Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ontological function of first-order and second-order corpuscles in the chemical philosophy of Robert Boyle: the redintegration of potassium nitrate

  • Published:
Foundations of Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although Boyle has been regarded as a champion of the seventeenth century Cartesian mechanical philosophy, I defend the position that Boyle’s views conciliate between a strictly mechanistic conception of fundamental matter and a non-reductionist conception of chemical qualities. In particular, I argue that this conciliation is evident in Boyle’s ontological distinction between fundamental corpuscles endowed with mechanistic properties and higher-level corpuscular concretions endowed with chemical properties. Some of these points have already been acknowledged by contemporary scholars, and I actively engage with their ideas in this paper. However I attempt to contribute to the debate over Boyle’s mechanical philosophy by arguing that Boyle’s writings suggest an emergentist, albeit still mechanistic, notion of chemical properties. I contrast Boyle’s views against those of strict reductionist mechanical philosophers, focusing on the famous debate with Spinoza over the redintegration of niter, and argue that Boyle’s complex chemical ontology provides a more satisfactory understanding of chemical phenomena than is provided by a strictly reductionist and Cartesian mechanical philosophy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Several authors have argued against the conflation of corpuscularism and mechanism, and further argument on this topic extends beyond the scope of this paper. For a more detailed, although not exhaustive, discussion of this topic, I refer the reader to Rattansi (1996), Clericuzio (1990, 2000), Pagel (2002), Debus (2002), and Banchetti-Robino (2011).

  2. See, for example, Clericuzio (1990, 2000), Anstey (2000, 2002a), Chalmers (1993, 2009), Newman (1994, 1996, 2006, 2009a, b), and Newman and Principle (2002).

  3. I refer the reader particularly to Clericuzio (2000), Anstey (2000, 2002a), Chalmers (2009), Newman (1994, 1996, 2006, 2009a, b), and Newman and Principle (2002). Although these scholars differ with regards to some of the conclusions that they reach with regards to Boyle’s relationship to the mechanical philosophy (either narrowly or broadly understood) and to the degree of Boyle’s commitment to reductionism at some level, these authors have forged new ground in the field of Boyle studies by moving scholarship away from the perspective of Boyle as being committed to a strictly reductionist and narrow conception of the mechanical philosophy and its application to chemical explanations.

  4. The view that Boyle’s explanations remain mechanistic throughout his work, though they are not strictly reductionistic, has been argued convincingly and at length by Newman. This point has, in fact, been the subject of an extensive and lively debate between Anstey, Pyle, Chalmers, and Newman. See Anstey (2002b), Pyle (2002), Chalmers (2002, 2010, 2011), and Newman (2010). Though Chalmers and Clericuzio have argued for the existence of a dichotomy between Boyle’s mechanical philosophy and his experimental work, I will lean on the side of Anstey, Pyle, and Newman who take a more nuanced view of what the mechanical philosophy meant to Boyle and how it informed his chemical experiments and his explanations of chemical phenomena. Newman, in particular, points out that Clericuzio and Chalmers base their arguments on a narrow understanding of the mechanical philosophy, one that conflates mechanism with strict reductionism. Although Cartesian mechanism was indeed reductionistic, Newman convincingly argues that there are iterations of the mechanical philosophy that do not entail strict reductionism. Through a careful analysis of Boyle’s writings, Newman demonstrates that Boyle’s mechanical philosophy constitutes one such iteration and, as such, is not at odds with his experimental work or his chemical explanations.

  5. This is not Boyle’s own terminology but is attributable, instead, to Clericuzio. I adopt the same terminology for the sake of convenience though, as mentioned in an earlier note, I ultimately disagree with some of Clericuzio’s conclusions regarding the dichotomy between Boyle’s mechanical and his experimental work and chemical explanations.

References

  • Anstey, P.: The Philosophy of Robert Boyle. Routledge, London (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Anstey, P.: Boyle on seminal principles. Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 33, 597–630 (2002a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Anstey, P.: Robert Boyle and the heuristic value of mechanism. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33, 157–170 (2002b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banchetti-Robino, M.P.: Ontological tensions in sixteenth and seventeenth century chemistry: between mechanism and vitalism. Found. Chem. 13, 173–186 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boas Hall, M.: The establishment of the mechanical philosophy. Osiris 10, 412–541 (1952)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R.: An essay of various degrees or kinds of the knowledge of natural things. In: Royal Society Boyle Papers, vol. 8, folios 165–170

  • Boyle, R.: Considerations and experiments, touching the origin of qualities and forms: the theoretical part. In: Stewart, M.A. (ed.) Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle. Hackett, Indiana (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R.: Experiments and notes about the mechanical origine and production of volatility. In: Hunter, M., Davis, E.B. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 8, pp. 421–524. Pickering and Chatto, London (2000a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R.: The origin of forms and qualities. In: Hunter, M., Davis, E.B. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 5, pp. 1–550. Pickering and Chatto, London (2000b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R.: A physico-chemical essay, containing an experiment with some considerations touching the different parts and redintegration of salt-petre. In: Hunter, M., Davis, E.B. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 2, pp. 85–113. Pickering and Chatto, London (2000c)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R.: About the excellency and grounds of the mechanical hypothesis. In: Hunter, M., Davis, E.B. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 8, pp. 99–116. Pickering and Chatto, London (2000d)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R.: Experiments and notes about the producibleness of chymical principles. In: Hunter, M., Davis, E.B. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 9, pp. 19–120. Pickering and Chatto, London (2000e)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R.: Experimental history of colours. In: Hunter, M., Davis, E.B. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 4, pp. 1–183. Pickering and Chatto, London (2000f)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A.: The lack of excellency of Boyle’s mechanical philosophy. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 24, 541–564 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A.: Experiment versus mechanical philosophy in the work of Robert Boyle: a reply to Anstey and Pyle. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33, 187–193 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A.: The Scientist’s Atom and the Philosopher’s Stone: How Science Succeeded and Philosophy Failed to Gain Knowledge of Atoms. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A.: Boyle and the origins of modern chemistry: Newman tried in the fire. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 41, 1–10 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A.: Understanding science through its history: a response to Newman. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 42, 150–153 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clericuzio, A.: A redefinition of Boyle’s chemistry and corpuscular philosophy. Ann. Sci. 47, 561–589 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clericuzio, A.: Elements, Principles and Corpuscles: A Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Curley, E.M. (ed.): The Collected Works of Spinoza, vol. II. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  • Debus, A.G.: The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Courier Dover, London (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbey, A.: Spinoza’s natural science and methodology. In: Garrett, D. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, pp. 142–191. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joly, B.: Chimie et mécanisme dans la nouvelle Académie royale des sciences: les débats entre Louis Lémery et Etienne-François Geoffroy. Methodos 8, 2–22 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kargon, R.: Walter Charleton, Robert Boyle, and the acceptance of Epicurean atomism in England. Isis 55, 184–192 (1964)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, U.: Origin of the concept of chemical compound. Sci. Context 7, 163–204 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.: Robert Boyle and structural chemistry in the seventeenth century. Isis 43, 12–36 (1952)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meinel, C.: Early seventeenth-century atomism: theory, epistemology and the insufficiency of experiment. Isis 79, 68–103 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W.R.: Robert Boyle’s debt to corpuscular alchemy. In: Hunter, M. (ed.) Robert Boyle Reconsidered, pp. 107–118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W.R.: The alchemical sources of Robert Boyle’s corpuscular philosophy. Ann. Sci. 53, 567–585 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W.R.: Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry & the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W.R.: The significance of “chymical atomism”. Early Sci. Med. 14, 248–264 (2009a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W.R.: Alchemical atoms or artisanal “building blocks”? A response to Klein. Perspect. Sci. 17 (2009b)

  • Newman, W.R.: How not to integrate the history and philosophy of science: a reply to Chalmers. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 41, 203–213 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W.R., Principle, L.M.: Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagel, W.: Joan Baptista van Helmont: reformer of science and medicine. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyle, A.: Boyle on science and the mechanical philosophy: a reply to Chalmers. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33, 171–186 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rattansi, P. (ed.): Alchemy and Chemistry in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Springer, Dordrecht (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Smets, A.: The controversy between Leibniz and Stahl on the theory of chemistry. In: Bertomeu-Sánchez, J.S., Thorburn Burns, D., and Van Tiggelen, B. (eds.) Neighbours and Territories: The Evolving Identity of Chemistry, pp. 291–306. Mémosciences, Louvain-la-neuve (2008)

  • Spinoza, B.M.: Correspondence of Spinoza. Kessinger, London (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Venel, G.F.: Chimie. In: Diderot, D., Le Rond d’Alembert, J.B. (eds.) Encyclopédie méthodique, ou par ordre de matières, vol. III. H. Agasse, Paris (1796)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, AH 110, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431-0991, USA

    Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino

Authors
  1. Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Banchetti-Robino, M.P. The ontological function of first-order and second-order corpuscles in the chemical philosophy of Robert Boyle: the redintegration of potassium nitrate. Found Chem 14, 221–234 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-012-9159-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-012-9159-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation