Mechanism and Its Limits

Reid, Jasper

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_8

Mechanism and Its Limits

Jasper Reid²

Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2012

585 Accesses

Part of the book series: International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées ((ARCH,volume 207))

Abstract

Now that we know what the physical world is made of, we next need to consider how it works. I here look at More’s early commitment (albeit never total) to mechanical physics, and discuss how this can be squared with the vitalistic treatment of body that, as just noted, he was also embracing in the same period. I then discuss his later rejection of mechanism, as well as the responses that people like Boyle and Newton made to that.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 189.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 77 (ch. 9, §10).
2.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, pp. 220–221 (ch. 24, §13). Compare Lucretius 1994, pp. 149–151 (bk. 5, lines 791–877). Cudworth also criticised this theory at somewhat greater length than More, at Cudworth 1743, pp. 672–677/Cudworth 1845, vol. 2, pp. 594–602.
3.
Observations upon Anthroposophia Theomagica, and Anima Magica Abscondita, p. 89 (upon Anima Magica Abscondita, pag. 55, lin. 13).
4.
The Complete Poems, p. 150b (notes upon Psychathanasia, lib. 3, cant. 2, st. 16).
5.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 73 (ch. 9, §5).
6.
Following Jacob’s translation in Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 73 n. 2; the Latin can be found in Epistolae quatuor, p. 119. Various explanations have been suggested for the ‘V.C.’ of the title of this letter (see Gabbey 1982, pp. 214–215 n. 86). The most plausible hypothesis is that the initials merely stood for the standard honorific, ‘vir clarissimus’, rather than for a specific person’s own name. (Indeed, in his 1733 Latin edition of Cudworth’s Systema Intellectuale, Mosheim had no compunction about simply going ahead and writing the title out in full: ‘Epistola ad virum clarissimum de Cartesio’: see Cudworth 1733, vol. 1, p. 193 n. 3/Cudworth 1845, vol. 1, p. 276 n. 6). Of course, that does not answer the question of precisely who the ‘most distinguished man’ in question might have been: but nothing much hangs on the answer.
7.
See Gabbey 1982, pp. 214–219.
8.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 190 (Appendix, ch. 3, §10).
9.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 124 (bk. 3, ch. 11, §8). The 1712 text actually reads: ‘… natural effects of the ministry…’. But the word is ‘to’ in the other editions, and I have gone ahead and made the correction.
10.
An Antidote Against Atheism, pp. 39–40 (bk. 2, ch. 1, §6). For the summary of contents, see p. 37.
11.
An Antidote Against Atheism, pp. 153–154 (scholia to bk. 2, ch. 1, §6; and to ch. 2, §1).
12.
Divine Dialogues, p. viii. This phrase actually appears in the epistle from the publisher to the reader, which is signed ‘G.C.’. This epistle could yet have come from More’s own hand: but, even if it did not, then its author was certainly someone who had thoroughly digested More’s writings and ideas, who was accurately expressing More’s own opinions as they stood in 1668, and whose work must at least have been authorised by More himself. The same claim also recurs in the marginal title of §8 of the first dialogue, ‘That there is no Phaenomenon in Nature purely mechanical’ (p. 16). But, even if some subeditor other than More himself was responsible for adding those marginal titles, one can still presume that, again, More must at least have consented to them. The sentiment is certainly his.
13.
See Gabbey 1982; Gabbey 1990. Also Fouke 1997, ch. 6; and Jesseph 2005, pp. 202–206.
14.
The Complete Poems, p. 81b (Psychathanasia, bk. 3, cant. 3, st. 56).
15.
Compare The Complete Poems, pp. 152a–153a (notes upon Psychathanasia, bk. 3, cant. 3, st. 56) with Galileo 1997, pp. 282–303 (‘Fourth Day’, ch. 14). See also Staudenbaur 1968, especially pp. 566–568, 576–578; Hall 1990a, pp. 38–40.
16.
Compare The Complete Poems, pp. 153a–154a (notes upon Psychathanasia, bk. 3, cant. 3, st. 56) with Descartes 1991, pp. 205–208/AT 8A:232–236 (pt. 4, §§49–52).
17.
The Second Lash of Alazonomastix, pp. 81–83, 151 ([upon page 29]; and upon [page 80], observation 44).
18.
An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness (1660 edition), p. 346 (bk. 7, ch. 16, §4).
19.
An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness (1708 edition), p. 245 (bk. 7, ch. 19, §4). (This is the same chapter as ch. 16 in the 1660 edition, but merely renumbered due to an insertion earlier in the book). The change was first made in the work’s Latin translation, Magni mysterii pietatis explanatio, in Opera omnia, vol. 1, p. 303.
20.
Tetractys anti-astrologica, p. 84 (annotations upon ch. 16, §4). The original extract from An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness is to be found on p. 56 in this volume.
21.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, p. 108 (ch. 14, §6).
22.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, pp. 115–117 (ch. 14, §§13–15).
23.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, p. 114 (ch. 14, §11).
24.
The Complete Poems, p. 78a–b (Psychathanasia, bk. 3, cant. 3, sts. 23–26, here at st. 26).
25.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, p. 122 (ch. 14, §11, scholium).
26.
Descartes 1991, p. 190/AT 8A:212 (pt. 4, §21).
27.
The Complete Poems, p. 79a (Psychathanasia, bk. 3, cant. 3, st. 32; and see the preceding stanzas).
28.
The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 216–219 (bk. 3, ch. 13, §§1–6); An Antidote Against Atheism, pp. 43–44 (bk. 2, ch. 2, §7); Divine Dialogues, pp. 17–23 (dial. 1, §§9–12); Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, pp. 1–18 (ch. 11).
29.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 43 (bk. 2, ch. 2, §7).
30.
See Descartes 1991, pp. 190–194/AT 8A:212–217 (pt. 4, §§20–27); Hobbes 1839, vol. 1, pp. 508–526 (Elements of Philosophy, pt. 4, ch. 30).
31.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 217 (bk. 3, ch. 13, §1).
32.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 224 (bk. 3, ch. 13, §1, note).
33.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 217 (bk. 3, ch. 13, §1).
34.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, p. 10 (ch. 11, §11). The full discussion of Hobbes’s theory is to be found over pp. 8–11 (§§9–11), in a passage based closely on The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 217–219 (bk. 3, ch. 13, §§3–5).
35.
An Antidote Against Atheism, pp. 43–44 (bk. 2, ch. 2, §7). This was one of the passages added to the text in the 1662 edition.
36.
Descartes 1991, p. 66/AT 8A:68 (pt. 2, §49).
37.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, pp. 5–6 (ch. 11, §6).
38.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 217 (bk. 3, ch. 13, §2); Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, p. 3 (ch. 11, §4).
39.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, p. 14 (ch. 11, §15).
40.
Divine Dialogues, p. 61 (dial. 1, §29).
41.
Lucretius 1994, pp. 48–49 (bk. 1, lines 444–452).
42.
Remarks upon Two Late Ingenious Discourses, pp. 148–149 (remark 37, upon Difficiles Nugae, ch. 16).
43.
For instance, in Opera omnia, vol. 2.1, p. 527 (Fundamenta philosophiae, scholia).
44.
Descartes 1991, p. 70/AT 8A:71/CSM 1:246 (pt. 2, §55).
45.
Descartes 1991, p. 59/AT 8A:62/CSM 1:240–241 (pt. 2, §37).
46.
See Divine Dialogues, p. 62 (dial. 1, §29); The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 27–28 (bk. 1, ch. 7, §5); Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, pp. 130–131 (ch. 28, §18); and elsewhere. Descartes’ theory on this was not especially popular, even among his own supporters. See, for instance, Malebranche 1997b, pp. 510–16, especially p. 514 where he echoes this complaint of More’s.
47.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 188 (Appendix, ch. 3, §7).
48.
Descartes 1991, pp. 50–51/AT 8A:53–54/CSM 1:233 (pt. 2, §§24–25), here at p. 51 (§25). The translators have bracketed the words ‘of the moving body’ here, to signal that this is an interpolation into the 1644 Latin text, drawing on the 1647 French version: AT 9B:76.
49.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 188 (Appendix, ch. 3, §7).
50.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 27 (bk. 1, ch. 7, §5).
51.
Divine Dialogues, pp. 255–256 (dial. 3, §30).
52.
The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 43–44 (bk. 1, ch. 11, §9 and note).
53.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. xvi (The Preface, §13, note).
54.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. xiii (The Preface, §13).
55.
More to Hyrne, 21 August 1671, Cambridge University Library MS Gg.6.11, fol. 3r, printed in Gabbey 1990, pp. 26–27. On Hyrne, see Gabbey 1990, p. 26, and p. 34 n. 28 and n. 29.
56.
An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness (1660 edition), p. vii (To the Reader, §7).
57.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. xvi (The Preface, §15, note).
58.
More to Hyrne, 16 November 1671, Cambridge University Library MS Gg.6.11, fol. 12r–v.
59.
Remarks upon Two Late Ingenious Discourses, pp. 96–97 (remark 16, upon Difficiles Nugae, ch. 7).
60.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 46 (bk. 2, ch. 2, §13).
61.
See Hunter 1950.
62.
On the debate between More and Boyle, see Greene 1962; Shapin and Schaffer 1985, pp. 207–224 and passim; Hall 1990b, pp. 181–195; Henry 1990; Jenkins 2000; Crocker 2003, pp. 157–162; Hutton 2004, pp. 133–137.
63.
Boyle 2001, vol. 4, p. 232 (More to Boyle, 4 December 1671).
64.
Aubrey 1950, p. 83 (article on Edward Davenant).
65.
Boyle 1999–2000, vol. 7, p. 159 (An Hydrostatical Discourse, The Second Section, ch. 1).
66.
See An Antidote Against Atheism, pp. 39–40 (bk. 2, ch. 1, §6)—as already quoted above, in §2 of the present chapter, p. 286.
67.
Boyle 1999–2000, vol. 7, p. 184 (An Hydrostatical Discourse, The Second Section, ch. 5).
68.
Boyle 1999–2000, vol. 7, pp. 141–142 (An Hydrostatical Discourse, To the Reader).
69.
Hyrne to More, August 1671, Cambridge University Library MS Gg.6.11, fols. 1r–v, printed in Gabbey 1990, p. 30.
70.
More to Hyrne, 21 August 1671, Cambridge University Library MS Gg.6.11, fol. 2v, printed in Gabbey 1990, p. 31.
71.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 217 (bk. 3, ch. 13, §3); see also op. cit., p. xii (The Preface, §11); and Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 2, p. 1 (ch. 11, §2).
72.
On the history of the metaphor, see Merton 1965.
73.
Newton 2004, pp. 124–125 (‘An Account of the Book Entitled Commercium Epistolicum’).
74.
Newton 2004, p. 125 (‘An Account of the Book Entitled Commercium Epistolicum’).
75.
Newton 2004, p. 92/Newton 1999, p. 943 (General Scholium). Newton 1962, pp. 348–364, provides a sequence of earlier drafts of the General Scholium, which contain interesting variations.
76.
Newton 2004, p. 90/Newton 1999, p. 940 (General Scholium). See also pp. 95–96 (Newton to Bentley, 10 December 1692: Newton 1959–1977, vol. 3, pp. 234–235); pp. 130, 138–139 (Opticks, queries 28, 31: Newton 1931, pp. 369–370, 402–404); etc.
77.
Newton 2004, p. 138/Newton 1931, p. 402 (Opticks, query 31).
78.
Newton 2004, pp. 102–103/Newton 1959–1977, vol. 3, pp. 253–254 (Newton to Bentley, 25 Feburary 1692/3). See also p. 100/p. 240 (Newton to Bentley, 17 January 1692/3).
79.
Newton 2004, pp. 129–130/Newton 1931, p. 369 (Opticks, query 28).
80.
Kargon 1966, p. 136.
81.
See McGuire and Rattansi 1966, together with McGuire 1977 and Casini 1984, on Newton, the Cambridge Platonists, and prisca sapientia.
82.
Hiscock 1937, p. 30.
83.
Bentley 1739, pp. 68, 72 (sermon 7, 7 November 1692). See also p. 33 (sermon 4, 6 June 1692).
84.
Hall 1990b, p. 253. On these issues, see McGuire 1968 (throughout, but especially pp. 162–164); Henry 1994.
85.
Newton 2004, p. 132/Newton 1931, pp. 375–376, 388–389 (Opticks, query 31). The brackets are the editor’s. For what it is worth, Locke was also sensitive to the problem of corpuscular cohesion: see Locke 1975, p. 310 (bk. 2, ch. 23, §26).
86.
Robinson 1743, pp. 122–124 (‘General Scholium’).
87.
As it happens, Bryan (or ‘Brian’) Robinson, just like Thomas Robinson before him, had studied at More’s own Christ’s College. Unlike his namesake, however, this Robinson’s time there did not overlap with More’s: he was not admitted until 1698/9, more than a decade after More’s death. (Venn and Venn 1922–1927, vol. 3, p. 468b).
88.
Newton 2004, p. 93/Newton 1999, pp. 943–944 (General Scholium).
89.
John Henry has persuasively argued that a widely prevailing view among historians of science, that Newton allowed ‘occult qualities’ to creep back into natural science where his immediate predecessors had attempted to do away with them, is not actually correct. But his objection is not that Newton’s work did not suggest the involvement of active forces in natural phenomena. Rather, he argues that comparable active forces were already there to be found in the systems of Charleton, Power, Boyle, Hooke, Hale and most of the rest of the other prime exponents of the so-called mechanical philosophy. See Henry 1986b. Also see McGuire 1968 on occult forces in relation to Newton specifically.
90.
Newton 2004, pp. 100, 102–104/Newton 1959–1977, vol. 3, pp. 240, 253–255 (Newton to Bentley, 17 January and 25 February 1692/3).
91.
Hall 1996, pp. 317, 363–365. But also see Henry 1994, pp. 139–141.
92.
Newton 2004, p. 50/Newton 1999, p. 392 (Cotes’s Preface).
93.
Watts 1742, p. 153 (essay 4, §3). This remark appears in the context of a discussion of the spatial presence of spirits: Watts was entirely comfortable with the position that More dubbed ‘nullibism’, and he was here arguing that, since action at a distance was unproblematic in the corporeal case, the activity of spirits on spatial things should not require them to be present with their patients either.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Philosophy, King’s College London, London, UK
Jasper Reid

Authors

Jasper Reid
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reid, J. (2012). Mechanism and Its Limits. In: The Metaphysics of Henry More. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 207. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_8
Published: 28 March 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3987-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3988-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics