Philosophy:Mechanical philosophy

From HandWiki
Revision as of 06:18, 5 February 2024 by MainAI5 (talk | contribs) (fix)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The mechanical philosophy is a form of natural philosophy which compares the universe to a large-scale mechanism (i.e. a machine). The mechanical philosophy is associated with the scientific revolution of early modern Europe. One of the first expositions of universal mechanism is found in the opening passages of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, published in 1651.

Some intellectual historians and critical theorists argue that early mechanical philosophy was tied to disenchantment and the rejection of the idea of nature as living or animated by spirits or angels.[1] Other scholars, however, have noted that early mechanical philosophers nevertheless believed in magic, Christianity and spiritualism.[2]

Mechanism and determinism

Some ancient philosophies held that the universe is reducible to completely mechanical principles—that is, the motion and collision of matter. This view was closely linked with materialism and reductionism, especially that of the atomists and to a large extent, stoic physics. Later mechanists believed the achievements of the scientific revolution of the 17th century had shown that all phenomena could eventually be explained in terms of "mechanical laws": natural laws governing the motion and collision of matter that imply a determinism. If all phenomena can be explained entirely through the motion of matter under physical laws, as the gears of a clock determine that it must strike 2:00 an hour after striking 1:00, all phenomena must be completely determined, past, present or future.

Development of the mechanical philosophy

Further information: corpuscularianism

The natural philosophers concerned with developing the mechanical philosophy were largely a French group, together with some of their personal connections. They included Pierre Gassendi, Marin Mersenne and René Descartes. Also involved were the English thinkers Sir Kenelm Digby, Thomas Hobbes and Walter Charleton; and the Dutch natural philosopher Isaac Beeckman.[3]

Robert Boyle used "mechanical philosophers" to refer both to those with a theory of "corpuscles" or atoms of matter, such as Gassendi and Descartes, and those who did without such a theory. One common factor was the clockwork universe view. His meaning would be problematic in the cases of Hobbes and Galileo Galilei; it would include Nicolas Lemery and Christiaan Huygens, as well as himself. Newton would be a transitional figure. Contemporary usage of "mechanical philosophy" dates back to 1952 and Marie Boas Hall.[4]

In France the mechanical philosophy spread mostly through private academies and salons; in England in the Royal Society. In England it did not have a large initial impact in universities, which were somewhat more receptive in France, the Netherlands and Germany.[5]

Hobbes and the mechanical philosophy

One of the first expositions of universal mechanism is found in the opening passages of Leviathan (1651) by Hobbes; the book's second chapter invokes the principle of inertia, foundational for the mechanical philosophy.[6] Boyle did not mention him as one of the group; but at the time they were on opposite sides of a controversy. Richard Westfall deems him a mechanical philosopher.[7]

Hobbes's major statement of his natural philosophy is in De Corpore (1655).[8] In part II and III of this work he goes a long way towards identifying fundamental physics with geometry; and he freely mixes concepts from the two areas.[9]

Descartes and the mechanical philosophy

Descartes was also a mechanist. A substance dualist, he argued that reality is composed of two radically different types of substance: extended matter, on the one hand, and immaterial mind, on the other. He identified matter with the spatial extension which is its only clear and distinct idea, and consequently denied the existence of vacuum.[10] Descartes argued that one cannot explain the conscious mind in terms of the spatial dynamics of mechanistic bits of matter cannoning off each other. Nevertheless, his understanding of biology was mechanistic in nature:

"I should like you to consider that these functions (including passion, memory, and imagination) follow from the mere arrangement of the machine’s organs every bit as naturally as the movements of a clock or other automaton follow from the arrangement of its counter-weights and wheels." (Descartes, Treatise on Man, p.108)

His scientific work was based on the traditional mechanistic understanding which maintains that animals and humans are completely mechanistic automata. Descartes' dualism was motivated by the seeming impossibility that mechanical dynamics could yield mental experiences.

Beeckman and the mechanical philosophy

Isaac Beeckman's theory of mechanical philosophy described in his books Centuria and Journal is grounded in two components: matter and motion. To explain matter, Beeckman relied on atomism philosophy which explains that matter is composed of tiny inseparable particles that interact to create the objects seen in life. To explain motion, he supported the idea of inertia, a theory generated by Isaac Newton.[11]

Newton's mechanical philosophy

Isaac Newton ushered in a weaker notion of mechanism that tolerated the action at a distance of gravity. Interpretations of Newton's scientific work in light of his occult research have suggested that he did not properly view the universe as mechanistic, but instead populated by mysterious forces and spirits and constantly sustained by God and angels.[12] Later generations of philosophers who were influenced by Newton's example were nonetheless often mechanists. Among them were Julien Offray de La Mettrie and Denis Diderot.

The mechanist thesis

The French mechanist and determinist Pierre Simon de Laplace formulated some implications of the mechanist thesis, writing:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of the past and the cause of the future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

Criticism

A study of mechanical philosophy shows that although this approach includes a wide range of useful observational and principled data,[13] it has not adequately explained the world and its components, and there are weaknesses in its definitions.[14] Among the criticisms made of this philosophy are:

  • Experts in religious studies have criticized the philosophy that God's intervention in the management of the world seems unnecessary.[15][16]
  • Newton's mechanical philosophy, with all its positive effects on human life, ultimately leads to Deism.[17]
  • It is a stagnant worldview that cannot explain God's constant presence and favor in the world.[18]
  • At the height of this philosophy, God was viewed as a skilled designer, and for him the mental structure and human morality were conceived.[19]
  • The assumption that God tuned the world like a clock and left it to its own devices is in clear conflict with the God of the Bible, who is at all times directly and immediately involved in his creation.[20]
  • This philosophy abandons concepts such as essence, accident, matter, form, Ipso facto and potential that are used in ontology, and denies the involvement of transcendental affairs in the management of this world.[21]
  • This philosophy is incapable of explaining human spiritual experiences and the immaterial realms of the world.[21]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Merchant, Carolyn (1990). "Chapters 4, 9, 10". The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. Harper Collins. ISBN 0062505955. https://books.google.com/books?id=o_l2uMk2KjsC. 
  2. ↑ Josephson-Storm, Jason (2017). "Chapter 2". The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-40336-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=xZ5yDgAAQBAJ. 
  3. ↑ Margaret J. Osler (7 June 2004). Divine Will and the Mechanical Philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on Contingency and Necessity in the Created World. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-521-52492-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=gtPISpxGacAC&pg=PA6. Retrieved 16 April 2013. 
  4. ↑ S. Fisher (2005). Pierre Gassendi's Philosophy And Science: Atomism for Empiricists. BRILL. pp. 205 with note 1–6. ISBN 978-90-04-11996-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=4fLSO6y6DhUC&pg=PA205. Retrieved 16 April 2013. 
  5. ↑ Roy Porter; Katharine Park; Lorraine Daston (3 July 2006). The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 3, Early Modern Science. Cambridge University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-521-57244-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=2kvjAp92zcYC&pg=PA46. Retrieved 16 April 2013. 
  6. ↑ Patricia Springborg, ed (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan. Cambridge University Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-521-54521-1. https://archive.org/details/cambridgecompani00spri. 
  7. ↑ Sophie. Roux; Daniel Garber (2013). The Mechanization of Natural Philosophy. Springer. p. 11 note 21. ISBN 978-94-007-4345-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=USOoK5tRabAC&pg=PA11. Retrieved 16 April 2013. 
  8. ↑ Daniel Garber (2003). The Cambridge history of seventeenth-century philosophy: Volume I. Cambridge University Press. p. 581. ISBN 978-0-521-53720-9. https://books.google.com/books?id=BPlkkgIhUXIC&pg=PA581. Retrieved 16 April 2013. 
  9. ↑ Andrew Janiak; Eric Schliesser (12 January 2012). Interpreting Newton: Critical Essays. Cambridge University Press. p. 34 with note 3. ISBN 978-0-521-76618-0. https://books.google.com/books?id=r5IskjtmGJoC&pg=PA34. Retrieved 16 April 2013. 
  10. ↑ Dear, Peter (2015). The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon. Cambridge University Press. p. Summary. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511894695.251. ISBN 9780521193528. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-descartes-lexicon/vacuum/BEE94445BD5AB5B00A5D2732D3524F02. Retrieved May 6, 2021. 
  11. ↑ Berkel, Klaas (2013). Isaac Beeckman on Matter and Motion : Mechanical Philosophy in the Making. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-1421409368. 
  12. ↑ Josephson-Storm (2017), p. 43
  13. ↑ محمدپور, سکینه. "تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی" (in fa). پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی نقش جهان: ۶۸–۶۹. "دوره جدید سال اول پاییز ۱۳۹۳ شماره ۳، صفحات ۶۵ تا ۷۴". 
  14. ↑ "روزنامه شرق (1399_05_23) فلسفه مکانیکی و پیدایش علم مدرن" (in fa). https://www.magiran.com/article/4077205. 
  15. ↑ محمدپور, سکینه. "تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی" (in fa). پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی نقش جهان: ۶۵. "دوره جدید سال اول پاییز ۱۳۹۳ شماره ۳، صفحات ۶۵ تا ۷۴". 
  16. ↑ "تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی - خبرگزاری فارس" (in fa). https://www.farsnews.ir/news/13961224001378/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%84-%D9%88-%D9%86%D9%82%D8%AF-%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%81%D9%87-%D9%85%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C. 
  17. ↑ محمدپور, سکینه. "تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی" (in fa). پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی نقش جهان: ۷۳. "دوره جدید سال اول پاییز ۱۳۹۳ شماره ۳، صفحات ۶۵ تا ۷۴". 
  18. ↑ محمدپور, سکینه. "تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی" (in fa). پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی نقش جهان: ۷۱. "دوره جدید سال اول پاییز ۱۳۹۳ شماره ۳، صفحات ۶۵ تا ۷۴". 
  19. ↑ محمدپور, سکینه. "تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی" (in fa). پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی نقش جهان: ۷۰–۷۱. "دوره جدید سال اول پاییز ۱۳۹۳ شماره ۳، صفحات ۶۵ تا ۷۴". 
  20. ↑ محمدپور, سکینه. "تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی" (in fa). پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی نقش جهان: ۶۹. "دوره جدید سال اول پاییز ۱۳۹۳ شماره ۳، صفحات ۶۵ تا ۷۴". 
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 فنائی نعمت سرا, هادی. "نگاه مکانیکی به جهان؛ بررسی تحلیلی و واکاوی پیامدها" (in fa). کلام اسلامی: ۱۰۳–۱۳۰. "دوره ۲۵، شماره ۹۷ - شماره پیاپی ۹۷ - بهار ۱۳۹۵". 

External links




Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Philosophy:Mechanical_philosophy&oldid=3285778"