Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
1.1
0.9
Journals
Philosophies
Special Issues
Hobbes’s Philosophy of Science
share announcement

Hobbes’s Philosophy of Science

A special issue of Philosophies (ISSN 2409-9287).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (25 October 2022) | Viewed by 6970

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Dr. Douglas M. Jesseph

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Philosophy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA
Interests: history of modern philosophy; history and philosophy of mathematics; logic; philosophy of science

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Philosophies announces a Special Issue devoted to Hobbes’ philosophy of science. Hobbes’ place as a political theorist is well established, but his intellectual ambitions reached well beyond the “science of politics” that he claimed to have created. In particular, he developed an account of scientific methodology that, at least in his estimation, marked a fundamental advance in the understanding of both mathematics and natural philosophy. Hobbes is better known for his scientific failures than his successes (having fared poorly in his disputes with Robert Boyle and John Wallis), but his methodological approach remains of interest for the light it can shed on seventeenth-century understandings of knowledge and its sources. The principal aim of this issue will therefore be to place Hobbes’ philosophy of science in its broader intellectual context and to explore its connections with other approaches to scientific methodology.

The topics of interest include (but are not limited to):

  1. The role of experiment in natural philosophy.
  2. The status of mathematics and its place in Hobbes’ philosophy of science.
  3. Hobbes’ engagement with the science and methodology of Descartes, Galileo, and Roberval.
  4. Hobbes’ contested relationship with the Royal Society (and, in particular, Boyle and Wallis).
  5. The status of hypotheses and their explanatory role in Hobbesian methodology.
  6. Hobbes’ understanding of mechanism and the “mechanical philosophy”.
  7. The relationship between Hobbes’ general philosophy of science and his science of politics.
  8. Hobbes’ account of analysis and synthesis and its role in his methodology.

Prof. Dr. Douglas M. Jesseph
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Philosophies is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Hobbes
  • methodology
  • mechanism
  • experiment
  • Galileo
  • Descartes
  • Wallis
  • Boyle

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

15 pages, 590 KiB  
Article
A “Galilean Philosopher”? Thomas Hobbes between Aristotelianism and Galilean Science
by Gregorio Baldin
Philosophies 2022, 7(5), 116; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/philosophies7050116 - 14 Oct 2022
Viewed by 1765
Abstract
The conventional portrait of Thomas Hobbes that emerged in twentieth century histories of philosophy is that of the quintessential mechanical philosopher, who openly broke with philosophical tradition (together with René Descartes). Hobbes’s scholars depicted a more correct and detailed panorama, by analyzing Hobbes’s [...] Read more.
The conventional portrait of Thomas Hobbes that emerged in twentieth century histories of philosophy is that of the quintessential mechanical philosopher, who openly broke with philosophical tradition (together with René Descartes). Hobbes’s scholars depicted a more correct and detailed panorama, by analyzing Hobbes’s debt towards Aristotelian and Renaissance traditions, as well as the problematic nature of the epistemological status that Hobbes attributes to natural philosophy. However, Hobbes’s connection to modern Galilean science remains problematic. How and in what way did Hobbes take inspiration from Galileo? In this article, I analyze Hobbes’s natural philosophy by addressing three topics: (1) his connection with some aspects of seventeenth-century Aristotelianism; (2) differences and analogies between Hobbes’s and Galileo’s epistemological approaches; and (3) the Galilean foundation of Hobbes’s philosophy. Through this analysis I want to show in which sense Hobbes can be properly defined a “Galilean philosopher”. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hobbes’s Philosophy of Science)
18 pages, 314 KiB  
Article
The Unity of Hobbes’s Philosophy: Science, Politics, and God?
by Zachary Vereb
Philosophies 2022, 7(4), 89; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/philosophies7040089 - 22 Aug 2022
Viewed by 1736
Abstract
This paper re-examines the dispute concerning Hobbes’s religious beliefs in light of his natural philosophy. First, I argue that atheistic readings of Hobbes can be more plausibly defended provided interpreters make use of a methodological unity thesis. Second, I suggest that theistic readers [...] Read more.
This paper re-examines the dispute concerning Hobbes’s religious beliefs in light of his natural philosophy. First, I argue that atheistic readings of Hobbes can be more plausibly defended provided interpreters make use of a methodological unity thesis. Second, I suggest that theistic readers of Hobbes have good reason to favor the autonomy thesis. I conclude by highlighting how a re-examination of the theism dispute motivates reconsideration of the role of Hobbes’s natural philosophy and scientific methodology vis à vis politics. Maintaining the unity thesis as a methodological device can shed important light on the politics and methods of Leviathan. More importantly, this analysis motivates consideration of De Corpore in any serious study of Hobbes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hobbes’s Philosophy of Science)
15 pages, 271 KiB  
Article
Natural Philosophy, Abstraction, and Mathematics among Materialists: Thomas Hobbes and Margaret Cavendish on Light
by Marcus P. Adams
Philosophies 2022, 7(2), 44; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/philosophies7020044 - 10 Apr 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2441
Abstract
The nature of light is a focus of Thomas Hobbes’s natural philosophical project. Hobbes’s explanation of the light (lux) of lucid bodies differs across his works, from dilation and contraction in Elements of Law to simple circular motions in De corpore [...] Read more.
The nature of light is a focus of Thomas Hobbes’s natural philosophical project. Hobbes’s explanation of the light (lux) of lucid bodies differs across his works, from dilation and contraction in Elements of Law to simple circular motions in De corpore. However, Hobbes consistently explains perceived light (lumen) by positing that bodily resistance (endeavor) generates the phantasm of light. In Letters I.XIX–XX of Philosophical Letters, fellow materialist Margaret Cavendish attacks the Hobbesian understanding of both lux and lumen by claiming that Hobbes has illicitly made abstractions from matter. In this paper, I argue that Cavendish’s criticisms rely on an incorrect understanding of the nature of Hobbesian geometry and the role it plays in Hobbes’s natural philosophy. Rather than understanding geometry as wholly abstract, Hobbes attempts to ground geometry in different ways of considering bodies and their motions. Furthermore, Hobbes’s own criticisms of abstraction suggest that he would share many of the worries she raises but deny that he falls prey to them. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hobbes’s Philosophy of Science)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop