Perspectives on Science 13 (4):431-451 (2005)
|Abstract||: This paper presents a detailed account of Descartes' derivation of his second law of nature—the law of rectilinear motion—from a priori metaphysical principles. Unlike the other laws the proof of the second depends essentially on a metaphysical assumption about the temporal immediacy of God's operation. Recent commentators (e.g., Des Chene and Garber) have not adequately explained the precise role of this assumption in the proof and Descartes' reasoning has continued to seem somewhat arbitrary as a result. My account better reveals the dependence of the second law on fundamental principles about time and causality|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Edward Slowik (1997). Huygens' Center-of-Mass Space-Time Reference Frame: Constructing a Cartesian Dynamics in the Wake of Newton's “de Gravitatione” Argument. Synthese 112 (2):247-269.
Helen Hattab (2000). The Problem of Secondary Causation in Descartes: A Response to Des Chene. Perspectives on Science 8 (2):93-118.
Geoffrey Gorham (2004). Cartesian Causation: Continuous, Instantaneous, Overdetermined. Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4):389-423.
Thomas M. Lennon (2007). The Eleatic Descartes. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (1):29-45.
Andrew R. Platt (2011). Divine Activity and Motive Power in Descartes's Physics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (4):623 - 646.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2009). The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle. Australasian Journal of Logic 7:32-47.
Howard Duncan (1984). Inertia, the Communication of Motion, and Kant's Third Law of Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 51 (1):93-119.
Edward Slowik (1999). Descartes, Spacetime, and Relational Motion. Philosophy of Science 66 (1):117-139.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #78,526 of 548,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,296 of 548,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?