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
Another mechanical explanation was based upon a postulated tendency
of atoms to move into a vacuum rather than upon the latter's
non-existence. Lucretius restated this Epicurean explanation in his
_De rerum natura_.[14] Atoms from the loadstone push away the air and
tend to cause a vacuum to form outside the loadstone. The structure of
iron is such that it, unlike other materials, can be pushed into this
empty space by the thronging atoms of air beyond it.
[14] Lucretius, _De rerum natura_, translated by W. H. D.
Rouse, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1924, bk. VI, lines
998-1041.
Galen[15] returned to a quasi-animistic solution in his denial of
Epicurus' argument, which he stated somewhat differently from
Lucretius. One can infer that Galen held that all things have, to a
greater or lesser degree, a sympathetic faculty of attracting its
specific, or proper, quality to itself.[16] The loadstone is only an
inanimate example of what one finds in nutritive organs in organic
beings.
[15] Galen, _On the natural faculties_, translated by A. S.
Brock, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1916, bk. 1 and bk. 3.
A view similar to this appeared in Plato, _Timaeus_, 81 (see
footnote 13).
[16] This same concept was to reappear in the Middle Ages as
the _inclinatio ad simile_.
One of the few writers whose explanations of the loadstone Gilbert
mentioned with approval is St. Thomas Aquinas. Although the medieval
scholastic philosophy of St. Thomas seems foreign to our way of
thinking, it formed a background to many of Gilbert's concepts, as
well as to those of his predecessors, and it will assist our
discussion to consider briefly Thomist philosophy and to make its
terminology explicit at this point.[17]
[17] The background for much of the following was derived
from Annaliese Maier, _An der Grenze von Scholastik und
Naturwissenchaft_, ed 2, Rome, 1952.
In scholastic philosophy, all beings and substances are a coalescence
of inchoate matter and enacting form. Form is that which gives being
to matter and which is responsible for the "virtus" or power to cause
change, since matter in itself is inert. Moreover, forms can be
grasped intellectually, whence the nature of a being or a substance
can be known. Any explanation of phenomena has to be based upon these
innate natures, for only if the nature of a substance is known can
its properties be understood. Inanimate natures are determined by
observation, abstraction, and induction, or by classification.[18]
[18] St. Thomas' epistemology for the natural inanimate world
was based upon Aristotle's dictum: that which is in the mind
was in the senses first.
The nature of a substance is causally prior to its properties; while
the definition of the nature is logically prior to these properties.
Thus, what we call the theory of a substance is expressed in its
definition, and its properties can be deduced from this definition.
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