Newton and Spinoza: On Motion and Matter (And God, of Course)

Abstract

This study explores several arguments against Spinoza's philosophy that were developed by Henry More, Samuel Clarke, and Colin Maclaurin. In the arguments on which I focus, More, Clarke, and Maclaurin aim to establish the existence of an immaterial and intelligent God precisely by showing that Spinoza does not have the resources to adequately explain the origin of motion. Attending to these criticisms grants us a deeper appreciation for how the authority derived from the empirical success of Newton's enterprise was used to settle debates within philosophy. What I emphasize is that in the progression from More to Clarke to Maclaurin, key Newtonian concepts from the Principia (1687), such as motion, atomism, and the vacuum, are introduced and exploited in order to challenge the account of matter and motion that is presented in Spinoza's Ethics (1677). Building on this treatment, I use the arguments from More and Clarke especially to help discern the anti-Spinozism that can be detected in Newton's General Scholium (1713). Ultimately, the Newtonian criticisms that I detail offer us a more nuanced view of the problems that plague Spinoza's philosophy, and they also challenge the idea that Spinoza seamlessly fits into a progressive narrative about the scientific revolution.

Clarke, Samuel

“…Throughout his writings, Clarke repeatedly expressed commitment to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). Clarke employed the PSR in his influential argument for God and also in the related arguments against Spinoza's metaphysics (Rowe 1998, Schliesser 2012, Yenter 2014. Clarke and Leibniz both accepted the principle of sufficient reason and applied it widely.…”

Spinoza on Physical Science

“…Since “…the way in which things are really ordered and interconnected is quite unknown to us” (TTP II 58), the true properties of things can only be known if their essences are known first. (For a more comprehensive account of Spinoza's treatment of essences and its relation to science, see Schliesser . )…”

“…For the Author still intends to discover its cause, as he has already done, to some extent, a posteriori ” (KV I IX). As Schliesser () notes, even Spinoza's contemporaries and near‐contemporaries like Henry More, Samuel Clarke, and John Toland were dissatisfied with Spinoza's accounts of motion and its source.…”

Does Berkeley's Immaterialism Support Toland's Spinozism? The Posidonian Argument and the Eleventh Objection

“… 63 I have discussed the complex relations among Clarke, Toland, and Newton in Schliesser (forthcoming) and Schliesser (2012). …”