gods no mortal may approach”) or the famous epitaph of Alexander Pope (“Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night; / God said, Let Newton be! and all was light”). Of course, Locke was neither a poet nor inclined to make use of a poet’s license. There can be little doubt, I think, that he respected Newton’s prodigious intellect and admired his accomplishments. In the Essay’s “Epistle to the Reader” of 1700, “the incomparable Mr. Newton” is numbered along with Boyle, Sydenham, and Huygens as one of the commonwealth of learning’s master-builders in advancing the sciences. Also more expansive is the 1688 review of Newton’s Principia in Le Clerc’s Bibliothèque universelle et historique, which many scholars now believe was written by Locke, and a passage from Locke’s 1693 Some Thoughts Concerning Education.
    [Show full text]
  • 12. Atoms and Alchemy: Chaps 1-3. • the Role of Alchemy in the Scientific Revolution (16Th-17Th Cent)
    12. Atoms and Alchemy: Chaps 1-3. • The role of alchemy in the Scientific Revolution (16th-17th cent). • Cast of Characters: Geber (Paul of Taranto) Thomas Erastus Andreas Libavius Daniel Sennert Robert Boyle • Key issues: The role of alchemy in providing the experimental basis for the corpuscularian and atomic theories of matter associated with the Scientific Revolution. The role of alchemy in linking the mechanical philosophy of the Scientific Revolution with the Aristotelianism that preceded it. The rehabilitation of alchemy in histories of the Scientific Revolution. A. The Problematic Place of Alchemy in the Scientific Revolution • Late 17th century: Adoption of corpuscularian/atomic theories of matter." "It is in fact impossible to imagine Newton's successes in optics or physics as a whole without the heuristic assumption that beneath the threshold of sense, matter -- and even light -- are composed of discrete and permanent particles rather than a single, mutable continuum." (Newman, pg. 5) • Claim: Alchemy provided corpuscular theories with the experimental means to debunk scholastic theories of perfect mixture and to demonstrate the retrievability of material ingredients. "I see Boyle's mechanical philosophy as having been indissolubly linked to his chymical researches..." (Newman, pg. 3) • Early 17th century: "Material change was generally explained not by the association and dissociation of microscopic particles, but rather by the imposition and removal of immaterial forms." (Newman, pg. 4 "...it was commonly believed that the ingredients of 'genuine mixtures' -- many of which we would today call 'chemical compounds' -- were not capable of being retrieved from their combined state at all." Aside: Aristotle's Theory of Change (a) Doctrine of Hylomorphism: • A sensible object consists of both matter and form.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Aristotle: Indivisibles and Infinite Divisibility in the Later Middle Ages
    BEYOND ARISTOTLE: INDIVISIBLES AND INFINITE DIVISIBILITY IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES John E. Murdoch The basic text for late medieval Latin atomism and its critics was Aristotle’s Physics, especially Book VI. Here the atoms or indivisibles he considered and combatted were extensionless, a conception that can be found in scholastic debate about atoms all the way to Galileo and his atomi non quanti.1 The medieval atomists were clustered in the fourteenth-century,2 as were their Aristotelian critics. Figure 1 provides the basic dramatis personae of the fourteenth-century atomists and their critics. The list of atomists is nearly complete, save for the followers of Wyclif. The list of their critics is naturally less complete, being made up of chiefl y those who name their atomist opponents. Yet even without such identifi cation, we can often tell other critics, such as John Buridan and his school, because they oppose specifi c identifi able atomist arguments. The question of the motives for the late medieval atomism is pretty murky. The motives for Greek atomism are, at least to some extent, an answer to Parmenides’s monism and center in attempts to explain natural phenomena (if not always totally successfully). Equally clear are the motives for the Arabic atomism of the Mutakallimun: namely, to put all causal relations into the hands of God through the mechanism of the doctrine of continuous creation. However, in the case of late medieval atomism there is not such a wholesale application to nature or to a God who creates the universe anew at every instant.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    ll t Ch (1999 9 BOOK REVIEWS A History of Chemistry. rndtt nd-nnt f htr" thr dn prnpl fr th nrr- nd Ibll Stnr trnltd b brh vn tv h ntrl tn "Wht htr?" ld rvrd Unvrt r Cbrd MA 199 35 th t p ddtnl tn pp Ornll pblhd Histoire de la chemie, Ed- tn évrt 1993 Wht f ntd f dn t th hddn pt f ll-dfnd n h dntt nt n tn r th 19 t th rl 199 nn ntn nv th n th prdt f htr? rnt htr f htr hd ntll t h Wht f ntd f n tht htr h htr Arn Ihd n-vl trtnt r th lt-vl- hh n n h t td r nr prp r b rtntn th r ntndd t b tht t htr n prr? prhnv rv bth rnzd ln th ln f hrnll nrrtv nd bth rttn b h- Ardn t th thr htr bd n th t Sn 199 hvr thr h bn n br- nr t th tn "ld l rbl th tr- rnt f rh th th pprn f dzn n- phl rh f n tht r f tlf thn ln hn f vnt hpn n tht hntd rl nd plzd htr f htr b tn f t ntr" t dpt thr l In th brnn lt A History of Chemistry f- tht th "pl f htr n th hrrh f th - fr thn fndntll dffrnt; t n ltrn- n l ttr f dbt" nd tht h- tv ll drt hlln t trdtnl ht- tr h bn ntnll bld t rntt t rl- r f htr Wrttn b prfnl htrn f tnhp th th thr n nd-nnt nd n (nd-nnt nd prfnl phl- Stnr d nt h htr t b n n th r- phr f n (Stnr th txt prvd ntr- rd vrthl rn fr th ptn tht pnt t th ntn f l nrrtv f htr "thr n trnl n f htr n trnn- Cntn f fv ndvdl "npht" f htr dnt bjt tht nvld vr th r f th nt- t ffr n fntn vntt rttn n ld r" th thr fr thlv t l fr "htr rdbl tl— trbt t bth th ll f th trn- v dntt" vr ln lbl htr h ltr nd th rnl rnh txt prdd b th - th rnz nt th fv hptr h f hh "pr- thr nt dffrnt f f htr [nd] dlnt t dntt t vn t" nd-nnt nd Stnr pprh thr b- jt
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Newton's Principia: the Three Versions of Edmond Halley's
    Juliane Küppers Framing Newton’s Principia: The Three Versions of Edmond Halley’s Lucretian Ode and Newton’s Reception of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura 1 Introduction Readers of the first edition of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) began their perusal in an elevated state of mind that did not result only from the work’s ground-breaking nature.1 Their receptivity was also shaped by a dedicatory ode written by the Principia’s first editor Edmond Halley in the style of the ancient Roman poet Lucretius. It was placed – after Newton’s own Praefatio ad lectorem – right before the main text. In the second and third edition (1713 and 1726), the ode was revised by its editors, signifi- cantly so by Richard Bentley and to a much lesser extent by Henry Pemberton. Its placement was changed to a less prominent position among the other paratexts. The different versions of the ode created different personae for the Principia’s author – and thus gave its readers different approaches to the scientific work – depending on its specific historical and natural philosophical context. This paper analyses the revisions in detail and discusses Newton’s own relationship to Lucretius’ De rerum natura in his writings throughout the timespan of the Principia’s first three publications. I argue that not only can the changes to the ode be explained by historical circumstance and through the influence of the Principia’s second editor Bentley – asisthefocusofthestudybyAlbury2 and one 1 Earlier versions of this paper have been delivered at the Neo-Latin Colloquium of the Freie Universität Berlin, the Doctoral Seminar of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and the Technical Traditions workshop of Harvard University’s Department of the Classics during a visiting fellow- ship.
    [Show full text]
  • 17. the Mechanical Philosophy. II
    I. Descartes. 17. The Mechanical Philosophy. II. Biology & the Mech Philosophy. I. René Decartes (1596-1650) Principia Philosophiae (The Principles of Philosophy) (1644). Cartesian Metaphysics • Three things exist: - minds = thinking substance - bodies = extended substance - God = infinite substance • Complete separation of mind from body. • Natural philosophy is concerned only with body: No active principles, substantial forms, final causes, occult properties, spirits, etc. in Nature. • Only extended bodies in motion via contact forces (i.e., efficient causes). Key Points (a) The essence of body is extension: "...the nature of matter or body, considered in general, does not con- sist in its being hard, or ponderous, or coloured, or that which affects our senses in any other way, but simply in its being a substance ex- tended in length, breadth, and depth... nothing remains in the idea of body, except that it is something extended in length, breadth, and depth; and this something is comprised in our idea of space, not only of that which is full of body, but even of what is called void space." (b) Bodies are individuated through motion: "All the properties we distinctly perceive to belong to [matter] are reducible to its capacity of being divided and moved according to its parts; and accordingly it is capable of all those affections which we perceive can arise from the motion of its parts. For the partition of matter in thought makes no change in it; but all variation of it, or diversity of form, depends on motion." Corpuscularianism Atomism - extended, infinitely divisible corpuscles. - pointlike, indivisible atoms. - motion in a plenum.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontological Tensions in 16Th and 17Th Century Chemistry: Between Mechanism and Vitalism
    Ontological Tensions in 16th and 17th Century Chemistry: Between Mechanism and Vitalism Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino Florida Atlantic University Introduction The 16th and 17th centuries marked a period of transition between the vitalistic ontology that had dominated Renaissance natural philosophy and the early modern mechanistic paradigm that was endorsed by Cartesian natural philosophers, among others. However, even with the dawning of the 18th century Chemical Revolution, chemistry remained resistant to the mechanical philosophy. What one discovers, when examining the chemical philosophies of the 16th and 17th centuries, is that these transitional philosophies involved quite complex and nuanced ontologies that cannot be easily classified as either strictly vitalistic or strictly mechanistic. In fact, in many of the most important chemical theories of this period, vitalism coexisted quite comfortably with corpuscularian theories of matter. More than this, one also discovers that, to the extent that chemical philosophy resisted subsumption under the mechanical philosophy, it was not the supplanting of vitalism by mechanism that ushered in the Chemical Revolution. Rather, this revolution in chemistry was brought about by a naturalized and physicalistic, although non- mechanistic, interpretation of chemical qualities and operations. This paper will examine these ideas by focusing on a few of the more significant transitional chemical philosophies of the 16th and 17th centuries, in order to show how chemical philosophers at this time adhered to complicated ontologies that only slowly and gradually shifted from a vitalistic point of view to a naturalistic and physicalistic, albeit non-mechanistic, account of chemical qualities and operations. For the sake of brevity, I will restrict my discussion to the chemical philosophies of Sebastien Basso, Jan Bapstista van Helmont, and Robert Boyle.
    [Show full text]