Online research in philosophy

SIR ISAAC NEWTON ON 25th December (OS) 1642, in the manor-house of the small hamlet of Woolsthorpe in the parish of Col- ...

Commentators attempting to understand the empirical method that Isaac Newton applies in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687) are forced to grapple with the thorny issue of how to reconcile Newton's rejection of hypotheses with his appeal to absolute space. On the one hand, Newton claims that his experimental philosophy does not rely on claims that are assumed without empirical evidence, and on the other hand, Newton appeals to an absolute space that, by his own characterization, does not make any impressions on our senses. Howard Stein (1967, 2002) has offered an insightful strategy for reconciling this apparent contradiction and suggested a way to enhance our understanding of Newton's 'empiricism' such that absolute space can be preserved as a legitimate part of Newton's experimental project. Recently, Andrew Janiak (2008) has posed a worthy challenge to Stein's empirical reading of Newton and directed our attention to the metaphysical commitments that underlie the experimental philosophy of Newton's Principia . Although Stein and Janiak disagree on the degree to which Newton's empiricism influences his natural philosophy, both agree and clearly show that an adequate treatment of Newton's empiricism cannot be divorced from consideration of Newton's views on God and God's relationship to nature.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) left a voluminous legacy of writings. Despite his influence on the early modern period, his correspondence, manuscripts, and publications in natural philosophy remain scattered throughout many disparate editions. In this volume, Newton's principal philosophical writings are for the first time collected in a single place. They include excerpts from the Principia and the Opticks, his famous correspondence with Boyle and with Bentley, and his equally significant correspondence with Leibniz, which is often ignored in favor of Leibniz's later debate with Samuel Clarke. Newton's exchanges with Leibniz place their different understandings of natural philosophy in sharp relief. The volume also includes 'De Gravitatione', offered here in a corrected translation, which is crucial for understanding Newton's relation to his great predecessor Descartes. In a historical and philosophical introduction, Andrew Janiak examines Newton's philosophical positions and his relations to canonical figures in early modern philosophy.

Equally surprisingly, Descartes’s paranoid belief was shared by several contemporary mathematicians, among them Isaac Barrow, John Wallis and Edmund Halley. (Huxley 1959, pp. 354-355.) In the light of our fuller knowledge of history it is easy to smile at Descartes. It has even been argued by Netz that analysis was in fact for ancient Greek geometers a method of presenting their results (see Netz 2000). But in a deeper sense Descartes perceived something interesting in the historical record. We are looking in vain in the writings of Greek mathematicians for a full explanation of what this famous method was. And I will argue for an answer to the question why this lacuna is there: Not because Greek geometers wanted to hide this method, but because they did not fully understand it. It is instructive to note the ambivalent attitude of the most rigorous mathematician of the period, Isaac Newton, to the method of analysis. He used it himself in his own mathematical work and in the expositions of that work. Yet when the mathematical push came to physical and cosmological shove, he formulated his Principia entirely in..

A través de una reconstrucción de la evolución de su pensamiento, en este artículo se estudia la utilización de infinitesimales por parte de Newton. Se distingue entre dos concepciones sucesivas de lo que denominó momento. A la primera de estas entidades la caracterizó como un infinitesimal, pero a la segunda (un indivisible generador de magnitudes finitas, que interviene en su método de las primeras y últimas razones) no la consideró como tal. Se entiende así su manifestación de rechazo a los infinitesimales, formulada en una segunda etapa, y se ve que las dudas arrojadas por algunos investigadores sobre la veracidad de tal manifestación se deben a una determinada interpretación de esta última concepción de momento.This paper discusses Newton’s recourse to infinitesimals through the reconstruction of the evolution of his thought. Two successive concepts of what he termed “moment” are told apart. The first of those entities was characterized by him as an infinitesimal, while the second -an indivisible generating finite magnitudes, present in his method of first and last reasons- was not considered such an entity. This move makes understandable his express rejection of infinitesimals in the second stage, and exposes the doubts of some scholars about the sincerity of Newton’s rejection as due to a peculiar interpretation of his last concept of “moment”.