Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (3):259-282 (2010)

Craig Edwin Martin
University of Venice
The Divide between the prominence of final causes in Aristotelian natural philosophy and the rejection or severe limitation of final causation as an acceptable explanation of the natural world by figures such as Bacon, Descartes, and Spinoza during the seventeenth century has been considered a distinguishing mark between pre-modern and modern science.1 Admittedly, proponents of the mechanical and corpuscular philosophies of the seventeenth century were not necessarily stark opponents of teleology. Pierre Gassendi and Robert Boyle endorsed teleology, Leibniz embraced entelechies, and they creep into Descartes's natural philosophy, despite his adamant attempts to eliminate them.2 Nonetheless, critiques of ends in ..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1353/hph.0.0223
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: 72,577
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Evolution: Teleology or Chance? [REVIEW]F. J. K. Soontiëns - 1991 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 22 (1):133-141.
On Dennis Des Chene's.Stephen Menn - 2000 - Perspectives on Science 8 (2):119-143.


Added to PP index

Total views
28 ( #412,798 of 2,533,612 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,998 of 2,533,612 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes