Spinoza, Boyle, Galileo: Was Spinoza a Strict Mechanical Philosopher?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹What is known as the correspondence between Baruch Spinoza and Henry Oldenburg consists of 17 letters from Oldenburg to Spinoza and 11 from Spinoza to Oldenburg.

²R. Boyle, ‘Certain Physiological Essays’, in The Works of Robert Boyle, edited by M. Hunter and E.B. Davis (London: Pickering & Chatto, 1999–2000), vol. 2, 1–203.

³The term ‘physiological’ in Physiological Essays should be understood in the same sense as ‘physical’ or simply as that which concerns nature.

⁴J. Israel, ‘Spinoza as an Expounder, Critic, and “Reformer” of Descartes’, Intellectual History Review, 17:1 (2007), 59–78.

⁵C. Bontekoe, Brief Aan Johan Frederik Swetser, Gesegt Dr. Helvetius, Geschreven en uytgeeven tot een Korte Apologie voor den Grote Philosooph Renatus Descartes […], ('s Gravenhage, 1680).

⁶See P. Totaro, ‘ “Ho certi amici in Ollandia”: Stensen and Spinoza – science verso faith’, in Niccolὸ Stenone: Anatomista, geologo, vescovo, edited by K. Ascani, H. Kermit, and G. Skytte, (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2000), 27–38.

⁷See E.D. Baumann, Franco¸ois dele Boe Sylvius (Leiden: Brill, 1949). For information about Sylvius and the University of Leiden around 1661 see also Dutch Culture in a European Perspective, vol. 1: 1650 – Hard-Won Unity, edited by W. Frijhoff and M. Spies (Assen: Royal van Gorcum /Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 319.

⁸See letter 6 and letter 13.

⁹See W.N. Newman and L.M. Prinzipe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 212–13; W.N. Newman, Atoms and Alchemy (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 210; J.T. Young, Faith, Alchemy and Natural Philosophy: Johann Moriaen, Reformed Intelligencer, and the Hartlib Circle (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998).

¹⁰See S. Nadler, Spinoza: A Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

¹²See letter 11.

¹¹All citations from Boyle's work are from: R. Boyle, The Works of Robert Boyle, edited by M. Hunter and E.B. Davis (London: Pickering & Chatto, 1999–2000). All citations from Spinoza's work are from Spinoza, Complete Works, edited by M.L. Morgan and translated by S. Shirley (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 2002). All citations in Latin are from: Spinoza, Opera, im Auftrag der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften herausgegeben von Carl Gebhardt (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1972 [1925]).

¹³In letter 16, Oldenburg writes: ‘He [Boyle] asks you to consult the preface which he wrote to his Experiments on Nitre, so as to understand the true aim which he set himself in that work: namely, to show that the doctrines of the more firmly grounded philosophy now being revised are elucidated by clear experiments, and that these experiments can very well be explained without the forms, qualities and the futile elements of the Schools.’

¹⁴See H. More, The Immortality of the Soul, edited by A. Jacob (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987), 4–21. The first version of this book was published in 1659, the second revised edition in 1662.

¹⁵See A. Gabbey, ‘What Was “Mechanical” about “The Mechanical Philosophy”?’ in The Reception of Galilean Science of Motion in Seventeenth Century Europe, edited by C.R. Palmerino and J.M.M.H. Thijssen, (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 2004), 11–23.

¹⁶See A. Clericuzio, Elements, Principles and Corpuscles: A Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), 143.

¹⁷See A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature (1686), edited by M. Hunter and E.B. Davis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 61.

¹⁸This preface reached the printer at the last minute; it was inserted in the first edition between pages already numbered. As a consequence the preface with the definition dates from 1661 although the Essays were written earlier, probably in 1655 or 1656.

¹⁹Boyle, and most seventeenth-century chemists, used ‘principle’ and ‘element’ interchangeably.

²⁰Cf. R.S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 41.

²²See ‘Letter from Wallis to Boyle (25 April 1666)’, in The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, edited by M. Hunter, A. Clericuzio and L. Prinzipe, 6 vols (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2001), vol. 3, 1666–1667, 142.

²¹John Wilkins was, like Boyle, one of the founding fathers of the Royal Society. And like Henry Oldenburg, he was a secretary of the Royal Society. Henry Oldenburg was secretary of the physical sciences division; John Wilkins was the secretary of the biological sciences division. The Royal Society's website lists all secretaries of the two divisions from 1663 to present at: http://royalsociety.org/about-us/governance/officers/.

²³See N. Wilding, ‘The Return of Thomas Salusbury's Life of Galileo (1664)’, British Journal for the History of Science, 41:2 (2008), 241–65.

²⁴T. Salusbury, Mathematical collections and translations …, vol. 1 & 2 (London: printed by William Leybourn, 1661–1665).

²⁵Oldenburg writes: ‘I was but yesterday with Mr Thompson, who uses to acquaint me with the new Books, that come abroad, but he neither then, nor afore, told me any thing of Galilaeo's second Tome: but I shall aske him about it, God willing, the next time I passe that away.’ See Hunter, Clericuzio and Prinzipe, Correspondence of Robert Boyle, vol. 2, 549.

²⁶See ‘Letter 242, Oldenburg to Viviani (28 October 1661)’, in The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, edited and translated by A.R. Hall and M.B. Hall, 12 vols (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966), vol. 1, 443.

²⁷In this paper I will use the following abbreviations to refer to Spinoza's work: PPC = Principles of Cartesian Philosophy (Principia Philosophiae Cartesianae), CM = Metaphysical Thoughts (Cogitata Metaphysica), E= Ethics (Ethica), Ep = Letters (Epistolae), KV = Short Treatise (Korte Verhandeling), TIE = Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect (Tractatus de Intellectus Emendaione), TP = Political Treatise (Tractatus Politicus), TTP = Theological-Political Treatise (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus).

²⁸See ‘Appendix 2: Meyer's Dissertation’, in Principles of Cartesian Philosophy, translated by S. Shirley and introduction and notes by S. Barbone and L. Rice (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998), 144–59.

²⁹See letter 81.

³⁰The Traité du monde et de la lumière was published posthumously in 1664.

³¹See D. Garber, Descartes' Metaphysical Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

³²See letter 8.

³³See A. Koyré, Galileo Studies, translated by J. Mepham ( Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1978).

³⁴See Descartes, Œuvres philosophiques, textes établis, présentés et annotés par Ferdinand Alquié, 3 vols (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 1963–1973), vol. 2, 1638–1642, 173.

³⁵See the definition of affecta at E3 def. 3.

³⁶See TIE, 83 and the scholium of proposition 18 of E2.

³⁷See for instance: the third paragraph of the third chapter of his TTP, the scholium of E4p57 and letter 32.

³⁸See letter 6.

³⁹See the preface of E3 and paragraph 6 of chapter 2 of the TP.

⁴⁰See E. Zilsel, ‘The Genesis of the Concept of Physical Law’, in The Social Origins of Modern Science, edited by D. Raven, W. Krohn, and R.S. Cohen (Dordrecht : Kluwer, 2000), 96–121.

⁴¹See Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) and Letter to Castelli (1613) in The Essential Galileo, edited and translated by M.A. Finocchiaro (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 2008), 103–45.

⁴²In his letter 13 to Oldenburg, Spinoza exclusively uses the term ‘the laws of mechanics’ (Leges Mechanicae).

⁴³See chapter 6 of the TTP.

⁴⁴ A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature, edited by M. Hunter and E.B. Davis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1686]).

⁴⁵See E.B. Davis and M. Hunter, ‘Boyle's Free Enquiry’ in A Free Enquiry, xxiii.

⁴⁶See A Free Enquiry, 22, 51.

⁴⁷See EIp29s and KV, I, Cap. VIII and IX.

⁴⁸See letter 6.

⁴⁹See P. Steenbakkers, ‘Een vijandige overname: Spinoza over natura naturans en natura naturata’, in Spinoza en de scholastiek, edited by G. Coppens (Leuven: Acco, 2003), 35–52.

⁵⁰The most important writings on the Spinoza/Boyle correspondence are: C.A. Crommelin, Spinoza's natuurwetenschappelijk denken (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1939); H. Daudin, ‘Spinoza et la science expérimentale: sa discussion de l'expérience de Boyle’, Revue d'histoire des sciences et de leurs applications, PUF, 2:2 Janvier–Avril (1949); A.R. Hall and M.B. Hall, ‘Philosophy and Natural Philosophy: Boyle and Spinoza’, in Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, edited by R. Taton and F. Braudel, 2 vols (Paris: Hermann, 1964), vol. 2, 241–56; E. Yakira, ‘Boyle et Spinoza’, Archives de Philosophie, 51 (1988), 107–24; A. Clericuzio, ‘A Redefinition of Boyle's Chemistry and Corpuscular Philosophy’, Annals of Science, 47 (1990), 561–89; P. Macherey, ‘Spinoza lecteur et critique de Boyle’, Revue du Nord, 77 (1995), 733–74; Clericuzio, Elements, Principles and Corpuscles, 138–42; S. Duffy, ‘The Difference Between Science and Philosophy: The Spinoza-Boyle Controversy Revisited’, Paragraph, 29:2 (2006), 115–38.

⁵¹See letter 1.

⁵²See R. Boyle, “Notes for a paper against Spinoza”. The Boyle Collection, Boyle Papers, volume 3, manuscript document, Fols. 102–3 (2 leaves), RB/1/3/18, 1670s–1680s, London, Archive of the Royal Society.

⁵³See letter 13.

⁵⁴The French translator of the Il Saggiatore, Christiane Chauviré, remarks in her Ph.D dissertation that in chapter 8 of Book 2 of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke retakes quite the same analyses of sensible qualities and reproduces exactly the same analyses of heat as in Galileo's Assayer. See C. Barrès-Chauviré, ‘L’ “essayeur de Galilée” (Il saggiatore)', thèse 3e cycle Philosophie: Paris 1, 1975, LX.

⁵⁵See Galileo, ‘The Assayer’, in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, translated with an introduction and notes by S. Drake (New York: Anchor Books, 1957), 217–81.

⁵⁶See P.R. Anstey, The Philosophy of Robert Boyle (London: Routledge, 2000), 24.

⁵⁷See S. Sambursky, ‘The Influence of Galileo on Boyle's Philosophy of Science.’ in Actes du Symposium International des Sciences Physiques et Mathématiques dans la Première Moitié du XVIIe Siècle, 16–18 June 1958, Florence/Paris, 1960, 142–46 and R.E.W. Maddison, ‘Galileo and Boyle: A Contrast.’ in Saggi su Galileo Galilei, edited by C. Maccagni, 2 vols (Florence: G.Barbera, 1967), vol. 2, 348–61.

⁵⁸Robert Boyle wrote his Account of Philaretus during his Minority in 1648 or 1649.

⁵⁹Isaac Marcombes was the second husband of Madeleine Burlamacchi (1608–1665) who was the daughter of Jean Diodati's sister, Anne Diodati (1578–1634).

⁶⁰S. Garcia, Élie Diodati: un homme de réseau au service de la cause galiléenne, Thèse de doctorat, Université de Lausanne, 2003, 34.

⁶¹The small octavo notebook now comprises 109 folios that contain three folding tables: one calendrical table, a second showing ‘the qualities and combinations, etc., of the four elements’, and a third entitled ‘A Figure of the Construction of the World’, which shows the Ptolemaic universe. See M. Hunter, Boyle: Between God and Science (New Haven and London: Yale University press, 2009), 53.

⁶²See L.M. Prinzipe, ‘Newly Discovered Boyle Manuscripts in the Royal Society Archive. Alchemical Tracts and His Student Notebook’, Notes Rec. R. Soc., London, 49:1 (1995), 49–70.

⁶³See A. Baillet, Vie de Monsieur Descartes (Paris: Éditions de La Table Ronde, 1946), 52–9, 91.

⁶⁴D.B. Meli, Thinking with Objects: The Transformation of Mechanics in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 137.

⁶⁵See Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 à 1634, edited by C. De Waard, tome 3: 1627–34, 223.

⁶⁶See for instance: R. Tuck, Hobbes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) and F. Brandt, Thomas Hobbes's Mechanical Conception of Nature (Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1928).

⁶⁷See D.M. Jesseph, ‘Galileo, Hobbes, and the Book of Nature’, Perspectives on Science, Special Issue: Galileo in Paris, 12:2 (2004), 191–211.

⁶⁸See Garcia, Élie Diodati, 86.

⁶⁹See J.M.M. Aler, Catalogus van de bibliotheek der vereniging Het Spinozahuis te Rijnsburg (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965).

⁷⁰See E. Curley, “Kissinger, Spinoza, and Genghis Khan”, in The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, edited by D. Garrett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 315–42.

⁷¹See C.D. Andriesse, Huygens: The Man Behind The Principle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), xi.

⁷²C. Huygens had the Opere di Galileo Galilei (Bologna, 1656) in his library.

⁷³See for example letter 32 (1665) and letter 54 (1674)

⁷⁴See also TIE 12.

⁷⁵See Chapter 7 of the first part of The Elements of Law and De cive, III.3.1.

⁷⁶See for instance: the scholium of E2p18, the explication at the end of E3, the scholium of E4p1, the proofs of E2p19, E2p23, E2p26, E2p47, E3p18 and E3p27.

⁷⁷See Drake, Discoveries and Opinions, 277.

⁷⁸Also Gassendi knew Galileo's Assayer. See P. Redondi, ‘Rendez-vous à Arcetri. A propos de la Correspondance entre Gassendi et Galilée’, in Gassendi et la modernité, edited by S. Taussig (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers NV, 2008), 83–104.

⁷⁹See letter 12 from Spinoza to Lodewijk Meijer, written in 1663.

⁸⁰See A. Matheron, Individu et communauté chez Spinoza (Paris: Les Éditions de minuit, 1988).

⁸¹See P. Redondi, Galileo eretico (Torino: Einaudi, 1983).

⁸²See F. De Buzon and V. Carraud, Descartes et les “Principia” II - Corps et mouvement (Paris: PUF, 1994), 60–1.

⁸³Descartes' letter to Mersenne of the 25th of October 1630.

⁸⁴See J.R. Armogathe, ‘L'explication physique de l'Eucharistie’ in La nature du monde - Science nouvelle et exégèse au XVIIe siècle (Paris: PUF, 2007), 149–73.

⁸⁵See C. Adam et P. Tannery (eds.), CEuvres de Descartes (Paris: Cerf, 1897–1913), V, 184.

⁸⁶See F. Buyse, ‘Le “démasquement” de Descartes par Spinoza dans Les Principia Philosophiae Cartesianae’, Teoria, 2 (2012).

⁸⁷J.R. Armogathe, ‘La première condamnation des oeuvres de Descartes, d'après des documents inédits aux archives du Saint-Office’, in Nouvelles de la République des Lettres (Napoli : Prismi II, 2001), 103–37.

⁸⁸See letter 4.

⁸⁹See letter 14, written in 1663.

⁹⁰See S. Shapin and S. Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011).

⁹¹C. Huygens writes in letter 400, to an unknown individual: ‘An exquisite and simple method for measuring time lapses was brought into use by astronomers about 27 years ago. A weight was hung on a thread and swung back and forth in equal lapses of time. There is no doubt that Galileo was the pioneer of this invention because he was the first to mention the isochronism of these oscillations. I started to concentrate on how these oscillations could be made persistent and the effort of counting be eliminated, so that it would be apt to measure any lapse of time one wishes to measure. In the beginning of this year 1657 I achieved both goals with the invention of a new clock of which I will now describe the composition and functioning.’

⁹²See letter 30.

⁹³According to Martial Gueroult (‘La physique des corps et du Corps humain’, in Spinoza II – l'âme (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1974), 143–89. ), Spinoza's simplest bodies (corpora simplicissima) should be conceived as single pendulums, and the other bodies as compound pendulums. This hypothesis has been severely criticized by Gilles Deleuze (Cours Vincennes: Infini actuel-éternité, confrontation avec le commentaire de Guéroult - Logique des relations (10/03/1981) at www.deleuze.com), according to whom Spinoza's simplest bodies should not be conceived as oscillating pieces of matter but as differentials.

⁹⁴See letter 32.

⁹⁵See chapters 1 and 6 of part I of the KV.

⁹⁶A. Clericuzio, Elements, Principles and Corpuscles, 138–43.

⁹⁷A. Gabbey, ‘Spinoza and Mechanical Philosophy’, Conference on Mechanics and Natural Philosophy, Grenoble, 17–19 November 2005.

⁹⁸See letter 6.

⁹⁹See proposition 35 and 41 of E2.

¹⁰⁰See letter 13.

¹⁰¹Spinoza here applies the terminology: ‘experientia vaga’ and ‘experimentum’. He uses the same terminology in his Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect. There he defines ‘casual experience’ (experientia vaga) as ‘experience that is not determined by intellect, but is so called because it chances thus to occur, and we have experienced nothing else that contradicts it, so that it remains in our minds unchallenged’. Spinoza defines ‘experientia vaga’ also in Scholium 2 of E2p40: ‘From individual objects presented to us through the senses in a fragmentary (mutilate) and confused manner without any intellectual order [see Cor.Pr. 29, II]; and therefore I call such perceptions “knowledge from casual experience”.’ P.F. Moreau remarked that we already find the distinction between experientia and experimentum in the dispute between P. Grassi and Galileo. See J.P. Moreau, Spinoza - L'expérience et l'éternité. (Paris: PUF, 1994), 264.

¹⁰²See letter 6.

¹⁰³See letter 16.

¹⁰⁴See E.J. Dijksterhuis, Clio's stiefkind, edited by K. van Berkel (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 1990), 169–92.