Epicureanism and Early Modern Naturalism

Abstract
It is often suggested that certain forms of early modern philosophy are naturalistic. Although I have some sympathy with this description, I argue that applying the category of naturalism to early modern philosophy is not useful. There is another category that does most of the work we want the category of naturalism to do ? one that, unlike naturalism, was actually used by early moderns
Keywords naturalism  gassendi  mechanism  atomism  atheism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/09608788.2011.583416
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 Antonia LoLordo, Epicureanism and Early Modern Naturalism
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
Gary C. Hatfield (1979). Force (God) in Descartes' Physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 10 (2):113-140.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Alexander Douglas (2015). Was Spinoza a Naturalist? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (1):77-99.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Monte Ransome Johnson (2003). Was Gassendi an Epicurean? History of Philosophy Quarterly 20 (4):339 - 360.
Hans Fink (2006). Three Sorts of Naturalism. European Journal of Philosophy 14 (2):202–221.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-07-29

Total downloads

109 ( #33,253 of 1,789,736 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

71 ( #13,391 of 1,789,736 )

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.