Three Infinities in Early Modern Philosophy

Mind ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 128 (512) ◽  
pp. 1117-1147
Author(s):  
Anat Schechtman
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
The Other ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Mathematics And Physics

Abstract Many historical and philosophical studies treat infinity as an exclusively quantitative notion, whose proper domain of application is mathematics and physics. The main aim of this paper is to disentangle, by critically examining, three notions of infinity in the early modern period, and to argue that one—but only one—of them is quantitative. One of these non-quantitative notions concerns being or reality, while the other concerns a particular iterative property of an aggregate. These three notions will emerge through examination of three central figures in the period: Locke (for quantitative infinity), Descartes (ontic infinity), and Leibniz (iterative infinity).

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Volume X

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Annual Series ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Modern Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Selection Of

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy is an annual series, presenting a selection of the best current work in the history of early modern philosophy. It focuses on the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—the extraordinary period of intellectual flourishing that begins, roughly, with Descartes and his contemporaries and ends with Kant. It also publishes work on thinkers or movements outside of that framework, provided they are important in illuminating early modern thought. The core of the subject matter is philosophy and its history. But the volume’s chapters reflect the fact that philosophy in the early modern period was much broader in its scope than it is currently taken to be and included a great deal of what now belongs to the natural sciences. Furthermore, philosophy in the period was closely connected with other disciplines, such as theology, law and medicine, and with larger questions of social, political, and religious history. Volume 10 includes chapters dedicated to a wide set of topics in the philosophies of Thomas White, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, and Hume.

Descartes and the Seven Senses of Indifference in Early Modern Philosophy

Dialogue ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 577-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Lennon
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
The Will

ABSTRACT: Indifference is a term often used to describe the sort of freedom had by the will according to the libertarian, or Molinist account. It is thought to be a univocal term. In fact, however, it is used in at least seven different ways, in a variety of domains during the early modern period. All of them have plausible roots in Descartes, but he himself uses the term in only one sense, and failure to notice this consistent use by him has bedeviled interpretations of his account of the will.

What Does History Matter to the History of Philosophy?

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 406-424
Author(s):  
Stephen Gaukroger
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Matter

Abstract Contrary to most modern interpretations, in the early modern period, history was an indispensable resource for many philosophers. The different uses of history by Bacon, Gassendi, Locke, and Hume are explored to establish the role of history as a resource in early-modern philosophy.

Judgment and belief, in early modern philosophy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Marušić
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Causal Influence ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Difference

What is the difference between simply thinking about something and judging or believing that something is the case? One finds a remarkable range of answers to this question in the early modern period. A traditional approach to judgment has its origins in Aristotle and treats judgment as closely related to predication. Judging, on this view, is a matter of affirming or denying something of something else. Affirming and denying, in turn, are different forms of predication: affirming whiteness of snow results in the judgment that snow is white; denying whiteness of snow results in the judgment that snow is not white. Descartes rejects this approach and instead treats judgment as an act of will. He holds that the intellect or understanding presents us with a complete content for judgment, and then the will, in a separate act, assents or dissents to this content. Spinoza rejects both the Aristotelian and Cartesian views by holding, against the Aristotelian view, that every idea has propositional content and also, against the Cartesian view, that every idea is an affirmation. Spinoza claims that judgment or affirmation just consists in the causal influence that an idea has on us, and he holds that all ideas have some influence. Thus, Spinoza holds the radical view that all ideas are judgments. Finally, Hume also rejects both the Aristotelian and Cartesian views. Against the Aristotelians, he denies that what is judged or believed must always be a proposition with a subject–predicate structure. Against the Cartesians, he denies that belief is in any way subject to the will. Finally, against Spinoza he insists that there are some ideas that are merely conceived and not believed or judged. Hume holds that beliefs differ from ideas that are not believed in a way that makes beliefs more like perceptual experiences.

The World Soul in Early Modern Philosophy

2021 ◽  
pp. 186-222
Author(s):  
Alison Peterman
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Natural Philosophy ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Modern Natural ◽  
The World

The world soul was often a target of attack in early modern natural philosophy, on grounds of impiety and explanatory vacuity. But it also played an important role in debates about two of the most important questions in natural philosophy: How does nature depend on God, and what explains nature’s organization? As an answer to those questions, it lived on through the early modern period, sustained especially by philosophers who argued that individuals in nature cannot be understood in isolation from the whole. In this chapter it is argued that in this guise, it served as an alternative model of explanation in a context that increasingly emphasized explanation in terms of laws of nature, and that this reflects the fact that these two models represent two fundamentally competing approaches to natural philosophical explanation.

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Volume VIII

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Annual Series ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Modern Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Selection Of

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy is an annual series, presenting a selection of the best current work in the history of early modern philosophy. It focuses on the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—the extraordinary period of intellectual flourishing that begins, roughly, with Descartes and his contemporaries and ends with Kant. It also publishes work on thinkers or movements outside of that framework, provided they are important in illuminating early modern thought. The core of the subject matter is philosophy and its history. But the volume’s chapters reflect the fact that philosophy in the early modern period was much broader in its scope than it is currently taken to be and included a great deal of what now belongs to the natural sciences. Furthermore, philosophy in the period was closely connected with other disciplines, such as theology, and with larger questions of social, political, and religious history. Volume 8 includes chapters dedicated to a wide set of topics in the philosophies of Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, Wolff, and Kant.

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Volume IX

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Annual Series ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Modern Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Selection Of

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy is an annual series, presenting a selection of the best current work in the history of early modern philosophy. It focuses on the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—the extraordinary period of intellectual flourishing that begins, roughly, with Descartes and his contemporaries and ends with Kant. It also publishes work on thinkers or movements outside of that framework, provided they are important in illuminating early modern thought. The core of the subject matter is philosophy and its history. But the volume’s chapters reflect the fact that philosophy in the early modern period was much broader in its scope than it is currently taken to be and included a great deal of what now belongs to the natural sciences. Furthermore, philosophy in the period was closely connected with other disciplines, such as theology, law, and medicine, and with larger questions of social, political, and religious history. Volume 9 includes chapters dedicated to a wide set of topics in the philosophies of Descartes, Malebranche, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant.

The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Ontological Status ◽  
Nicolas Malebranche ◽  
Early Modern Philosophy ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Pierre Gassendi ◽  
Ralph Cudworth ◽  
Henry More ◽  
Scholastic Philosophy

The ancient topic of universals was central to scholastic philosophy, which raised the question of whether universals exist as Platonic forms, as instantiated Aristotelian forms, as concepts abstracted from singular things, or as words that have universal signification. It might be thought that this question lost its importance after the decline of scholasticism in the modern period. However, the fourteen contributions to this volume indicate that the issue of universals retained its vitality in modern philosophy. Modern philosophers in fact were interested in three sets of issues concerning universals: (1) issues concerning the ontological status of universals, (2) issues concerning the psychology of the formation of universal concepts or terms, and (3) issues concerning the value and use of universal concepts or terms in the acquisition of knowledge. Chapters in this volume consider the various forms of “Platonism,” “conceptualism,” and “nominalism” (and distinctive combinations thereof) that emerged from the consideration of such issues in the work of modern philosophers. The volume covers not only the canonical modern figures, namely, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, but also more neglected figures such as Pierre Gassendi, Pierre-Sylvain Regis, Nicolas Malebranche, Henry More, Ralph Cudworth, and John Norris.

Late Scholastic Analyses of Inductive Reasoning

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-66
Author(s):  
Miroslav Hanke ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Macro Level ◽  
Newtonian Physics ◽  
Academic Philosophy ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Scholastic Philosophy ◽  
Mathematics And Physics

The late scholastic era was, among others, contemporary to the “emergence of probability”, the German academic philosophy from Leibniz to Kant, and the introduction of Newtonian physics. Within this era, two branches of the late-scholastic analysis of induction can be identified, one which can be thought of as a continual development of earlier scholastic approaches, while the other one absorbed influences of early modern philosophy, mathematics, and physics. Both branches of scholastic philosophy share the terminology of modalities, probability, and forms of (inductive) arguments. Furthermore, induction was commonly considered valid as a result of being a covert syllogism. Last but not least, there appears to be a difference in emphasis between the two traditions’ analyses of induction: while Tolomei discussed the theological presuppositions of induction, Amort’s “leges contingentium” exemplify the principles of induction by aleatory phenomena and Boscovich’s rules for inductive arguments are predominately concerned with the generalisation of macro-level observations to the micro-level.

scholarly journals Back from Shingly: Revisiting the premodern history of Jews in Kerala

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ophira Gamliel
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Jewish History ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Colonial Period ◽  
The Other ◽  
Oral Traditions ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One

Jewish history in Kerala is based on sources mainly from the colonial period onward and mostly in European languages, failing to account for the premodern history of Jews in Kerala. These early modern sources are based on oral traditions of Paradeśi Jews in Cochin, who view the majority of Kerala Jews as inferior. Consequently, the premodern history of Kerala Jews remains untold, despite the existence of premodern sources that undermine unsupported notions about the premodern history of Kerala Jews—a Jewish ‘ur-settlement’ called Shingly in Kodungallur and a centuries-old isolation from world Jewry. This article reconstructs Jewish history in premodern Kerala solely based on premodern travelogues and literature on the one hand and on historical documents in Old Malayalam, Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic on the other hand. Sources of the early modern period are then examined for tracing the origins of the Shingly myth, arguing that the incorporation of the Shingly legend into the historiography of Kerala Jews was affected by contacts with European Jews in the Age of Discoveries rather than being a reflection of historical events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document