Dr.
Filip Buyse, die momenteel als “visiting research fellow” aan het Descartes
Centre in Utrecht verbonden is, schreef (weer eens) over de correspondentie die
Robert Boyle en Spinoza (via Oldenburg) voerden over de salpeter-proeven van Boyle.
Zie
onder eerdere artikelen van hem over dit, of een vergelijkbaar, onderwerp en cf. het blog van 24-03-2013: “Spinoza bezocht wellicht het
laboratorium van Johann Rudolph Glauber.” In dat blog verwijs ik naar Buyse’s artikel
“The Gunpowder Reaction: A Controversy between Boyle and Spinoza?” De link in dat
blog is naar een website (benedictusdespinoza.nl) die al geruime tijd niet meer bestaat. Hier
een nieuwe link naar het pdf ervan (dat ik zojuist naar een
andere plek op internet heb overgebracht). Nu verschijnt van hem:
Filip
A. A. Buyse, Boyle, Spinoza and Glauber: on the philosophical redintegration of
saltpeter - a reply to Antonio Clericuzio. In: Foundations of Chemistry,
Philosophical, Historical, Educational and Interdisciplinary Studies of
Chemistry; forthcoming - First Online: 24 September 2019 [cf. Springer]. Filip bracht het naar Philarchive.org
en academia.edu.
Abstract:
The so-called ‘redintegration experiment’ is traditionally at the center of the
comments on the supposed Boyle/Spinoza controversy. A. Clericuzio influentially
argued in his publications that, in De nitro, Boyle accounted for the
‘redintegration’ of saltpeter on the grounds of the chemical properties of
corpuscles and “did not make any attempt to deduce them from mechanical
principles”. By way of contrast, this paper argues that with his De nitro Boyle
wanted to illustrate and promote his new corpuscular or mechanical philosophy,
and that he made significant attempts to explain the phenomena in terms of
mechanical qualities. Boyle had borrowed the ‘redintegration experiment’ from
R. Glauber and used it in an attempt to demonstrate that his philosophy was
superior to .the Peripatetic and Paracelsian theory. Consequently, Clericuzio’s
characterization of the Boyle/Spinoza controversy as a discussion between a
strict mechanical philosopher and a chemist is problematic and a wider view of
Spinoza’s interpretation and its context gives a fairer picture
Het bijzondere en meest eigene van Filip Buyse is wel, dat hij Johann Rudolph Glauber aan de orde stelt bij de controverse Boyle-Spinoza.
In de Annals of Science 47 (6) (1990), pp. 561-589 schreef Antonio Clericuzio: A redefinition of Boyle's chemistry and corpuscular philosophy
In de Annals of Science 47 (6) (1990), pp. 561-589 schreef Antonio Clericuzio: A redefinition of Boyle's chemistry and corpuscular philosophy
Summary Robert
Boyle did not subordinate chemistry to mechanical philosophy. He was in fact
reluctant to explain chemical phenomena by having recourse to the mechanical
properties of particles. For him chemistry provided a primary way of
penetrating into nature. In his chemical works he employed corpuscles endowed
with chemical properties as his explanans. Boyle's chemistry was corpuscular,
rather than mechanical. As Boyle's views of seminal principles show, his
corpuscular philosophy cannot be described as a purely mechanical theory of
matter. Boyle's classification of corpuscles allowed him to connect his
corpuscular views of matter with chemistry. Boyle did not rule out the
possibility of a classification of chemical substances based on their
properties: his aim was to reform the received classification [cf. Philpapers]
● Filip A. A. Buyse, Spinoza and Robert Boyle's Definition of
Mechanical Philosophy. In: Historia
Philosophica 8 [2010], pp.73-89. [PDF op academia.edu]
● Filip Buyse, Spinoza, Boyle, Galileo: Was Spinoza a Strict
Mechanical Philosopher? In: Intellectual
History Review 23 (1) [2013], pp. 45-64. [PDF]
● Buyse, F., Boyle, Spinoza and the Hartlib Circle: the
correspondence which never took place. In: Soc.
Polit. 7(2), (2013), pp. 34–53 [PDF]
● Filip A. A. Buyse, Spinoza and Christiaan Huygens: The Odd
Philosopher and the Odd Sympathy of Pendulum Clocks. In: Society and Politics 11 (2) [2017], pp. 115-138. [PDF op academia.edu]
Deze reactie is verwijderd door de auteur.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenOff topic. Eerste deel van onze geschiedenis gepubliceerd door Thierry Baudet van het Forum voor Democratie gaat over Francescus van den Enden. Goed initiatief..hulde.
BeantwoordenVerwijderen