Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 449–466 | Cite as

Newtonian Emanation, Spinozism, Measurement and the Baconian Origins of the Laws of Nature

  • Eric SchliesserEmail author
Article

Abstract

The first two sections of this paper investigate what Newton could have meant in a now famous passage from “De Graviatione” (hereafter “DeGrav”) that “space is as it were an emanative effect of God.” First it offers a careful examination of the four key passages within DeGrav that bear on this. The paper shows that the internal logic of Newton’s argument permits several interpretations. In doing so, the paper calls attention to a Spinozistic strain in Newton’s thought. Second it sketches four interpretive options: (i) one approach is generic neo-Platonic; (ii) another approach is associated with the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More; a variant on this (ii*) emphasizes that Newton mixes Platonist and Epicurean themes; (iii) a necessitarian approach; (iv) an approach connected with Bacon’s efforts to reformulate a useful notion of form and laws of nature. Hitherto only the second and third options have received scholarly attention in scholarship on DeGrav. The paper offers new arguments to treat Newtonian emanation as a species of Baconian formal causation as articulated, especially, in the first few aphorisms of part two of Bacon’s New Organon. If we treat Newtonian emanation as a species of formal causation then the necessitarian reading can be combined with most of the Platonist elements that others have discerned in DeGrav, especially Newton’s commitment to doctrines of different degrees of reality as well as the manner in which the first existing being ‘transfers’ its qualities to space (as a kind of causa-sui). This can clarify the conceptual relationship between space and its formal cause in Newton as well as Newton’s commitment to the spatial extended-ness of all existing beings. While the first two sections of this paper engage with existing scholarly controversies, in the final section the paper argues that the recent focus on emanation has obscured the importance of Newton’s very interesting claims about existence and measurement in “DeGrav”. The paper argues that according to Newton God and other entities have the same kind of quantities of existence; Newton is concerned with how measurement clarifies the way of being of entities. Newton is not claiming that measurement reveals all aspects of an entity. But if we measure something then it exists as a magnitude in space and as a magnitude in time. This is why in DeGrav Newton’s conception of existence really helps to “lay truer foundations of the mechanical sciences.”

Keywords

Newton Emanation Measurement Existence Bacon Spinozism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bacon, F. (1863). New Organon (J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, & D. D. Heath, Trans.). In The works (Vol. VIII). Boston: Taggard and Thompson.Google Scholar
  2. Burtt E. A. (1927) The metaphysical foundations of modern science. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Cassirer E. (1951) The philosophy of the enlightenment (P. P. James & C. A. K. Fritz, Trans.). Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Feingold M. (2001) Mathematicians and naturalists: Sir Isaac Newton and the royal society. In: Bernard Cohen I., Buchwald J. Z. (eds) Isaac Newton’s natural philosophy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Feingold M. (2004) The Newtonian moment: Isaac Newton and the making of modern culture. New York Public Library, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldish M. (1999) Newton’s Of the Church: Its contents and implications. In: Force J. E., Popkin R. (eds) Newton and religion: Context, nature, and influence. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Gorham G. (2011) Newton on God’s relation to space and time: The cartesian framework. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93(3): 281–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grene, M. (1999 [1985]). Descartes. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harrison P. (2004) Was Newton a voluntarist?. In: Force J. E., Hutton S. (eds) Newton and Newtonianism. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Henry, J. (2004). Metaphysics and the origins of modern science: Descartes and the importance of laws of nature. Early Science and Medicine, 73–114.Google Scholar
  11. Henry J. (2009) Voluntarist theology at the origins of modern science: A response to Peter Harrison. History of Science 47: 79–113Google Scholar
  12. Henry J. (2011) Gravity and De gravitatione: The development of Newton’s ideas on action at a distance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42(1): 11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hooker, R. (1888). The works of that learned and judicious divine Mr. Richard Hooker with an account of his life and Death by Isaac Walton. (Arranged by the Rev. John Keble MA. 7th edition revised by the Very Rev. R.W. Church and the Rev. F. Paget). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 3 vols. Vol. 1. Chapter: The first book. concerning laws and their several kinds in general. http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/921/85481. Accessed December 16, 2011.
  14. Hume, D. (1739). A treatise concerning human understanding. http://www.davidhume.org/texts/?text=thn1#1.3.15.10. Accessed September 26, 2010.
  15. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/emanatio.htm. Accessed on October 24, 2008.
  16. Jalobeanu D. (2007) Space, bodies and geometry: Some sources of Newton’s metaphysics. Zeitsprünge, Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit 11: 81–113Google Scholar
  17. Janiak, A. (ms). Newton’s concept of space and the history of philosophy.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn T. (1977) The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Lange M. (2009) Laws and lawmakers. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee R. A. Jr. (2006) The cartesian resources for Descartes’ concept of Causa Sui. In: Garber D., Nadler S. M. (eds) Oxford studies in early modern philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–118Google Scholar
  21. Leibniz, G. W., & Clarke, S. (2000). In R. Ariew (Ed.), Correspondence. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. MacLaurin, C. (1748). Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy, London.Google Scholar
  23. Mancosu P. (1999) Philosophy of mathematics and mathematical practice in the seventeenth century. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. McGuire J. E. (1978) Existence, actuality and necessity: Newton on space and time. Annals of Science 35: 463–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGuire J. E. (2007) A dialogue with Descartes: Newton’s ontology of true and immutable natures. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45(1): 103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGuire, J. E. (2011). Ideas and texts. Newton and the intellectual history of science. Sartoniana, 24, 37–48. http://www.sartonchair.ugent.be/en/journal/archive.
  27. Mercer C. (2001) Leibniz’s metaphysics: Its origins and development. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newton, I. (1978). In A. R. Hall & M. B. Hall (Eds.), Unpublished scientific papers of Isaac Newton: A selection from the Portsmouth Collection in the University Library. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Newton I. (2004) Philosophical writings edited by Andrew Janiak. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Oackley F. (1961) Christian theology and the Newtonian science: The rise of the concept of the laws of nature. Church History 30: 433–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schliesser, E. (2008). Hume’s Newtonianism and anti-Newtonianism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), forthcoming URL http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/hume-newton/.
  32. Schliesser E. (2010a) Without God: gravity as a relational quality in Newton’s treatise. In: Jalobeanu D., Anstey P. (eds) Vanishing body and the laws of motion: Descartes and beyond. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Schliesser E. (2010b) Book review of Epicureanism at the origins of modernity, by Catherine Wilson. Mind 119(474): 535–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schliesser E. (2011) Newton’s substance monism, distant action, and the nature of Newton’s empiricism: Discussion of H. Kochiras. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42(1): 160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schliesser, E. (Forthcoming, a). Spinoza and the philosophy of science: Mathematics, motion, and being. In M. D. Rocca (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Spinoza. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schliesser, E. (Forthcoming, b). On reading Newton as an Epicurean: Kant, Spinozism and the changes to the Principia. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  37. Slowik, E. (2008). Newton’s metaphysics of space: A “Tertium Quid” betwixt substantivalism and relationalism, or “Merely a God of the (Relational Mechanical) Gaps?” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004185/.
  38. Slowik E. (2009) Newton’s metaphysics of space: A “Tertium Quid” betwixt substantivalism and relationalism, or “Merely a God of the (Relational Mechanical) Gaps?. ” Perspectives on Science, 17(4,): 429–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slowik, E. (2012). Newton’s neo-platonic ontology of space. Foundations of Science. doi: 10.1007/s10699-011-9278-z.
  40. Steenbergen, G. (ms). The role of measurement in Newton’s De Gravitatione.Google Scholar
  41. Stein H. (1967) Newtonian spacetime. Texas Quarterly 10: 174–200Google Scholar
  42. Stein H. (2002) Newton’s metaphysics. In: Cohen I. B., Smith G. E. (eds) Cambridge companion to Isaac Newton. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Whitehead A. N. (1933) Adventures of ideas. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations