Space and relativity in Newton and Leibniz

In this paper I challenge the usual interpretations of Newton's and Leibniz's views on the nature of space and the relativity of motion. Newton's ‘relative space’ is not a reference frame; and Leibniz did not regard space as defined with respect to actual enduring bodies. Newton did not subscribe to the relativity of intertial motions; whereas Leibniz believed no body to be at rest, and Newton's absolute motion to be a useful fiction. A more accurate rendering of the opposition between them, I argue, leads to a wholly different understanding of Leibniz's theory of space, one which is not susceptible to the objections Newton had raised against Descartes regarding the representation of motion. This in turn suggests a new approach for contemporary theory of space, one which neither hypostatizes space nor tries to reduce it to relations among actual things. * This work was generously supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, with a Fellowship for College Teachers and Independent Scholars (FB-26897-89), and also by a sabbatical leave from my institution, Middlebury College. Iam very grateful to various members of faculty of York University for their appreciative reception of an earlier one-week-old version of this paper. ‘Relative Space in Newton and Leibniz’, read to the Department of Philosophy there in January 1990, and to Robert Rynasiewicz for criticisms of an extract read at the 1991 History of Science meeting
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/bjps/45.1.219
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,122
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Leibniz's Theory of Space.Richard T. W. Arthur - 2013 - Foundations of Science 18 (3):499-528.
Motion in Leibniz's Middle Years: A Compatibilist Approach.Stephen Puryear - 2012 - Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 6:135-170.
Leibniz and Newton on Space.Ori Belkind - 2013 - Foundations of Science 18 (3):467-497.
Newton's Fluxions and Equably Flowing Time.Richard Arthur - 1995 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 26 (2):232-351.
The “Dynamics” of Leibnizian Relationism: Reference Frames and Force in Leibniz's Plenum.Edward Slowik - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37 (4):617-634.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Why the Parts of Absolute Space Are Immobile.Nick Huggett - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407.
Newton on God's Relation to Space and Time: The Cartesian Framework.Geoffrey Gorham - 2011 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (3):281-320.
Kant's Early Theory of Motion.Marius Stan - 2009 - The Leibniz Review 19:29-61.
Newton's Conceptual Argument for Absolute Space.Ori Belkind - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):271 – 293.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
136 ( #36,121 of 2,191,400 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #144,829 of 2,191,400 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature