The Natural Philosophy of William Gilbert and His Predecessors — John Shaqi
The Natural Philosophy of William Gilbert and His PredecessorsKing, W. James (William James)
History
The Natural Philosophy of William Gilbert and His Predecessors
King, W. James (William James)
Gilbert, William, 1544-1603; Magnetism -- History
Now therefore ... divers have whetted their wits, yea, and
dulled them, as I have mine, and yet in the end have been
constrained to fly to the cornerstone: I mean God: who ...
hath given Virtue and power to this Stone ... to show one
certain point, by his own nature and appetite ... and by the
same vertue, the Needle is turned upon his own Center, I mean
the Center of his Circular and invisible Vertue ... And
surely I am of opinion, that if this would be found in a
Sphericall form, extending round about the Stone in Great
Compass, and the dead body Stone in the middle therof: Whose
center is the center of his aforesaid Vertue. And this I have
partly proved, and made visible to be seen in the same
manner, and God sparing me life, I will herein make further
Experience.
Again, one can infer that the heavens impart a guiding principle
to the iron which acts under the influence of this Superior Cause.
One of the points made in St. Thomas' argument on motion due to the
loadstone was that there is a limit to the "virtus" of the loadstone,
but he did not specify the nature of it. Norman refined the Thomist
concept of a bound by making it spherical in form, foreshadowing
Gilbert's "orbis virtutis."
Gilbert's philosophy of nature does not move far from scholastic
philosophy, except away from it in logical consistency. As the concern
of Aristotle and of St. Thomas was to understand being and change by
determining the nature of things, so Gilbert sought to write a logos
of the physis, or nature, of the loadstone--a physiology.[40] This
physiology was not formally arranged into definitions obtained by
induction from experience, but nevertheless there was the same search
for the quiddity of the loadstone. Once one knew this nature then all
the properties of the loadstone could be understood.
[39] Hellmann, _op. cit._ (footnote 6), Norman, bk. 1, ch. 8.
[40] M: p. 14.
Gilbert described the nature of the loadstone in the terms of being
that were current with his scholarly contemporaries. This was the same
ontology that scholasticism had taught for centuries--the doctrine of
form and matter that we have already found in St. Thomas and Nicholas
of Cusa. Thus we find Richard Hooker[41] remarking that form gives
being and that "form in other creatures is a thing proportionable unto
the soul in living creatures." Francis Bacon,[42] in speaking of the
relations between causes and the kinds of philosophy, said: "Physics
is the science that deals with efficient and material causes while
Metaphysics deals with formal and final causes." John Donne[43]
expressed the problem of scholastic philosophy succinctly:
This twilight of two yeares, not past or next,
Some embleme is of me, ...
... of stuffe and forme perplext,
Whose _what_ and _where_, in disputation is ...
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account