Authors
Nick Huggett
University of Illinois, Chicago
Abstract
Newton's arguments for the immobility of the parts of absolute space have been claimed to licence several proposals concerning his metaphysics. This paper clarifies Newton, first distinguishing two distinct arguments. Then, it demonstrates, contrary to Nerlich ([2005]), that Newton does not appeal to the identity of indiscernibles, but rather to a view about de re representation. Additionally, DiSalle ([1994]) claims that one argument shows Newton to be an anti-substantivalist. I agree that its premises imply a denial of a kind of substantivalism, but I show that they are inconsistent with Newton's core doctrine that not all motion is the relative motions of bodies, and so conclude that they are not part of his considered views on space. The Arguments The Identity Argument 2.1 Identity of indiscernibles for individuals 2.2 Identity of indiscernibles for worlds and states 2.3 Representation de re Kinematic Relationism Conclusion CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    What's this?
Keywords substantivalism, Newton, motion, spacetime, space, Nerlich, DiSalle
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2008
DOI 10.1093/bjps/axn013
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 61,025
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Four Dimensionalism.Theodore Sider - 2001 - Oxford University Press UK.
Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time.Theodore Sider - 2004 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (3):642-647.
Four Dimensionalism.Theodore Sider - 1997 - Philosophical Review 106 (2):197-231.
The Identity of Indiscernibles.Max Black - 1952 - Mind 61 (242):153-164.
Are Quantum Particles Objects?Simon Saunders - 2006 - Analysis 66 (1):52-63.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Newton, the Parts of Space, and the Holism of Spatial Ontology.Edward Slowik - 2011 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1 (2):249-272.
In Defense of Real Cartesian Motion: A Reply to Lennon.Emily Thomas - 2015 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 53 (4):747-762.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Newton's Views on Space, Time, and Motion.Robert Rynasiewicz - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Newton’s Conceptual Argument for Absolute Space.Ori Belkind - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):271 – 293.
Space and Relativity in Newton and Leibniz.Richard Arthur - 1994 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1):219-240.
Einstein, Newton and the Empirical Foundations of Space Time Geometry.Robert DiSalle - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.
Newton’s Neo-Platonic Ontology of Space.Edward Slowik - 2013 - Foundations of Science 18 (3):419-448.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
334 ( #25,751 of 2,439,471 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #282,588 of 2,439,471 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes