On the origin of modern naturalism: the significance of Berkeley’s response to a Newtonian indispensibility argument

Q4 Arts and Humanities
E. Schliesser
{"title":"On the origin of modern naturalism: the significance of Berkeley’s response to a Newtonian indispensibility argument","authors":"E. Schliesser","doi":"10.21825/philosophica.82203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I call attention to Berkeley’s treatment of a Newtonian indispensability argument against his own m ain position. I argue that the presence of this argument marks a significant moment in the history of philosophy and science: Newton’s achievements could serve as a separate and authoritative source of justification within philosophy. This marks the presence of a new kind of naturalism. A long the way, I argue against the claim tha t there is no explicit opposition or distinction between “philosophy” and “science” until the nineteenth century. Finally, I argue for the conceptual unity between Berkeley’s","PeriodicalId":36843,"journal":{"name":"Argumenta Philosophica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumenta Philosophica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

I call attention to Berkeley’s treatment of a Newtonian indispensability argument against his own m ain position. I argue that the presence of this argument marks a significant moment in the history of philosophy and science: Newton’s achievements could serve as a separate and authoritative source of justification within philosophy. This marks the presence of a new kind of naturalism. A long the way, I argue against the claim tha t there is no explicit opposition or distinction between “philosophy” and “science” until the nineteenth century. Finally, I argue for the conceptual unity between Berkeley’s
论现代自然主义的起源:柏克莱回应牛顿不可或缺论的意义
我提请大家注意伯克利是如何处理牛顿的不可缺少性论点,而不是他自己的主要立场的。我认为,这一论点的出现标志着哲学和科学史上的一个重要时刻:牛顿的成就可以作为哲学内部证明的一个独立和权威的来源。这标志着一种新的自然主义的出现。在很长一段时间里,我反对“哲学”和“科学”之间直到19世纪才有明确的对立或区别的说法。最后,我论证了柏克莱的理论在概念上的统一
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Argumenta Philosophica
Argumenta Philosophica Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信