{"title":"原子论与笛卡尔主义:1650 年代乌得勒支争论中的加森迪和戈尔莱乌斯(以及更多人","authors":"Erik-Jan Bos","doi":"10.1163/24055069-08040006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the 1650s, two professors of philosophy at the University of Utrecht defended atomism. Interestingly, one of them, Johannes de Bruyn, is considered to be a staunch Cartesian, while the other, Daniel Voet, was a neo-Aristotelian and strongly opposed to Descartes’s philosophy. This article examines this curious situation and analyses the theories of both professors. While converging with Gassendi on several crucial points, their theories relied mainly on other sources. Since De Bruyn’s atomistic view has never been studied before, the main part of the article is devoted to him and his sources. Surprisingly, it turns out that David Gorlaeus was a source of inspiration for De Bruyn’s development of a new type of Cartesianism.","PeriodicalId":37173,"journal":{"name":"Erudition and the Republic of Letters","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Atomism and Cartesianism: Gassendi and Gorlaeus (and More) in Utrecht Disputations in the 1650s\",\"authors\":\"Erik-Jan Bos\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24055069-08040006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the 1650s, two professors of philosophy at the University of Utrecht defended atomism. Interestingly, one of them, Johannes de Bruyn, is considered to be a staunch Cartesian, while the other, Daniel Voet, was a neo-Aristotelian and strongly opposed to Descartes’s philosophy. This article examines this curious situation and analyses the theories of both professors. While converging with Gassendi on several crucial points, their theories relied mainly on other sources. Since De Bruyn’s atomistic view has never been studied before, the main part of the article is devoted to him and his sources. Surprisingly, it turns out that David Gorlaeus was a source of inspiration for De Bruyn’s development of a new type of Cartesianism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37173,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Erudition and the Republic of Letters\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Erudition and the Republic of Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/24055069-08040006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Erudition and the Republic of Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24055069-08040006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
1650 年代,乌得勒支大学的两位哲学教授为原子论辩护。有趣的是,其中一位约翰内斯-德-布鲁因(Johannes de Bruyn)被认为是坚定的笛卡尔主义者,而另一位丹尼尔-沃伊特(Daniel Voet)则是新亚里士多德主义者,强烈反对笛卡尔哲学。本文探讨了这一奇怪的情况,并分析了两位教授的理论。虽然他们在几个关键点上与伽森迪的观点一致,但他们的理论主要依赖于其他来源。由于德布鲁因的原子论观点以前从未被研究过,因此文章的主要部分专门讨论他和他的资料来源。令人惊讶的是,大卫-戈尔莱乌斯(David Gorlaeus)竟然是德布鲁恩发展新型笛卡尔主义的灵感来源。
Atomism and Cartesianism: Gassendi and Gorlaeus (and More) in Utrecht Disputations in the 1650s
In the 1650s, two professors of philosophy at the University of Utrecht defended atomism. Interestingly, one of them, Johannes de Bruyn, is considered to be a staunch Cartesian, while the other, Daniel Voet, was a neo-Aristotelian and strongly opposed to Descartes’s philosophy. This article examines this curious situation and analyses the theories of both professors. While converging with Gassendi on several crucial points, their theories relied mainly on other sources. Since De Bruyn’s atomistic view has never been studied before, the main part of the article is devoted to him and his sources. Surprisingly, it turns out that David Gorlaeus was a source of inspiration for De Bruyn’s development of a new type of Cartesianism.