Boyle, classification and the workmanship of the understanding thesis

Journal of the History of Philosophy 43 (2):171-183 (2005)
Abstract
The current consensus in Locke scholarship is that Robert Boyle anticipated Locke's thesis that classification into species is the arbitrary work of the understanding. In fact, according to Michael Ayers, inter alia, not only did Boyle and Locke both think that classification is the workmanship of the understanding but that this thesis follows directly from the mechanical hypothesis itself. In this paper I argue that this reading of Boyle is mistaken: Locke's thesis on classification was not anticipated by Boyle. I will do this by showing that Boyle's account of classification is not Locke's, but is a more realist view of natural species employing a mechanically respectable account of natural forms
Keywords John Locke  Robert Boyle  Species
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,337
External links
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
R. P. (2002). Robert Boyle and the Heuristic Value of Mechanism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):157-170.
R. P. (2002). Boyle on Seminal Principles. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):597-630.
Jan-Erik Jones (2007). Locke Vs. Boyle: The Real Essence of Corpuscular Species. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15 (4):659 – 684.
Laurence Carlin (2011). The Importance of Teleology to Boyle's Natural Philosophy. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (4):665 - 682.
A. Pyle (2002). Boyle on Science and the Mechanical Philosophy: A Reply to Chalmers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):171-186.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

38 ( #43,065 of 1,096,616 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #51,759 of 1,096,616 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.