This book begins with an observation: At the time when empiricism arose and slowly established itself, the word itself had not yet been coined. Hence the central question of this volume: What does it mean to conduct empirical science in early modern Europe? How can we catch the elusive figure of the empiricist? Our answer focuses on the practices established by representative scholars. This approach allows us to demonstrate two things. First, that empiricism is not a monolith but exists in (...) a plurality of forms. Today’s understanding of the empirical sciences was gradually shaped by the exchanges among scholars combining different traditions, world views and experimental settings. Second, the long proclaimed antagonism between empiricism and rationalism is not the whole story. Our case studies show that a very fruitful exchange between both systems of thought occurred. It is a story of integration, appropriation and transformation more than one of mere opposition. We asked twelve authors to explore these fascinating new facets of empiricisms. The plurality of their voices mirrors the multiple faces of the concept itself. Every contribution can be understood as a piece of a much larger puzzle. Together, they help us better understand the emergence of empiricism and the inventiveness of the scientific enterprise. (shrink)

In asking what it means to be an empiricist, the present volume does not seek to provide a definitive or authoritative introduction to the foundation and establishment of empiricism. Instead, our objectives are to deconstruct some misleading preconceptions and to propose some new perspectives on this much used but still somehow ambiguous concept. It marks the beginning of a new reflection rather than a conclusion.Throughout this volume, we aim to present empiricism as the result of two parallel dialogues. First, it (...) was born out of an exchange between several distinct observational and experimental traditions in Europe. We therefore advocate speaking in the plural about empirical methods, underlining the distinctions between local uses and grand, national standards, while also highlighting the complex discussion around the values and norms of empiricism.Secondly, it emerged as part of a dialog between several positions within the theory of knowledge which for too long have been reduced to a simple dualism. The most important lesson to be learned from the eighteenth century is that there wasn’t such a thing as a war between rationalism and empiricism, but rather a constant attempt to accommodate both. This forces us to conceive of a more complex and fruitful relationship, but also a much more interesting one. (shrink)

Anne-Lise Rey | : L’article montre qu’après la « révolution scientifique » opérée par l’introduction des idées de Newton en France, Émilie du Châtelet a construit un dispositif épistémique inventif qui lui permet d’articuler principes métaphysiques et experimental philosophy. Je cherche à exposer que, s’il y a bien une relative invisibilité du travail philosophique d’Émilie du Châtelet dans l’historiographie des Lumières, cela tient à la fois au statut de femme savante à cette époque, mais aussi à la situation philosophique d’Émilie (...) du Châtelet, qui ne peut se réduire à aucune filiation et qui élabore une philosophie naturelle originale. | : This paper shows that after the “Scientific Revolution” stemming from the introduction of Newton’s ideas in France, Émilie du Châtelet developed an innovative epistemic framework that allowed her to reconcile metaphysical principles with experimental philosophy. The author aims to show that the relative invisibility of Émilie du Châtelet’s philosophical work within the historiography of the enlightenment is due both to her status as a learned woman at that time and to the philosophical position of Émilie du Châtelet, which cannot be reduced to a single philosophical affiliation and which allows her to develop an original account of natural philosophy. (shrink)

The object of this article is to lay bare the consensualist presuppositions implicit within contemporary analyses of the controversies of the Classical Age by proposing an alternative model: agonistic pluralism. The convergence between this political reading of the controversies and an epistemological reading is reinforced by a discussion of Hasok Chang's work, which develops a model of epistemic pluralism that breaks away from studies in the history of science undertaken following the Kuhnian model of scientific revolutions. This makes it possible (...) to question the theoretical convergence of two anti-hegemonic claims: one political, the other epistemological. I aim to put this new model of analysis to the test by applying it to a well known, oft-analysed dispute, that which erupted between Dortous de Mairan and Emilie du Châtelet following the publication of the Institutions de Physique. (shrink)

The object of the first part of this paper is to establish the relationships which Leibniz establishes between metaphysical action and dynamic action, in the light of how he elaborates the concept of dynamic action in the texts from the years 1689-90 and in particular of Dynamica de potentia. Once the interdependence of these two notions is revealed, the ambivalence of action can be seen as a means to a new understanding, based on the Dynamics, of the relationships between substance (...) and phenomenon. The correspondence with De Volder is the ideal setting for this clarification. (shrink)

This paper examines the status of medical experiments using the Leibnizian conception of knowledge. The aim is to consider whether experimentation is a “perceptive foretaste” or a real condition for the advancement of knowledge. To this end I argue, first, that acting on bodies could be a way to understand them and, second, I establish a place for medical experiments in the field of learning. In these ways, I identify a “provisional empiricism” in Leibniz’ medical texts.

RésuméCet article propose de concevoir le dissensus moins comme le constat d’un désaccord irréductible que comme le point de départ d’un processus visant à élaborer un territoire épistémique commun. Dans le travail argumentatif de confrontation des désaccords, il ne s’agit pas d’identifier le dispositif qui conduit à un accord via la délibération rationnelle. Il s’agit plutôt de comprendre comment le dissensus permet de construire des communautés plurielles. Il discute certains textes de philosophie politique, où semble centrale la question de l’accord (...) comme horizon d’attente des confrontations argumentatives. L’article utilise cette hypothèse pour analyser la diffusion de la dynamique de Leibniz dans sa correspondance avec De Volder. Cette analyse permet de montrer que le dissensus n’est pas un obstacle mais le socle à partir duquel de multiples diffusions sont possibles. (shrink)

O presente artigo enfoca a discussão, ensejada pela publicação do Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, entre seu autor, Pierre Bayle, e Leibniz a propósito dos critérios epistemológicos que permitem distinguir cognição animal de cognição propriamente humana. Trata-se de examinar em detalhe a distinção que, na sequência dessa publicação, Leibniz traçará entre o homem racional – caracterizado como aquele apto a produzir silogismos demonstrativos e de alcançar verdades necessárias – e o homem enquanto empírico, a fim de examinar se e de que (...) maneira os critérios epistemológicos que permitem distinguir cognição animal de cognição propriamente humana podem ou não nos permitir circunscrever uma diferença antropológica que permita distinguir o homem do animal. (shrink)

À partir de la comparaison entre l’Oedipus chymicus de Leibniz écrit en 1710 et ce qui nous a semblé un possible référent, le texte homonyme de J.J Becher de 1664, l’article s’efforce de déterminer les raisons de l’attrait que Leibniz éprouve pour la chimie de son temps. Si les pratiques de codage et de décodage de la démarche alchimique ainsi que l’attention portée aux transformations des états de la matière constituent indéniablement des points de convergence avec la philosophie leibnizienne, il (...) ne nous semble néanmoins pas possible de conclure de là à une influence de la philosophie chimique, et en particulier de la notion de semence, sur la constitution de la monade leibnizienne. (shrink)

RésuméCet article examine le duel à l’époque moderne entendu à la fois comme la forme suprême de la querelle, son aboutissement naturel sous certaines conditions, alors qu’il est lui-même objet de controverses vives. Le duel, qui repose sur des lois, réglemente le dissensus en même temps qu’il le porte à son paroxysme. Il peut servir de révélateur de la place du dissensus dans la société, de la façon dont les rapports sociaux prennent acte du désaccord entre les individus et réglementent (...) les façons de le résoudre. Cet article examine la forme du duel comme fin des querelles. Il se porte ensuite sur les controverses autour des duels. Il examine enfin la place du duel dans la littérature, sa fonction poétique et dramatique, afin de souligner les façons dont le texte littéraire participe de cette réflexion sur le duel. (shrink)

In 1720, Willem Jacob ’s Gravesande wrote Physicis elementa mathematica, experimentis confirmata. Sive introductio ad philosophiam Newtonianam. Although he was undoubtedly one of the most important popularizers of Newtonian physics, experimental methodology and epistemology in the 1720s, his empirical claim somehow backfired: in applying tenets of Newtonian methodology, he was ultimately led to validate the Leibnizian principle of the conservation of living forces, contrary to the Newtonians. This conclusion invited a great deal of anger, particularly from Samuel Clarke who, in (...) a volume of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society from 1729, accused ’s Gravesande of having written the book with the aim of “darkening Newton’s philosophy”. In a reply, which ’s Gravesande published as a supplement to his Essay upon a New Theory of the Collision of Bodies, he developed a hybrid methodology that relied upon both experimentation and reason. In my paper, I shall thoroughly analyse this interesting combination. (shrink)

Cet article propose de concevoir le dissensus moins comme le constat d’un désaccord irréductible que comme le point de départ d’un processus visant à élaborer un territoire épistémique commun. Dans le travail argumentatif de confrontation des désaccords, il ne s’agit pas d’identifier le dispositif qui conduit à un accord via la délibération rationnelle. Il s’agit plutôt de comprendre comment le dissensus permet de construire des communautés plurielles. Il discute certains textes de philosophie politique, où semble centrale la question de l’accord (...) comme horizon d’attente des confrontations argumentatives. L’article utilise cette hypothèse pour analyser la diffusion de la dynamique de Leibniz dans sa correspondance avec De Volder. Cette analyse permet de montrer que le dissensus n’est pas un obstacle mais le socle à partir duquel de multiples diffusions sont possibles. (shrink)