Online research in philosophy

In this paper I argue for three distinct, albeit mutually illuminating theses: first I explain why well informed eighteenth-century thinkers, e.g., the pre-critical Immanuel Kant and Richard Bentley, who had a very important correspondence with Newton, would have identified important aspects of Newton’s natural philosophy with (a species of modern) Epicureanism. Second, I explore how some significant changes to Newton’s Principia between the first (1687) and second (1713) editions can be explained in terms of attempts to reframe the Principia so (...) that the charge of “Epicureanism” can be deflected. In order to account for this I call attention to significant political and theological changes in the wake of the Glorious Revolution; as has been documented by others, it turns out that Bentley plays a non-trivial role in these matters. Third, I argue that there is an argument in Kant’s (1755) Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens that undermines a key claim in Newton’s General Scholium. I suggest that this particular argument reopens the door to Epicurean “blind necessity,” in particular, Spinozism. -/- . (shrink)

Understanding without explanation? Impossible, or so I will argue – in the case of science, at least. More particularly, I defend in this paper a version of the following simple view concerning the connection between scientific explanation and understanding: scientific understanding is that state produced, and only produced, by grasping a correct explanation. The simple view, I will conclude, ought to be regarded as one part of a bigger picture, in which "understanding why", "understanding that", and "understanding with" are distinguished. (...) But the central idea, that scientific understanding is a matter of having the right epistemic relation to an explanation or explanations, will remain untouched. (shrink)