彼得鲁斯·范·穆申布鲁克(1692-1761)关于物理学的范围及其在哲学中的地位

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 Q4 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
S. Ducheyne
{"title":"彼得鲁斯·范·穆申布鲁克(1692-1761)关于物理学的范围及其在哲学中的地位","authors":"S. Ducheyne","doi":"10.3989/ASCLEPIO.2016.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a supplement to John L. Heilbron’s account, I will argue that, although the label ‘experimental physics’ can be rightfully used to describe aspects of Petrus van Musschenbroek’s (1692-1761) work, the latter’s understanding of ‘physica’ is to be situated within a broader framework in which theological, philosophical and teleological considerations continued to play an important role. First, I will draw attention to Musschenbroek’s views on the scope of physica and especially to his conception of a law of nature. It will be shown that by radicalizing certain aspects of Isaac Newton’s methodological ideas van Musschenbroek no longer considered physics as the discipline that uncovered causes from effects, as Newton did, but as the discipline that studies the effects of unknown causes. In addition, I will show that van Musschenbroek endorsed the view that the laws of nature are contingent on God’s free will and that they are knowable due to his goodness. Second, it will be argued that for van Musschenbroek physics, alongside with teleology, had clear physico-theological repercussions. Along the way, van Musschenbroek’s views on the principle of sufficient reason will be discussed for the first time.","PeriodicalId":44082,"journal":{"name":"Asclepio-Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Petrus Van Musschenbroek (1692-1761) on the scope of physica and its place within philosophia\",\"authors\":\"S. Ducheyne\",\"doi\":\"10.3989/ASCLEPIO.2016.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As a supplement to John L. Heilbron’s account, I will argue that, although the label ‘experimental physics’ can be rightfully used to describe aspects of Petrus van Musschenbroek’s (1692-1761) work, the latter’s understanding of ‘physica’ is to be situated within a broader framework in which theological, philosophical and teleological considerations continued to play an important role. First, I will draw attention to Musschenbroek’s views on the scope of physica and especially to his conception of a law of nature. It will be shown that by radicalizing certain aspects of Isaac Newton’s methodological ideas van Musschenbroek no longer considered physics as the discipline that uncovered causes from effects, as Newton did, but as the discipline that studies the effects of unknown causes. In addition, I will show that van Musschenbroek endorsed the view that the laws of nature are contingent on God’s free will and that they are knowable due to his goodness. Second, it will be argued that for van Musschenbroek physics, alongside with teleology, had clear physico-theological repercussions. Along the way, van Musschenbroek’s views on the principle of sufficient reason will be discussed for the first time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asclepio-Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asclepio-Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3989/ASCLEPIO.2016.02\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asclepio-Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3989/ASCLEPIO.2016.02","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

作为对John L. Heilbron的叙述的补充,我认为,尽管“实验物理学”这个标签可以正确地用来描述Petrus van Musschenbroek(1692-1761)工作的各个方面,但后者对“物理学”的理解应该放在一个更广泛的框架中,在这个框架中,神学、哲学和目的论的考虑继续发挥重要作用。首先,我将提请注意Musschenbroek对物理学范围的看法,特别是他对自然法则的概念。我们将看到,通过激进化艾萨克·牛顿方法论思想的某些方面,范·穆申布鲁克不再像牛顿那样,把物理学看作是一门从结果中发现原因的学科,而是一门研究未知原因的结果的学科。此外,我将表明,范·穆申布鲁克赞同这样一种观点,即自然法则取决于上帝的自由意志,由于上帝的仁慈,它们是可知的。其次,有人会说,对于范·穆申布鲁克来说,物理学和目的论有着明显的物理神学影响。一路上,范穆申布鲁克关于充分理由原则的观点将首次被讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Petrus Van Musschenbroek (1692-1761) on the scope of physica and its place within philosophia
As a supplement to John L. Heilbron’s account, I will argue that, although the label ‘experimental physics’ can be rightfully used to describe aspects of Petrus van Musschenbroek’s (1692-1761) work, the latter’s understanding of ‘physica’ is to be situated within a broader framework in which theological, philosophical and teleological considerations continued to play an important role. First, I will draw attention to Musschenbroek’s views on the scope of physica and especially to his conception of a law of nature. It will be shown that by radicalizing certain aspects of Isaac Newton’s methodological ideas van Musschenbroek no longer considered physics as the discipline that uncovered causes from effects, as Newton did, but as the discipline that studies the effects of unknown causes. In addition, I will show that van Musschenbroek endorsed the view that the laws of nature are contingent on God’s free will and that they are knowable due to his goodness. Second, it will be argued that for van Musschenbroek physics, alongside with teleology, had clear physico-theological repercussions. Along the way, van Musschenbroek’s views on the principle of sufficient reason will be discussed for the first time.
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
0.50
自引率
50.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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