Dairy

Mechanical Philosophy

STS 112: 2011

David Mercer

Some Key Figures

• Rene Descartes: 1596-1650

• Thomas Hobbes: 1598-1676

• Pierre Gassendi: 1592-1655

• Marin Mersenne: 1588-1648

• Isaac Beekman: 1588-1636

Emergence of Natural Philosophy

• 1620’s-40’s ideas emerge and by about 1660-1670 variations of Mechanical Philosophy become widely accepted amongst the educated majority

• Aristotelianism still taught at Universities but dies off and loses prestige

• During the 1700’s Newton’s variations on Mechanical Philosophy then begin to dominate

Competition between different versions of Natural Philosophy

• Mechanical Philosophy in a sense ‘won’ a contest between a variety of alternative Natural Philosophical approaches which emerged as Aristotelianism declined.

• Fight between: • Mechanical Philosophy • Traditional Aristotelianism • Various forms of Neo-Platonism

Different Social Orientations

• Mechanical Philosophy tended to be more acceptable to politics of the time: captured various elements of Magical and Neo-Platonist natural philosophies in a more ‘sober’ way. Also some resonance with increasing importance of crafts and ‘Baconian’( Frances Bacon) ideas of experiment and knowledge being applied to practical ends

• Neo-Platonism often linked to Natural Magic and Alchemy which in turn was often linked to more radical religious and social views. The Church and social elites wary of some of these trends.

• Aristotelianism represented knowledge of past elites had been eroded via Humanism and other Renaissance movements was loosing credibility

• Return to these points later

Central features of Natural Philosophy

• Remember always variations here and there on points of detail bounded by broad agreement of fundamentals and actors identifying with it as their tradition.

• Revision: Note an aim of Natural Philosophy was to provide comprehensive and integrated and coherent explanations for things like: (1)What is the Universe made up of ? (2) How is it organised (3) How do we explain change in nature ?(4)How do we gain knowledge of nature

What is the world made of?

• 3 Fundamental things

• 1: God

• 2: Human Mind (or Soul)

• 3: Atoms ( or combinations of them) the preferred term came to be ‘corpuscles’.

Corpuscles

• Limited number of properties: • (A) In principle quantifiable • (B) Have size and shape • (C) Moveable and impenetrable: when they

collide they don’t break up. • This also means following (A) above studying

the laws behind the collection of Atoms (that make up the physical bodies we see in nature) and collision between atoms is likely to be extremely revealing about nature.

Primary and Secondary Qualities

• Remember Galileo is pre-occupied with Primary vs Secondary Qualities in nature this idea taken further in Mechanical Philosophy

• No atoms for colour, taste, heat, smells. • Atoms (corpuscles) just produce these effects in

the Human Mind as a result of their size, shape movement etc

• Secondary qualities exist only in the Human Mind. They are subjective

Central Metaphor/Nature as a Machine

• Machines (pre ‘self powered’ complex machines or like modern electronic machines which are inscrutable, we can’t see how they work)

• This era machines made up of pulleys, screws, planes, levers. With an outside force and various combinations of parts an input at one end could be converted to something else at the other, all obeying simple rules, that could be quantified.

• Simple ‘machines’ cogs levers springs could make up deceptively complex devices clocks, mills etc. Some extremely elaborate Clocks at this time

• Has any ever played the game Mousetrap ?

Extending the Metaphor

• Machines can be broken down pulled to pieces to help understand how they work and the processes involved are assumed to be measurable and described according to mathematical rules

• This should be possible to also do to Nature. Nature should be able to be broken down taken to pieces see what things are made of how they are arranged and what mathematically measurable processes may be involved.

• The emerging ideas of experiment drawn from Galileo and Bacon and others fit well with this attitude. To paraphrase a famous quite from Bacon. Nature needs to be ‘interrogated’ by Natural Philosophers to give up ‘Her secrets’.

Re-assembling Nature

• These attitudes also imply nature might be able to be re- assembled into better forms

• This dovetails well with the interests of increasingly important groups of artisans and craftsmen and the idea that Natural Philosophy should be applied to improving the Human Condition.

• If Nature was simply dead matter, there are no limits on exploiting it for human benefit. Humans are the masters and owners of Nature

• Note contrasts with Aristotelian tendencies to see nature as something to be contemplated in itself not broken down or re-built. We are part of it.

Human’s and God • Complex sets of arguments re: the place of Humans and God in all of this: • Nature as a Machine (remember Machines of that era) needed an outside

force to get it started ie: obviously a role for God • Machines needed to have a designer: an obvious role for God the creator • How do we as humans made up of ‘mechanical bodies’ get to understand all

of these processes? Because God has given us a mind and a human soul • The existence of the Human mind becomes an argument for the existence

of God • When we as Humans use our minds to unpack and rebuild nature we are in

a sense acting a little in a micro sense doing what God did to build Nature to start with.

• No need for miracles, charismatic Magicians or ‘spiritual immaterial’ forces. • Nature can’t do anything by-itself • Much more abstract role for God as the great clockmaker. • Suited ‘Doctrine of Creation’

Some Challenges • Some entities such as light, magnetism etc were difficult to explain using

strict mechanical principles, should further forces be added and if so what should they be, and do they mess up the neatness of the system. Particularly If they appear to operate according to mathematical laws but don’t seem corpuscular what do we do? Newton will grapple with some of these issues

• How plausible is it see all living things as simple machines except for humans (because we have soul/mind)

• For example dogs and other animals, seem to display emotions, is this simply an effect of atoms and mechanical forces? Do they possess a little bit of soul ? Or does a mechanical philosophy of nature have limitations ?

• Platonist influenced ideas of the so called ‘great chain of being’ persisted for some time in areas of study of the ‘ life sciences’ despite the popularity of Mechanistic views.

• Descartes and other Mechanists were unwilling to grant dogs any kind of soul because it raised theological issues re: the uniqueness of Humans and their relationship with God. They had no problems with engaging in cruel experiments on animals ie; no soul =no pain this disturbed some other natural philosophers, ie: some loved their pet dogs.

• Theological issues would also be debated re: omnipotent vs omnipresent God

• ie: Was God only required to design the clock and wind it up to start with. If so where is he in the day to day world?

• Is God therefore required to keep the machine operating through active engagement via laws of nature ?