Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T18:09:56.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Descartes, Spacetime, and Relational Motion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Edward Slowik
Edward Slowik*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Winona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines Descartes' problematic relational theory of motion, especially when viewed within the context of his dynamics, the Cartesian natural laws. The work of various commentators on Cartesian motion is also surveyed, with particular emphasis placed upon the recent important texts of Garber and Des Chene. In contrast to the methodology of most previous interpretations, however, this essay employs a modern “spacetime” approach to the problem. By this means, the role of dynamics in Descartes' theory, which has often been neglected in favor of kinematic factors, is shown to be central to finding a solution to the puzzle of Cartesian motion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 117 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, Winona State University, 329 Minne Hall, P.O Box 5838, Winona, MN 55987–5838.

‡

I would like to thank Mark Wilson and Calvin Normore for helpful discussions, and two anonymous referees from the Philosophy of Science for comments on earlier version of this paper.

References

Anderson, W. E. (1976). “Cartesian Motion”, in Machamer, P. K. and Turnbull, R. G. (eds.), Motion and Time, Space and Matter: Interrelations in the History and Philosophy of Science. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 200–223.Google Scholar
Barbour, J. B. (1989), Absolute or Relative Motion?, Vol. 1: The Discovery of Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blackwell, R. J. (1966), “Descartes' Laws of Motion”, Isis 57: 220–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. (1976), Oeuvres de Descartes. Edited by Adams, C. and Tannery, P. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1983), Principles of Philosophy. Translated by V. R. Miller and R. P. Miller. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Des Chene, D. (1996), Physiologia: Natural Philosophy in Late Aristotelian and Cartesian Thought. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dugas, R. (1958), Mechanics in the Seventeenth Century. Neuchatel: Éditions de Griffon.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1989), World Enough and Space-Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elzinga, A. (1972), On A Research Program in Early Modern Physics. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983), Foundations of Spacetime Theories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gabbey, A. (1980), “Force and Inertia in the Seventeenth Century: Descartes and Newton, in S. Gaukroger (ed.), Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics. Sussex: Harvester Press, 230–320.Google Scholar
Garber, D. (1992), Descartes' Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grant, E. (1981), Much Ado About Nothing: Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gueroult, M. (1980), “The Metaphysics and Physics of Force in Descartes”, in Gaukroger, S. (ed.), Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics. Sussex: Harvester Press, 196–229.Google Scholar
Hübner, K. (1983), Critique of Scientific Reason. Transated by P. R. Dixon and H. M. Dixon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huygens, C. (1929), Oeuvres Complètes. 22 vols. La Haye: Société Hollandaise des sciences. Translated by R. Westfall in 1971.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1978), Galileo Studies. Translated by J. Mepham. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1970), “Critical Thoughts on the General Part of the Principles of Descartes”, in L. E. Loemker (trans, and ed.), G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 383–413.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1970a), “Discourse on Metaphysics”, in L. E. Loemker (trans. and ed.), G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 303–331.Google Scholar
Nadler, S. (1990), “Deduction, Confirmation, and the Laws of Nature in Descartes' Principia Philosophiae”, Principia Philosophiae 28: 359–383.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1962), “De Gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum”, in A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall (trans. and eds.), Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 89–156.Google Scholar
Normore, C. (1993), “The Necessity in Deduction: Cartesian Inference and its Medieval Background.” Synthese 96: 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prendergast, T. (1972), “Descartes and the Relativity of Motion”, The Modern Schoolman 49: 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, W. R. (1991), The Magic of Numbers and Motion: The Scientific Career of René Descartes. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1974), Space, Time, and Space-Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Slowik, E. (1997), “Huygens' Center-of-Mass Spacetime Reference Frame: Constructing a Cartesian Dynamics in The Wake of Newton's ‘De gravitatione‘ Argument”, Synthese 112: 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westfall, R. (1971), The Concept of Force in Newton's Physics. London: MacDonald.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (1993), “There's a Hole and a Bucket, Dear Leibniz”, in French, P. A., Uehling, T. E. Jr., Wettstein, H. K. (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy Vol. XVIII, Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame, IN: U. of Notre Dame Press, 202–241.Google Scholar