This book describes Descartes's The Passions of the Soul as a foundational work of the Enlightenment, a precursor of later notions of the historicity of the human, and the first psychology of modern type: to understand and heal ourselves, we look not outward at the world in immediate relation to it, but inward, at the self, its brain, and its past history. Special attention is given to Descartes’s account of imagination and its problematic impact on passion and volition.

Aristotelian, classical, and quantum physics are compared and contrasted in light of Jacob Klein’s account of the algebraicization of thought and the resultingdetachment of mind from world, even as human problem-solving power is greatly increased. Two fundamental features of classical physics are brought out: species-neutrality, which concerns the relation between the intelligible and the sensible, and physico-mathematical secularism, which concerns the question of the difference between mathematical objects and physical objects, and whether any differences matter. In contrast to Aristotelian physics, (...) which is species-specific, classical physics is species-neutral. In contrast to both Aristotelian and quantum physics, classical physics assumes that any differences between mathematical objects and physical objects make no difference for the conduct of physics. Aristotle’s act and potency, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle are discussed as counterexamples to the physico-mathematical secularism of classical physics. The algebraicization of thought in conjunction with the disposition and program for the mastery of nature leads to the homogenization of heterogeneities in both mathematics and physics, and, therewith, to confusion concerning the meaning of human being and our place in the whole. (shrink)

THIS PAPER INVESTIGATES THE LAWS OF MOTION in Newton and Descartes, focusing initially on the first laws of each. Newton's first law and Descartes' first law were later conjoined in the minds of philosophic interpreters in what thereafter came to be called the law of inertia. Our analysis of this law will lead to the special significance of Newton's third law, and thus to a consideration of the philosophical implications of Newton's three laws of motion taken as a whole. This (...) paper also involves backward glances at an earlier tradition of physics: How do the laws of motion compare with certain basic elements of the philosophy of nature? Principal results and conclusions are: There is no one law of inertia; rather, Newton's first law is distinct from Descartes' in its implications for our understanding of nature. The concept of force entailed by Newton's three laws of motion is not the same as cause of motion as we ordinarily experience and understand it. Newton's three laws, unlike Descartes', do not rule out internal causes of motion in bodies, and are, therefore, compatible with the traditional definition of nature. The motor causality principle, often stated as "all that is moved is moved by another," is not as such incompatible with Newton's three laws of motion. (shrink)

Aristotelian, classical, and quantum physics are compared and contrasted in light of Jacob Klein’s account of the algebraicization of thought and the resultingdetachment of mind from world, even as human problem-solving power is greatly increased. Two fundamental features of classical physics are brought out: species-neutrality, which concerns the relation between the intelligible and the sensible, and physico-mathematical secularism, which concerns the question of the difference between mathematical objects and physical objects, and whether any differences matter. In contrast to Aristotelian physics, (...) which is species-specific, classical physics is species-neutral. In contrast to both Aristotelian and quantum physics, classical physics assumes that any differences between mathematical objects and physical objects make no difference for the conduct of physics. Aristotle’s act and potency, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle are discussed as counterexamples to the physico-mathematical secularism of classical physics. The algebraicization of thought in conjunction with the disposition and program for the mastery of nature leads to the homogenization of heterogeneities in both mathematics and physics, and, therewith, to confusion concerning the meaning of human being and our place in the whole. (shrink)

What is the role of Leibniz’s early work in the constitution of his mature philosophy? Conventional scholarship would emphasize 1686 as the point at which the Leibnizian philosophical system was in place, subsequent obscurities concerning forces and monads notwithstanding. In that year the Discourse on Metaphysics was completed, the Brief Demonstration of Leibniz’s discovery of the conservation of living force was published, and the correspondence with Arnauld begun, leading to the 1695 publication of the New System and part I of (...) its companion Specimen Dynamicum. On this forward-looking account, the early period recedes in importance. Against this rough but established consensus, Christia Mercer argues that far more weight needs to be given to Leibniz’s early development—especially the period from 1668 to 1672—in the Aristotelian and Platonic eclecticism of seventeenth-century Germany. Daniel Garber’s advertisement on the book jacket pertains: “Though it will be controversial, her position is one that must be reckoned with.... [I]t will be read and passionately debated for years to come.”. (shrink)