Boyle, Spinoza and Glauber: on the philosophical redintegration of saltpeter—a reply to Antonio Clericuzio
The so-called ‘redintegration experiment’ is traditionally at the center of the comments on the supposed Boyle/Spinoza controversy. A. Clericuzio influentially argued (criticizing R.A. & M.B. Hall’s interpretation) in his publications that, in De nitro , Boyle accounted for the ‘redintegration’...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Foundations of chemistry 2020-04, Vol.22 (1), p.59-76 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 76 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 59 |
container_title | Foundations of chemistry |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Buyse, Filip A. A. |
description | The so-called ‘redintegration experiment’ is traditionally at the center of the comments on the supposed Boyle/Spinoza controversy. A. Clericuzio influentially argued (criticizing R.A. & M.B. Hall’s interpretation) in his publications that, in
De nitro
, Boyle accounted for the ‘redintegration’ of saltpeter on the grounds of the chemical properties of corpuscles and “did not make any attempt to deduce them from mechanical principles”. By way of contrast, this paper argues that with his
De nitro
Boyle wanted to illustrate and promote his new corpuscular or mechanical philosophy, and that he made significant attempts to explain the phenomena in terms of mechanical qualities. Boyle had borrowed the ‘redintegration experiment’ from R. Glauber and used it in an attempt to demonstrate that his philosophy was superior to the Peripatetic and Paracelsian theory. Consequently, Clericuzio’s characterization of the Boyle/Spinoza controversy as a discussion between a strict mechanical philosopher and a chemist is problematic and a wider view of Spinoza’s interpretation and its context gives a fairer picture. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10698-019-09345-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2376771042</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A617329343</galeid><sourcerecordid>A617329343</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-df682ff66723b75118134fb70fcfd21f6c82e2cddbcbb274d6c17c69d54e57763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kd9qFDEUxgdRsK6-gFcBQRCcmj8zyYx320VroSC09TpkMie7KWkyJhlwe-VD9An7JKZOwe6N5OKEc35fwvm-qnpL8DHBWHxKBPO-qzHpa9yzpq2bZ9URaQWtu4az5-XOOl43lHUvq1cpXWOMe8HZUeVOwt7BR3Q5WR9uFVJ-RKdOzQPEzyh4lHeApp11IYVStHIowmh9hm1U2RYgGJSUyxNkiPe_71SZT26PckBrn4O3AW0cRKvnWxteVy-McgnePNZV9ePrl6vNt_r8--nZZn1ea9aLXI-Gd9QYzgVlg2gJ6QhrzCCw0WakxHDdUaB6HAc9DFQ0I9dEaN6PbQOtKGutqnfLu1MMP2dIWV6HOfrypaRMcCEILlasquOF2ioH0noTclS6nBFurA4ejC39NSeC0eIpK4IPB4LCZPiVt2pOSZ5dXhyy75-wOygW7VJw84Nn6RCkC6hjSCmCkVO0NyruJcHyIVu5ZCtLtvJvtrIpIraIUoH9FuK_Bf-j-gPQLqdU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2376771042</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Boyle, Spinoza and Glauber: on the philosophical redintegration of saltpeter—a reply to Antonio Clericuzio</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Buyse, Filip A. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Buyse, Filip A. A.</creatorcontrib><description>The so-called ‘redintegration experiment’ is traditionally at the center of the comments on the supposed Boyle/Spinoza controversy. A. Clericuzio influentially argued (criticizing R.A. & M.B. Hall’s interpretation) in his publications that, in
De nitro
, Boyle accounted for the ‘redintegration’ of saltpeter on the grounds of the chemical properties of corpuscles and “did not make any attempt to deduce them from mechanical principles”. By way of contrast, this paper argues that with his
De nitro
Boyle wanted to illustrate and promote his new corpuscular or mechanical philosophy, and that he made significant attempts to explain the phenomena in terms of mechanical qualities. Boyle had borrowed the ‘redintegration experiment’ from R. Glauber and used it in an attempt to demonstrate that his philosophy was superior to the Peripatetic and Paracelsian theory. Consequently, Clericuzio’s characterization of the Boyle/Spinoza controversy as a discussion between a strict mechanical philosopher and a chemist is problematic and a wider view of Spinoza’s interpretation and its context gives a fairer picture.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1386-4238</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8463</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10698-019-09345-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Boyle, Robert (Irish chemist) ; Chemical properties ; Chemistry/Food Science ; Chemists ; Composition ; Criticism and interpretation ; Education ; Ethical aspects ; Glauber, Johann Rudolph ; History ; Philosophers ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Science ; Physical Chemistry ; Records and correspondence ; Saltpeter ; Spinoza, Benedict ; Works</subject><ispartof>Foundations of chemistry, 2020-04, Vol.22 (1), p.59-76</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><rights>2019© Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-df682ff66723b75118134fb70fcfd21f6c82e2cddbcbb274d6c17c69d54e57763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-df682ff66723b75118134fb70fcfd21f6c82e2cddbcbb274d6c17c69d54e57763</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10698-019-09345-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10698-019-09345-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Buyse, Filip A. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Boyle, Spinoza and Glauber: on the philosophical redintegration of saltpeter—a reply to Antonio Clericuzio</title><title>Foundations of chemistry</title><addtitle>Found Chem</addtitle><description>The so-called ‘redintegration experiment’ is traditionally at the center of the comments on the supposed Boyle/Spinoza controversy. A. Clericuzio influentially argued (criticizing R.A. & M.B. Hall’s interpretation) in his publications that, in
De nitro
, Boyle accounted for the ‘redintegration’ of saltpeter on the grounds of the chemical properties of corpuscles and “did not make any attempt to deduce them from mechanical principles”. By way of contrast, this paper argues that with his
De nitro
Boyle wanted to illustrate and promote his new corpuscular or mechanical philosophy, and that he made significant attempts to explain the phenomena in terms of mechanical qualities. Boyle had borrowed the ‘redintegration experiment’ from R. Glauber and used it in an attempt to demonstrate that his philosophy was superior to the Peripatetic and Paracelsian theory. Consequently, Clericuzio’s characterization of the Boyle/Spinoza controversy as a discussion between a strict mechanical philosopher and a chemist is problematic and a wider view of Spinoza’s interpretation and its context gives a fairer picture.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Boyle, Robert (Irish chemist)</subject><subject>Chemical properties</subject><subject>Chemistry/Food Science</subject><subject>Chemists</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>Criticism and interpretation</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Ethical aspects</subject><subject>Glauber, Johann Rudolph</subject><subject>History</subject><subject>Philosophers</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><subject>Physical Chemistry</subject><subject>Records and correspondence</subject><subject>Saltpeter</subject><subject>Spinoza, Benedict</subject><subject>Works</subject><issn>1386-4238</issn><issn>1572-8463</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kd9qFDEUxgdRsK6-gFcBQRCcmj8zyYx320VroSC09TpkMie7KWkyJhlwe-VD9An7JKZOwe6N5OKEc35fwvm-qnpL8DHBWHxKBPO-qzHpa9yzpq2bZ9URaQWtu4az5-XOOl43lHUvq1cpXWOMe8HZUeVOwt7BR3Q5WR9uFVJ-RKdOzQPEzyh4lHeApp11IYVStHIowmh9hm1U2RYgGJSUyxNkiPe_71SZT26PckBrn4O3AW0cRKvnWxteVy-McgnePNZV9ePrl6vNt_r8--nZZn1ea9aLXI-Gd9QYzgVlg2gJ6QhrzCCw0WakxHDdUaB6HAc9DFQ0I9dEaN6PbQOtKGutqnfLu1MMP2dIWV6HOfrypaRMcCEILlasquOF2ioH0noTclS6nBFurA4ejC39NSeC0eIpK4IPB4LCZPiVt2pOSZ5dXhyy75-wOygW7VJw84Nn6RCkC6hjSCmCkVO0NyruJcHyIVu5ZCtLtvJvtrIpIraIUoH9FuK_Bf-j-gPQLqdU</recordid><startdate>20200401</startdate><enddate>20200401</enddate><creator>Buyse, Filip A. A.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200401</creationdate><title>Boyle, Spinoza and Glauber: on the philosophical redintegration of saltpeter—a reply to Antonio Clericuzio</title><author>Buyse, Filip A. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-df682ff66723b75118134fb70fcfd21f6c82e2cddbcbb274d6c17c69d54e57763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Boyle, Robert (Irish chemist)</topic><topic>Chemical properties</topic><topic>Chemistry/Food Science</topic><topic>Chemists</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>Criticism and interpretation</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Ethical aspects</topic><topic>Glauber, Johann Rudolph</topic><topic>History</topic><topic>Philosophers</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><topic>Physical Chemistry</topic><topic>Records and correspondence</topic><topic>Saltpeter</topic><topic>Spinoza, Benedict</topic><topic>Works</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Buyse, Filip A. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><jtitle>Foundations of chemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Buyse, Filip A. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Boyle, Spinoza and Glauber: on the philosophical redintegration of saltpeter—a reply to Antonio Clericuzio</atitle><jtitle>Foundations of chemistry</jtitle><stitle>Found Chem</stitle><date>2020-04-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>59</spage><epage>76</epage><pages>59-76</pages><issn>1386-4238</issn><eissn>1572-8463</eissn><abstract>The so-called ‘redintegration experiment’ is traditionally at the center of the comments on the supposed Boyle/Spinoza controversy. A. Clericuzio influentially argued (criticizing R.A. & M.B. Hall’s interpretation) in his publications that, in
De nitro
, Boyle accounted for the ‘redintegration’ of saltpeter on the grounds of the chemical properties of corpuscles and “did not make any attempt to deduce them from mechanical principles”. By way of contrast, this paper argues that with his
De nitro
Boyle wanted to illustrate and promote his new corpuscular or mechanical philosophy, and that he made significant attempts to explain the phenomena in terms of mechanical qualities. Boyle had borrowed the ‘redintegration experiment’ from R. Glauber and used it in an attempt to demonstrate that his philosophy was superior to the Peripatetic and Paracelsian theory. Consequently, Clericuzio’s characterization of the Boyle/Spinoza controversy as a discussion between a strict mechanical philosopher and a chemist is problematic and a wider view of Spinoza’s interpretation and its context gives a fairer picture.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10698-019-09345-4</doi><tpages>18</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1386-4238 |
ispartof | Foundations of chemistry, 2020-04, Vol.22 (1), p.59-76 |
issn | 1386-4238 1572-8463 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2376771042 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Analysis Boyle, Robert (Irish chemist) Chemical properties Chemistry/Food Science Chemists Composition Criticism and interpretation Education Ethical aspects Glauber, Johann Rudolph History Philosophers Philosophy Philosophy of Science Physical Chemistry Records and correspondence Saltpeter Spinoza, Benedict Works |
title | Boyle, Spinoza and Glauber: on the philosophical redintegration of saltpeter—a reply to Antonio Clericuzio |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T23%3A52%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Boyle,%20Spinoza%20and%20Glauber:%20on%20the%20philosophical%20redintegration%20of%20saltpeter%E2%80%94a%20reply%20to%20Antonio%20Clericuzio&rft.jtitle=Foundations%20of%20chemistry&rft.au=Buyse,%20Filip%20A.%20A.&rft.date=2020-04-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=59&rft.epage=76&rft.pages=59-76&rft.issn=1386-4238&rft.eissn=1572-8463&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10698-019-09345-4&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA617329343%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2376771042&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A617329343&rfr_iscdi=true |