David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Annales Philosophici 1 (1):101-113 (2010)
There is an enduring story about empiricism, which runs as follows: from Locke onwards to Carnap, empiricism is the doctrine in which raw sense-data are received through the passive mechanism of perception; experience is the effect produced by external reality on the mind or ‘receptors’. Empiricism on this view is the ‘handmaiden’ of experimental natural science, seeking to redefine philosophy and its methods in conformity with the results of modern science. Secondly, there is a story about materialism, popularized initially by Marx and Engels and later restated as standard, ‘textbook’ history of philosophy in the English-speaking world. It portrays materialism as explicitly mechanistic, seeking to reduce the world of qualities, sensations, and purposive behaviour to a quantitative, usually deterministic physical scheme. Building on some recent scholarship, I aim to articulate the contrarian view according to which neither of these stories is true. On the contrary, empiricism turns out to be less ‘science-friendly’ and more concerned with moral matters; materialism reveals itself to be, in at least a large number of cases, a ‘vital’, anti-mechanistic doctrine which focuses on the unique properties of organic beings. This revision of two key philosophical episodes should reveal that our history of early modern philosophy is dependent to a great extent on ‘special interests’, whether positivistic or Kantian, and by extension lead us to rethink the relation and distinction between ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ in this period.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Eric Schliesser (2012). Newton and Spinoza: On Motion and Matter (and God, of Course). Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (3):436-458.
Similar books and articles
Roy Wood Sellars (1960). Panpsychism or Evolutionary Materialism. Philosophy of Science 27 (October):329-49.
Nicholas Maxwell, Aim-Oriented Empiricism: David Miller's Critique. PhilSci Archive.
A. Campbell Garnett (1950). Must Empiricism Be Materialistic and Behavioristic? Journal of Philosophy 47 (April):250-255.
Charles T. Wolfe & Ofer Gal (eds.) (2010). The Body as Object and Instrument of Knowledge. Embodied Empiricism in Early Modern Science. Springer.
Max Black (1946). Some Questions About Donald Williams' Defense of Materialism. Philosophical Review 55 (September):572-579.
Alan Salter & Charles T. Wolfe (2009). “Empiricism Contra Experiment: Harvey, Locke and the Revisionist View of Experimental Philosophy”. Bulletin d'histoire et d'épistémologie des sciences de la vie 16 (2):113-140.
Garrett Vander Veer (1976). Scientific Materialism. Idealistic Studies 6 (January):1-19.
Roy Wood Sellars (1946). Positivism and Materialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 7 (1):12-41.
Kathleen Okruhlik (2004). Logical Empiricism, Feminism, and Neurath's Auxiliary Motive. Hypatia 19 (1):48-72.
Bas C. van Fraassen (2001). Constructive Empiricism Now. Philosophical Studies 106 (1-2):151 - 170.
Charles T. Wolfe (2010). Embodied Empiricism. In Charles T. Wolfe & Ofer Gal (eds.), The Body as object and instrument of knowledge. Springer. 1--6.
Harold Morick (1972). Challenges to Empiricism. Belmont, Calif.,Wadsworth Pub. Co..
Albert Casullo (2000). Is Empiricism Coherent? The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 5:61-74.
F. A. I. Buekens & F. A. Muller (2012). Intentionality Versus Constructive Empiricism. Erkenntnis 76 (1):91-100.
Added to index2010-10-26
Total downloads124 ( #5,874 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #3,929 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?