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’...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Foundations of chemistry 2020-04, Vol.22 (1), p.59-76
1. Verfasser: Buyse, Filip A. A.
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. &amp; 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. &amp; 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. &amp; 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