David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Philosophy 36 (2):189-213 (1998)
Locke, Leibniz, and the Logic of Mechanism MARTHA BRANDT BOLTON l~ EARLY MECHANIST PHILOSOPHERS demanded a new standard of perspicuity in the natural sciences. They accused others of "explaining" phenomena in terms of obscurely defined, unconfirmed, and uninformative causes. These complaints were leveled, not just at the real qualities and forms of Scholastics, but also against the sympathetic attractions of Hermetics and the sophic prin- ciples of the Spagyrites. These competitors to mecha- nism could at best demonstrate that a certain effect occurs and claim to state why it does. Mechanists aspired to explain how phenomena are produced. 1 Beyond that, however, philosophers in the broadly "mechanist" movement shared no single account of what this sort of explanation involves. They were too diverse, not only in their views on the central notions of material sub- stance, cause, and force, but also with respect to their standards of intelligibil- ity. In this paper, however, I want to isolate one mechanist model of explana- tion with intellectual virtues that strongly recommended it in some quarters. I will argue specifically that it influenced Leibniz and Locke. This favored form of mechanism opens a deep problem, because it con- flicts with the existence of causal interaction between bodies and minds. 2 It is not just that the model does not apply beyond the realm of intercorporeal ' Much of the work of documenting this trait..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Martha Brandt Bolton (2007). The Taxonomy of Ideas in Locke's Essay. In Lex Newman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Locke's. Cambridge University Press.
Paul Lodge (2002). Leibniz, Bayle, and Locke on Faith and Reason. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76 (4):575-600.
Rae Langton (2000). Locke's Relations and God's Good Pleasure. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (1):75–91.
Walter Ott (2012). What is Locke's Theory of Representation? British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (6):1077-1095.
David H. Sanford (1970). Locke, Leibniz, and Wiggins on Being in the Same Place at the Same Time. Philosophical Review 79 (1):75-82.
Nicholas Jolley (1984). Leibniz and Locke: A Study of the New Essays on Human Understanding. Oxford University Press.
I. C. Tipton (ed.) (1977). Locke on Human Understanding: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press.
Tomás Guillén Vera (1991). La Polémita Sobre Lo Innato En El Libro I de Los 'Nuevos Ensayos'. Theoria 6 (1):67-81.
Markku Roinila (2011). Uneasiness and Passions in Leibniz's Nouveaux Essais II, Xx. In Breger Herbert, Herbst Jürgen & Erdner Sven (eds.), Natur und Subjekt. IX. Internationaler Leibniz-Kongress Vorträge 3. Teil. Leibniz Geschellschaft.
Jan-Erik Jones (2006). Leibniz and Locke and the Debate Over Species. In François Duchesneau & Jérémie Girard (eds.), Leibniz selon les Nouxeaux Essais sur l'entendement Humain. Vrin and Bellarmin.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #42,984 of 1,696,808 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #116,273 of 1,696,808 )
How can I increase my downloads?