Leibniz and Newton on Space
Foundations of Science (forthcoming)
| Abstract | This paper reexamines the historical debate between Leibniz and Newton on the nature of space. According to the traditional reading, Leibniz (in his correspondence with Clarke) produced metaphysical arguments (relying on the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles) in favor of a relational account of space. Newton, according to the traditional account, refuted the metaphysical arguments with the help of an empirical argument based on the bucket experiment. The paper claims that Leibniz’s and Newton’s arguments cannot be understood apart from the distinct dialectics of their respective positions vis-à-vis Descartes’ theory of space and physics. Against the traditional reading, the paper argues that Leibniz and Newton are operating within a different metaphysics and different conceptions of “place,” and that their respective arguments can largely remain intact without undermining the other philosopher’s conception of space. The paper also takes up the task of clarifying the distinction between true and absolute motion, and of explaining the relativity of motion implied by Leibniz’s account. The paper finally argues that the two philosophers have different conceptions of the relation between metaphysics and science, and that Leibniz’s attempt to base physical theory on an underlying metaphysical account of forces renders his account of physics unstable | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAlejandro Cassini (2005). Newton and Leibniz on Non-Substantival Space. Theoria 20 (1):25-43.
Alejandro Cassini (2005). Newton and Leibniz on Non-Substantival Space. Theoria 20 (1):25-43.
Richard Arthur (1994). Space and Relativity in Newton and Leibniz. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1):219-240.
Tim Maudlin (1993). Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime is Probably a Substance. Philosophy of Science 60 (2):183-203.
Nick Huggett (2008). Why the Parts of Absolute Space Are Immobile. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407.
Geoffrey Gorham (2011). Newton on God's Relation to Space and Time: The Cartesian Framework. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (3):281-320.
Ori Belkind (2007). Newton's Conceptual Argument for Absolute Space. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):271 – 293.
Nick Huggett, Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Carl Hoefer (1998). Absolute Versus Relational Spacetime: For Better or Worse, the Debate Goes On. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (3):451-467.
Graham Nerlich (2005). Can Parts of Space Move? On Paragraph Six of Newton's Scholium. Erkenntnis 62 (1):119--135.
Edward Slowik (2009). Newton's Metaphysics of Space: A “Tertium Quid” Betwixt Substantivalism and Relationism, or Merely a “God of the (Rational Mechanical) Gaps”? Perspectives on Science 17 (4):pp. 429-456.
John T. Roberts (2003). Leibniz on Force and Absolute Motion. Philosophy of Science 70 (3):553-573.
Marius Stan (2009). Kant's Early Theory of Motion. The Leibniz Review 19:29-61.
Anja Jauernig (2008). Leibniz on Motion and the Equivalence of Hypotheses. The Leibniz Review 18:1-40.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-04-04Total downloads23 ( #53,940 of 549,699 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,270 of 549,699 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
