Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Anon (Lev), Joseph Almog and Isaac Newton

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


11 ideas

26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 1. Laws of Nature
The principles of my treatise are designed to fit with a belief in God [Newton]
     Full Idea: When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men, for the belief of a deity.
     From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1692.12.10)
     A reaction: Harré quotes this, and it shows that the rather passive view of nature Newton developed was to be supplemented by the active power of God. Without God, we need a more active view of nature.
Principles of things are not hidden features of forms, but the laws by which they were formed [Newton]
     Full Idea: The (active) principles I consider not as occult qualities, supposed to result from the specific forms of things, but as general laws of nature, by which the things themselves are formed.
     From: Isaac Newton (Queries to the 'Opticks' [1721], q 31), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 23.6
     A reaction: This is the external, 'imposed' view of laws (with the matter passive) at its most persuasive. If laws arise out the stuff (as I prefer to think), what principles went into the formulation of the stuff?
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / a. Regularity theory
I do not pretend to know the cause of gravity [Newton]
     Full Idea: You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent in matter. Pray do no ascribe that notion to me; for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know.
     From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1693.01.17)
     A reaction: I take science to be a two-stage operation - first we discern the regularities, and then we explain them. Evolution was spotted, then explained by Darwin. Cancer from cigarettes was spotted, but hasn't been explained. Regularity is the beginning.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 6. Laws as Numerical
You have discovered that elliptical orbits result just from gravitation and planetary movement [Newton, by Leibniz]
     Full Idea: You have made the astonishing discovery that Kepler's ellipses result simply from the conception of attraction or gravitation and passage in a planet.
     From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Gottfried Leibniz - Letter to Newton 1693.03.07
     A reaction: I quote this to show that Newton made 'an astonishing discovery' of a connection in nature, and did not merely produce an equation which described a pattern of behaviour. The simple equation is the proof of the connection.
We have given up substantial forms, and now aim for mathematical laws [Newton]
     Full Idea: The moderns - rejecting substantial forms and occult qualities - have undertaken to reduce the phenomena of nature to mathematical laws.
     From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Preface)
     A reaction: This is the simplest statement of the apparent anti-Aristotelian revolution in the seventeenth century.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / c. Essence and laws
I am not saying gravity is essential to bodies [Newton]
     Full Idea: I am by no means asserting that gravity is essential to bodies.
     From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Rule 3)
     A reaction: Notice that in Idea 17009 he does not rule out gravity being essential to bodies. This is Newton's intellectual modesty (for which he is not famous).
I won't object if someone shows that gravity consistently arises from the action of matter [Newton]
     Full Idea: If someone explains gravity along with all its laws by the action of some subtle matter, and shows that the motion of the planets and comets will not be disturbed by this matter, I shall be far from objecting.
     From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Leibniz 1 [1693], 1693.10.16)
     A reaction: Important if you think that Newton is the hero of the descriptive regularity theory of laws. Newton probably thought laws came from God, but he wouldn't object to Leibniz's view, that God planted the laws within the matter.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / e. Anti scientific essentialism
The motions of the planets could only derive from an intelligent agent [Newton]
     Full Idea: The motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone, but were impressed by an intelligent agent.
     From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1692.12.10)
     A reaction: He is writing to a cleric, but seems to be quite sincere about this. Elsewhere he just says he doesn't know what causes gravity.
That gravity should be innate and essential to matter is absurd [Newton]
     Full Idea: That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter ...is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.
     From: Isaac Newton (Letters to Bentley [1692], 1693.02.25)
     A reaction: He is replying to some sermons, and he pays vague lip service to a possible divine force. Nevertheless, this is thoroughgoing anti-essentialism, and he talks of external 'laws' in the next sentence. Newton still sought the cause of gravity.
Defining an essence comes no where near giving a thing's nature [Almog]
     Full Idea: The natures of things are neither exhausted nor even partially given by 'defining essences'.
     From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], Intro)
     A reaction: A better criticism of essentialism. 'Natures' is a much vaguer word than 'essences', however, because the latter refers to what is stable and important, whereas natures could include any aspect. Being ticklish is in my nature, but not in my essence.
Essences promise to reveal reality, but actually drive us away from it [Almog]
     Full Idea: The essentialist line (one I trace to Aristotle, Descartes and Kripke) is driving us away from, not closer to, the real nature of things. It promised a sort of Hubble telescope - essences - able to reveal the deep structure of reality.
     From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], Intro)
     A reaction: I suspect this is tilting at a straw man. No one thinks we should hunt for essences instead of doing normal science. 'Essence' just labels what you've got when you succeed.