几何、宗教与政治:霍布斯-沃利斯之争的背景与后果

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
D. Jesseph
{"title":"几何、宗教与政治:霍布斯-沃利斯之争的背景与后果","authors":"D. Jesseph","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2018.0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dispute that raged between Thomas Hobbes and John Wallis from 1655 until Hobbes's death in 1679 was one of the most intense of the ‘battles of the books’ in seventeenth-century intellectual life. The dispute was principally centered on geometric questions (most notably Hobbes’s many failed attempts to square the circle), but it also involved questions of religion and politics. This paper investigates the origins of the dispute and argues that Wallis’s primary motivation was not so much to refute Hobbes’s geometry as to demolish his reputation as an authority in political, philosophical, and religious matters. It also highlights the very different conceptions of geometrical methodology employed by the two disputants. In the end, I argue that, although Wallis was successful in showing the inadequacies of Hobbes’s geometric endeavours, he failed in his quest to discredit the Hobbesian philosophy in toto.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"469 - 486"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0026","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geometry, religion and politics: context and consequences of the Hobbes–Wallis dispute\",\"authors\":\"D. Jesseph\",\"doi\":\"10.1098/rsnr.2018.0026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The dispute that raged between Thomas Hobbes and John Wallis from 1655 until Hobbes's death in 1679 was one of the most intense of the ‘battles of the books’ in seventeenth-century intellectual life. The dispute was principally centered on geometric questions (most notably Hobbes’s many failed attempts to square the circle), but it also involved questions of religion and politics. This paper investigates the origins of the dispute and argues that Wallis’s primary motivation was not so much to refute Hobbes’s geometry as to demolish his reputation as an authority in political, philosophical, and religious matters. It also highlights the very different conceptions of geometrical methodology employed by the two disputants. In the end, I argue that, although Wallis was successful in showing the inadequacies of Hobbes’s geometric endeavours, he failed in his quest to discredit the Hobbesian philosophy in toto.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"469 - 486\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0026\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0026\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0026","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

1655年至1679年,托马斯·霍布斯(Thomas Hobbes)和约翰·沃利斯(John Wallis)之间的激烈争论是17世纪知识界最激烈的“书籍之战”之一。争论主要集中在几何问题上(最引人注目的是霍布斯多次试图使圆方起来的失败尝试),但也涉及宗教和政治问题。本文调查了争论的起源,并认为沃利斯的主要动机与其说是反驳霍布斯的几何学,不如说是摧毁他作为政治、哲学和宗教事务权威的声誉。它还突出了两位争论者所采用的几何方法论的非常不同的概念。最后,我认为,尽管沃利斯成功地展示了霍布斯几何努力的不足之处,但他未能全面诋毁霍布斯哲学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Geometry, religion and politics: context and consequences of the Hobbes–Wallis dispute
The dispute that raged between Thomas Hobbes and John Wallis from 1655 until Hobbes's death in 1679 was one of the most intense of the ‘battles of the books’ in seventeenth-century intellectual life. The dispute was principally centered on geometric questions (most notably Hobbes’s many failed attempts to square the circle), but it also involved questions of religion and politics. This paper investigates the origins of the dispute and argues that Wallis’s primary motivation was not so much to refute Hobbes’s geometry as to demolish his reputation as an authority in political, philosophical, and religious matters. It also highlights the very different conceptions of geometrical methodology employed by the two disputants. In the end, I argue that, although Wallis was successful in showing the inadequacies of Hobbes’s geometric endeavours, he failed in his quest to discredit the Hobbesian philosophy in toto.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Notes and Records is an international journal which publishes original research in the history of science, technology and medicine. In addition to publishing peer-reviewed research articles in all areas of the history of science, technology and medicine, Notes and Records welcomes other forms of contribution including: research notes elucidating recent archival discoveries (in the collections of the Royal Society and elsewhere); news of research projects and online and other resources of interest to historians; essay reviews, on material relating primarily to the history of the Royal Society; and recollections or autobiographical accounts written by Fellows and others recording important moments in science from the recent past.
×
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