Graciela De Pierris presents a novel interpretation of the relationship between skepticism and naturalism in Hume's epistemology, and a new appraisal of Hume's place within early modern thought. Contrary to dominant readings, she argues that Hume does offer skeptical arguments concerning causation and induction in Book I, Part III of the Treatise, and presents a detailed reading of the skeptical argument she finds there and how this argument initiates a train of skeptical reasoning that begins in Part III and culminates (...) in Part IV. She goes on to demonstrate that Hume was committed to the Newtonian inductive method while rejecting the place of the supernatural in our understanding of nature. (shrink)

Machine generated contents note: General editor's preface; Editorial notes and references; Introduction; Notes on text and translation; Chronology; Bibliography; Part I. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason: 1. Introduction; 2. Survey of what is most important in previous teachings about the principle of sufficient reason; 3. Inadequacy of previous accounts and sketch of a new one; 4. On the first class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in (...) it; 5. On the second class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in it; 6. On the third class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in it; 7. On the fourth class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in it; 8. General remarks and results; Variants in different editions; Collation of the two editions; Part II. On Vision and Colours: 9. On vision; 10. On colours; Variants in different editions; Part III. On Will in Nature: 11. Introduction; 12. Physiology and pathology; 13. Comparative anatomy; 14. Plant physiology; 15. Physical astronomy; 16. Linguistics; 17. Animal magnetism and magic; 18. Sinology; Reference to ethics; Conclusion; Variants in different editions; Glossary of names; Index. (shrink)

In diesem Band werden neueste Forschungen zur Physikerin, Mathematikerin und Philosophin Emilie Du Châtelet vorgestellt. Emilie Du Châtelet genoss in der deutschen Aufklärung eine hohe Reputation. Sie verband Leibniz Metaphysik mit der Physik von Newton und gelangte zu erstaunlichen Ergebnissen, die die Physik auf den Weg zu Einsteins Energieformel führte. Ihre Werke wurden sofort ins Deutsche übersetzt, Kant nimmt in seiner ersten Dissertation von 1747 auf sie Bezug. Die Sammlung stellt Texte vor, die den Einfluss der deutschen Aufklärung auf Du (...) Châtelets und Du Châtelets Einfluss auf die deutsche Philosophie diskutieren. Die großen Namen der Epoche stehen hier zur Debatte, Leibniz, Wolff, Boskovic, Euler, Friedrich II, Voltaire, La Mettrie und viele weitere Größen der Aufklärung werden in ihrem Zusammenhang mit Du Châtelet vorgestellt. (shrink)

Woodward's long awaited book is an attempt to construct a comprehensive account of causation explanation that applies to a wide variety of causal and explanatory claims in different areas of science and everyday life. The book engages some of the relevant literature from other disciplines, as Woodward weaves together examples, counterexamples, criticisms, defenses, objections, and replies into a convincing defense of the core of his theory, which is that we can analyze causation by appeal to the notion of manipulation.

Much early modern metaphysics grew with an eye to the new science of its time, but few figures took it as seriously as Emilie du Châtelet. Happily, her oeuvre is now attracting close, renewed attention, and so the time is ripe for looking into her metaphysical foundation for empirical theory. Accordingly, I move here to do just that. I establish two conclusions. First, du Châtelet's basic metaphysics is a robust realism. Idealist strands, while they exist, are confined to non-basic regimes. (...) Second, her substance realism seems internally coherent, so her foundational project appears successful.I have two aims in this paper. Historically, I show that du Châtelet's main source of inspiration was Christian... (shrink)

Resumo O principal ponto de desacordo entre as filosofias emergentes e desenvolvidas no início do século XVIII na Alemanha é, indiscutivelmente, a alegação da possibilidade da metafísica a partir do princípio de razão suficiente. Este trabalho é dividido em duas partes. Inicialmente, apresenta-se o debate empreendido entre a tentativa de Wolff de justificação do princípio de razão suficiente – enquanto derivado do princípio de contradição – e a descrença de Crusius acerca de tal justificação. Defende-se que a posição desses filósofos (...) sobre a justificação do princípio de razão suficiente especifica as suas concepções de filosofia. Ao passo que Wolff argumenta que a filosofia, enquanto “ciência das coisas possíveis”, deve seguir o método da matemática, Crusius assegura que, ao dar conta da tarefa de considerar “as coisas realmente existentes”, a filosofia deve possuir o seu método próprio de investigação. Num segundo momento, considera-se o empreendimento kantiano de justificação do princípio de razão suficiente, de modo a dar conta das exigências tanto de Wolff como de Crusius. Argumenta-se que a busca kantiana de justificação do princípio na Nova dilucidatio de 1755 compreende os seguintes momentos: a garantia de uma equivalência lógica entre o princípio de contradição e o princípio de razão suficiente; o estabelecimento do princípio de razão suficiente como uma razão de existência do que existe de modo contingente. Palavras-chave : dedução, ontologia, metafísica alemã, princípio de contradição, princípio de razão suficienteThe fundamental point of disagreement among philosophies born and developed in Germany in the beginning of the XVIII century is, unquestionably, the defense of the possibility of metaphysics by means of the justification of the so called principle of sufficient reason. This paper is divided into two parts. Initially, the debate that ensued from Wolff’s attempt at a justification of the principle of sufficient reason as derived from the principle of contradiction in face of Crusius’ disbelief of such a justification is pointed out. It is sustained that the position of both philosophers concerning the justification of the principle of sufficient reason points to the specificity of their conception of philosophy. While Wolff argues that philosophy as a “science of possible things” should follow the method of mathematics, Crusius assures that, at holding the task of accounting for “truthfully existent beings”, philosophy must have its own method of investigation. Secondly, Kant’s undertaking at justifying the principle of sufficient reason accounting for the requirements of both Wolff and Crusius is taken into account. It is argued that Kant’s search for a justification in the 1755 Nova dilucidatio holds the following moments: the assurance of a logical equivalence between the principle of contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason; the establishment of the principle of sufficient reason as a reason of existence of that which exists in a contingent way. Keywords : deduction, ontology, German metaphysics, principle of contradiction, principle of sufficient reason. (shrink)

Science depends on judgments of the bearing of evidence on theory. Scientists must judge whether an observation or the result of an experiment supports, disconfirms, or is simply irrelevant to a given hypothesis. Similarly, scientists may judge that, given all the available evidence, a hypothesis ought to be accepted as correct or nearly so, rejected as false, or neither. Occasionally, these evidential judgments can be made on deductive grounds. If an experimental result strictly contradicts a hypothesis, then the truth of (...) the data deductively entails the falsity of the hypothesis. In the great majority of cases, however, the connection between evidence and hypothesis is non-demonstrative, or inductive. In particular, this is so whenever a general hypothesis is inferred to be correct on the basis of the available data, since the truth of the data will not deductively entail the truth of the hypothesis. It always remains possible that the hypothesis is false even though the data are correct. (shrink)

Many commentators have suggested that the metaphysical portions of Emilie du Châtelet's Institutions de physique are a mere retelling of Leibniz's views. I argue that a close reading of the text shows that du Châtelet's cosmological argument and discussion of God's nature contains both Lockean and Leibnizian elements. I discuss where she follows Locke in her arguments, what Leibnizian elements she brings in, and how this enables her to avoid some of the mistakes commonly attributed to Locke's formulation of the (...) cosmological argument. I show that while du Châtelet accepts the causal principle ex nihilo nihil fit, she does not utilize Locke's stronger causal principle. I also discuss her use of the principle of sufficient reason in both improving the Lockean cosmological argument and in proving the attributes of God. (shrink)

It is here argued that Halley's comet had a more pivotal role than has hitherto been believed in triggering Newton's acceptance of the law of gravity, dispelling his belief in Descartes' theory of vortices. It is found that historians have been unduly prone to credit Newton with dynamical insights at an earlier date than is warranted by the historical documents. A more convincing account of the transition from the period of Newton's alchemical researches of the 1670s to that of his (...) dynamical insights in the 1680s thereby becomes feasible. Acceptance of a principle of rectilinear inertia was a precondition for formulating the law. (shrink)

This paper explores the theory of freedom that Emilie du Châtelet advances in her essay “On Freedom.” Using contemporary terminology, we can characterize this theory as a version of agent-causal compatibilism. More specifically, the theory has the following elements: (a) freedom consists in the power to act in accordance with one’s choices, (b) freedom requires the ability to suspend desires and master passions, (c) freedom requires a power of self-motion in the agent, and (d) freedom is compatible with moral necessity (...) but not with physical necessity. While these elements may at first appear disparate, the paper shows that they fit together quite well. The resulting theory is a surprising combination of doctrines that appear to be based on Samuel Clarke’s libertarian account of free will and doctrines that are reminiscent of the compatibilist accounts of John Locke, Anthony Collins, Gottfried Leibniz, and Thomas Hobbes. (shrink)

This paper discusses the contribution of Madame Du Châtelet to the reception of Newtonianism in France prior to her translation of Newton’s Principia. It focuses on her Institutions de physique, a work normally considered for its contribution to the reception of Leibniz in France. By comparing the different editions of the Institutions, I argue that her interest in Newton antedated her interest in Leibniz, and that she did not see Leibniz’s metaphysics as incompatible with Newtonian science. Her Newtonianism can be (...) seen to be in the course of development between 1738 and 1742 and it was shaped by contemporary French debates and the achievement of French Newtonians like Maupertuis in confirming his theories. Her Institutions therefore is linked to the same drive to disseminate Newtonianism undertaken by popularisations such as Voltaire’s Elements de la philosophie de Newton and Algarotti’s Newtonianismo per le dame.Author Keywords: Emilie du Châtelet; Isaac Newton; Voltaire; French reception of Newtonianism. (shrink)

I argue that understanding why p involves a kind of intellectual know how and differsfrom both knowledge that p and knowledge why p (as they are standardly understood).I argue that understanding, in this sense, is valuable.

Wolff advocates the mathematical method, which consists in chains of syllogisms that proceed from axioms and definitions to theorems, for achieving scientific certainty in branches of philosophy like ontology and physics. By contrast, in ‘The Discipline of Pure Reason in its Dogmatic Use’ Kant significantly limits the efficacy of this method in philosophy. In this paper I investigate an under-examined result of the Discipline: Kant’s claim that his system of philosophy does not contain “dogmata”. By identifying “dogmata” in Wolff’s system (...) of physics, I argue that, for Kant, they are propositions that uncritically deploy ideas of reason. I conclude that the Discipline extends criticisms raised in the Transcendental Dialectic to any erroneous use of the mathematical method in philosophy. (shrink)

From late 1684 through mid-1685, Isaac Newton turned to developing and refining the conceptual foundations presupposed by his emerging physics. Analysis of his manuscripts from this period reveals that Newton’s understanding of the relativity of acceleration led him to seek a spatiotemporally invariant quantity of matter. He found two such quantities and then designed an experiment to discover their relationship. Interpreting the experiment, however, required distinguishing a new notion of force. Others have recognized the conceptual distinction between inertial and gravitational (...) mass. I show here that Newton clearly saw this distinction and that he provisionally established their equivalence. (shrink)

This paper argues that in Christian Wolff’s theory of knowledge, logical regimentation does not take the place of experiential justification, but serves to facilitate the application of empirical information and clearly exhibit its warrant. My argument targets rationalistic interpretations such as R. Lanier Anderson’s. It is common ground in this dispute that making concepts “distinct” issues in the premises on which all deductive justification rests. Against the view that concepts are made distinct only by analysis, which is carried out by (...) the understanding independently of experience, I contend that for Wolff some distinct concepts are arrived at through experience. I emphasize that Wolff countenances empirical methods of obtaining distinct concepts even in mathematics. This striking feature of his view indicates how its empiricist elements can be reconciled with his injunction to follow “mathematical” method. (shrink)

In this chapter, I examine similarities and divergences between Du Châtelet and Descartes on their endorsement of the use of hypotheses in science, using the work of Condillac to locate them in his scheme of systematizers. I conclude that, while Du Châtelet is still clearly a natural philosopher, as opposed to modern scientist, her conception of hypotheses is considerably more modern than is Descartes’, a difference that finds its roots in their divergence on the nature of first principles.

In this paper I argue that Kant's distinction in the Inaugural Dissertation between the sensible and the intelligible arises in part out of certain open questions left open by his comparison between mathematics and metaphysics in the Prize Essay. This distinction provides a philosophical justification for his distinction between the respective methods of mathematics and metaphysics and his claim that mathematics admits of a greater degree of certainty. More generally, this illustrates the importance of Kant's reflections on mathematics for the (...) development of his Critical philosophy. (shrink)

Cet article cherche à reconstituer la thèse de Christian Wolff sur l’évidence (Deutlichkeit) des principes métaphysiques, dans un article de 1729 sur les « Notions directrices et le véritable usage de la première science », qui offre une référence centrale (et méconnue aujourd’hui) aux répondants du concours de 1762-1763, dont Kant. Wolff affirme en effet que la métaphysique est susceptible d’une certitude égale voire supérieure à celle des mathématiques et qu’elle diffuse cette certitude à travers toutes les autres disciplines ; (...) c’est cette thèse forte qu’il s’agira précisément de questionner en 1763. Une lecture plus attentive de l’article de Wolff permet d’en dégager certaines prémisses. La thèse de Wolff sur la certitude mathématique de la métaphysique est fondée sur un renversement de l’ordre de priorité entre métaphysique (ontologie) et mathématiques. Selon Wolff qui, dans son débat avec les mathématiques, s’appuie notamment sur la géométrie euclidienne, ce sont des notions métaphysiques qui fondent la validité des règles mathématiques et logiques. Des notions comme « identité », « chose », « possibilité », etc., possèdent en effet un statut « directeur » ou méthodique, dirigeant l’esprit sur le chemin de la connaissance et, sous une forme systématisée, composent une ontologie moderne et « architectonique ». La restitution de ce cadre permet de mieux voir la continuité méthodologique entre Wolff et Kant. En effet, même si Kant conteste la validité de quelques-uns de ces concepts, les modalités de leur systématisation et l’équation entre science architectonique et ontologie, sa Recherche sur l’évidence des principes s’inscrit à l’intérieur du programme, esquissé par Wolff, de la fondation d’une métaphysique architectonique contenant un tableau de concepts directeurs. De ce point de vue, Kant s’avère plus tributaire de la méthode wolffienne qu’il n’est supposé communément, et leur débat gagne en profondeur. (shrink)

Cet article cherche à reconstituer la thèse de Christian Wolff sur l’évidence (Deutlichkeit) des principes métaphysiques, dans un article de 1729 sur les « Notions directrices et le véritable usage de la première science », qui offre une référence centrale (et méconnue aujourd’hui) aux répondants du concours de 1762-1763, dont Kant. Wolff affirme en effet que la métaphysique est susceptible d’une certitude égale voire supérieure à celle des mathématiques et qu’elle diffuse cette certitude à travers toutes les autres disciplines ; (...) c’est cette thèse forte qu’il s’agira précisément de questionner en 1763. Une lecture plus attentive de l’article de Wolff permet d’en dégager certaines prémisses. La thèse de Wolff sur la certitude mathématique de la métaphysique est fondée sur un renversement de l’ordre de priorité entre métaphysique (ontologie) et mathématiques. Selon Wolff qui, dans son débat avec les mathématiques, s’appuie notamment sur la géométrie euclidienne, ce sont des notions métaphysiques qui fondent la validité des règles mathématiques et logiques. Des notions comme « identité », « chose », « possibilité », etc., possèdent en effet un statut « directeur » ou méthodique, dirigeant l’esprit sur le chemin de la connaissance et, sous une forme systématisée, composent une ontologie moderne et « architectonique ». La restitution de ce cadre permet de mieux voir la continuité méthodologique entre Wolff et Kant. En effet, même si Kant conteste la validité de quelques-uns de ces concepts, les modalités de leur systématisation et l’équation entre science architectonique et ontologie, sa Recherche sur l’évidence des principes s’inscrit à l’intérieur du programme, esquissé par Wolff, de la fondation d’une métaphysique architectonique contenant un tableau de concepts directeurs. De ce point de vue, Kant s’avère plus tributaire de la méthode wolffienne qu’il n’est supposé communément, et leur débat gagne en profondeur. (shrink)

Du Châtelet’s 1740 text Foundations of Physics tackles three of the major foundational issues facing natural philosophy in the early eighteenth century: the problem of bodies, the problem of force, and the question of appropriate methodology. This paper offers an introduction to Du Châtelet’s philosophy of science, as expressed in her Foundations of Physics, primarily through the lens of the problem of bodies.

Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt -- Christian Freyherrn von Wolf Erinnerung, wie er es künftig mit den Einwürfen halten will, die wider seine Schriften gemacht werden.

" La formule cartésienne causa sive ratio scande l'histoire de la causalité, entre le privilège suarézien de la cause efficiente et l'invention leibnizienne du principe de raison suffisante. Elle traverse un siècle exactement, des Disputationes metaphysicae de Suarez (1597) aux 24 thèses métaphysiques de Leibniz (1697). La métaphysique s'y constitue en époque de la causalité. Qu'ils la soutiennent ou qu'ils la récusent, les philosophes du XVIIe siècle ont en commun de discuter la thèse qui confère l'intelligibilité à la relation causale (...) ; elle prend la forme exemplaire de l'équivalence cartésienne de la cause et de la raison. Mais la façon dont la relation causale gagne l'intelligibilité demeure à son tour inintelligible, puisqu'elle renvoie à la toute-puissance incompréhensible de celui qui l'exerce, y compris peut-être envers lui-même : sui causa. C'est là précisément la thèse que les post-cartésiens ne cesseront de lire comme un problème et de récuser : Spinoza, en posant que l'ordre et la connexion des idées sont les mêmes que l'ordre et la connexion des choses ; Malebranche, en faisant de la cause occasionnelle une raison inefficace et en concentrant en Dieu toute l'efficace ; Leibniz, en employant le principe de raison suffisante, qui rationalise l'existence en la soustrayant à l'emprise de l'efficience. Loin de la produire, la causalité se voit alors soumise, sous diverses modalités, à l'intelligibilité. Aussi le principe de raison suffisante signe-t-il ce que nous appelons la fin de la cause - par excellence la fin de l'efficience -, qui n'est pas la fin de la question du fondement, mais le déplacement de sa réponse vers plus fondateur que la cause : la raison. Ainsi se trouve accomplie l'essence du fondement à l'époque moderne de l'histoire de la métaphysique. " V. C. (shrink)

Presents Newton's unifying idea of gravitation and explains how he converted physics from a science of explanation into a general mathematical system.

This is a 1988 philosophical introduction to Aristotle, and Professor Lear starts where Aristotle himself starts. The first sentence of the Metaphysics states that all human beings by their nature desire to know. But what is it for us to be animated by this desire in this world? What is it for a creature to have a nature; what is our human nature; what must the world be like to be intelligible; and what must we be like to understand it (...) systematically? Through a consideration of these questions Professor Lear introduces us to the essence of Aristotle's philosophy and guides us through the central Aristotelian texts - selected from the Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics and from the biological and logical works. The book is written in a direct, lucid style which engages the reader with the themes in an active, participatory manner. (shrink)

Leibniz often refers to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) as something like a first principle. In some texts, however, he attempts to give positive arguments in its favor. I examine two such arguments, and find them wanting. The first argument has two defects. First, it is question-begging; and second, when the question-begging step is excised, the principle one can in fact derive is highly counter-intuitive. The second argument is valid, but has the defect of only reaching a nearly trivial (...) conclusion. (shrink)

Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis’ famous and influential Discours sur les différentes figures des astres, which represented the first public defense of attractionism in the Cartesian stronghold of the Paris Academy, sometimes suggests a metaphysically agnostic defense of gravity as simply a regularity. However, Maupertuis’ considered account in the essay, I argue, is much more subtle. I analyze Maupertuis’ position, showing how it is generated by an extended consideration of the possibility of attraction as an inherent property and fuelled by (...) an understanding of Lockean skepticism about knowledge of real essences that is more nuanced perhaps even than Locke’s own. (shrink)

Newton’s Regulae philosophandi—the rules for reasoning in natural philosophy—are maxims of causal reasoning and induction. This essay reviews their significance for Newton’s method of inquiry, as well as their application to particular propositions within the Principia. Two main claims emerge. First, the rules are not only interrelated, they defend various facets of the same core idea: that nature is simple and orderly by divine decree, and that, consequently, human beings can be justified in inferring universal causes from limited phenomena, if (...) only fallibly. Second, the rules make substantive ontological assumptions on which Newton’s argument in the Principia relies. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the relation between Christian Wolff's philosophy and the methodological views of early modern experimental philosophers. The chapter argues for three claims. First, Wolff's system relies on experience at every step and his views on experiments, observations, hypotheses, and the a priori are in line with those of experimental philosophers. Second, the study of Wolff's views demonstrates the influence of experimental philosophy in early eighteenth-century Germany. Third, references to Wolff's empiricism and rationalism are best identified or replaced with (...) references to his endorsement of the tenets of experimental philosophers and of a mathematical demonstrative method. (shrink)

In this chapter, I consider the largely overlooked influence of E. W. von Tschirnhaus' treatise on method, the Medicina mentis, on Wolff's early philosophical project (in both its conception and execution). As I argue, part of Tschirnhaus' importance for Wolff lies in the use he makes of principles gained from experience as a foundation for the scientific enterprise in the context of his broader philosophical rationalism. I will show that this lesson from Tschirnhaus runs through Wolff's earliest philosophical discussions, and (...) indeed continues to inform his major texts in logic and mathematics just before the publication of the German Metaphysics. In the end, my discussion has the effect of revealing Tschirnhaus to be an exceptionally important influence on Wolff's development, perhaps even as important (or so I suggest) as Leibniz. (shrink)