Filip Buyse nogmaals over de salpeter-correspondentie tussen Boyle en #Spinoza

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

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]

Hier gaat Buyse dus tegenin. Eerdere vergelijkbare artikelen van zijn hand:

 

● 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]

 

Het laboratorium van Johann Rudolph Glauber [ill. uit Buyse's  artikel]