Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (3):259-282 (2010)
|Abstract||The Divide between the prominence of final causes in Aristotelian natural philosophy and the rejection or severe limitation of final causation as an acceptable explanation of the natural world by figures such as Bacon, Descartes, and Spinoza during the seventeenth century has been considered a distinguishing mark between pre-modern and modern science.1 Admittedly, proponents of the mechanical and corpuscular philosophies of the seventeenth century were not necessarily stark opponents of teleology. Pierre Gassendi and Robert Boyle endorsed teleology, Leibniz embraced entelechies, and they creep into Descartes's natural philosophy, despite his adamant attempts to eliminate them.2 Nonetheless, critiques of ends in ..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephen Philip Menn (2000). On Dennis Des Chene's. Perspectives on Science 8 (2).
Alasdair C. MacIntyre (1990). First Principles, Final Ends, and Contemporary Philosophical Issues. Marquette University Press.
Antonia LoLordo (2007). Pierre Gassendi and the Birth of Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Brian Jonathan Garrett (2010). Santayana's Treatment of Teleology. Bulletin of the Santayana Society 28 (28):1-10.
Willem A. deVries (1991). The Dialectic of Teleology. Philosophical Topics 19 (2):51-70.
Mariska Leunissen (2010). Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle's Science of Nature. Cambridge University Press.
F. J. K. Soontiëns (1991). Evolution: Teleology or Chance? [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (1):133-141.
Rich Cameron (2010). Aristotle's Teleology. Philosophy Compass 5 (12):1096-1106.
Added to index2010-06-30
Total downloads12 ( #101,123 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?