Motion—and, in particular, local motion or change in location—plays a central role in Kenelm Digby’s natural philosophy and in his arguments for the immateriality of the soul. Despite this, Digby’s account of what motion consists in has yet to receive much scholarly attention. In this paper, I advance a novel interpretation of Digby on motion. According to it, Digby holds that for a body to move is for it to divide from and unify with other bodies. This is a view (...) of motion—as change in relations of parthood—that Alison Peterman attributes to Digby’s contemporary and acquaintance, Margaret Cavendish. Having shown that Digby’s presentation of the view predates Cavendish’s by more than a decade, I make a case that Digby’s work influenced Cavendish’s on this topic. In developing and defending my reading, I consider to what extent the Digbean account of motion and the arguments for it accord with the ideals of the mechanical philosophy emerging in the early modern period. (shrink)

Marx is a fallibilist. He holds that no commitment is immune to revision under pressure of rational scrutiny. His criticisms of rival thinkers often turn not just on their getting things wrong, but on their being too little observant of this precept. I examine one such episode: Marx’s critique of Stirner in The German Ideology. Stirner is himself a fallibilist and understands his philosophy as a correction against earlier, less successful attempts to pursue a consistently fallibilistic program in philosophy. Marx (...) argues, however, that Stirner is himself inconsistent in his fallibilism. Stirner treats one concept in particular—his central concept—as indefeasible, ostensibly because it stands in a privileged relationship to non-conceptual reality. Marx understands Stirner’s inconsistency to result from his making covert recourse to a given element in knowledge. Marx holds that there is no given element in knowledge, and that confused appeals to the given serve to cover over assumptions and insulate commitments from scrutiny, all of which falls afoul of thoroughgoing fallibilism. (shrink)

When we see the way that the parts of the Appendix concerning belief hang together, we can understand how and why Hume moved from saying that belief is a vivid idea to saying that belief is a sui generis feeling. In the Appendix to the Treatise, Hume retracts his claim that perceptions with the same object only vary with respect to vivacity. In material in the appendix that he tells his reader to insert in Book 1, he explains his reasons: (...) the vivacity connected to belief is different in kind from that from the vivacity connected to poetry. Poetry can be more vivid, in its way, than belief. Since Hume’s main arguments for the thesis that beliefs are vivid ideas in the main body of the Treatise depend on the assumption that ideas with the same object only vary in vivacity, he owes us new arguments from his claim. He provides various arguments for a slightly revised thesis that belief is a particular sort of vivid idea at the beginning of the Appendix. (shrink)

This paper argues that Joanna Baillie’s ‘Introductory Discourse’ to her Plays on Passions offers a theory of moral education based on an epistemology of passion—an account of how we come to know and understand the passions—both of which deserve further philosophical attention. Like her fellow Scots, David Hume and Adam Smith, Baillie offers a sentimentalist approach to human psychology, focusing on affective states as the primary constituents of character and determinants of action. She also shares a spectatorial approach to moral (...) judgment, emphasizing the universal psychological propensity of ‘sympathetick curiosity’, which attracts spectators to those around them. I show that Baillie conceives of sympathetic curiosity in epistemic terms, as our desire to observe and know the feelings of others, claiming that ‘in examining others, we know ourselves’ (ID 74). However, for this propensity to serve properly in this role, it must be regulated through careful deployment and systematic reflection on one’s observations. I then examine Baillie’s theory of moral education through literature, showing that while Baillie sees many species of moral writing as having the function of assisting and regulating sympathetic curiosity, she privileges drama. I conclude by showing that although Baillie overstates her case in some respects, the core of her argument for the moral educational role of literature is persuasive and provides a rich resource in our study of eighteenth-century treatments of passion, character, and moral education. (shrink)

At the start of his discussion of causation, Hume claims to demonstrate that simultaneous causation is absolutely impossible; all causes must precede their effects in time. I argue that considering Hume’s modal theory can reveal two important and previously unaddressed features of this argument. First, his modal metaphysics resolves one of the most pressing extant interpretive issues: how Hume is able to infer from the claim that it is possible for some object to be simultaneously caused to the claim that (...) it is possible for all objects to be simultaneously caused. This step, I argue, is justified by Hume’s theory of relations. Based on an analysis of the representational capacities of the imagination in the Treatise, I develop a modal theory for relations that supports inferences of this kind. Second, his distinction between absolute and natural modality raises a problem that has not yet been identified in the literature. Hume is trying to conclude that something is metaphysically impossible, but one of his premises relies on a mere natural impossibility (that no object can begin to exist uncaused). I argue that this is an intractable problem: Hume cannot get the conclusion he wants because it depends on an equivocation between two strengths of modality. (shrink)

The first few chapters of Du Châtelet’s Institutions de Physique outline a metaphysical foundation that focuses on the principles of knowledge and the fundamental concepts of our knowledge of the physical world. While the first wave of contemporary Du Châtelet scholarship in the 1970s and 1980s read Du Châtelet’s metaphysical foundation as a stripped-down version of Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics, the latest work has argued against this by suggesting that Du Châtelet’s metaphysics is a method for her physics and can stand on (...) its own feet. This latter interpretation, most prominently advanced by Brading, succeeds in putting Du Châtelet’s metaphysical theory into focus rather than seeing it as a flawed commentary on Leibniz and Wolff. However, it subordinates her metaphysical foundations to the aims of the science of physics, wherein the core question is how bodily interaction works. This paper argues that Du Châtelet’s metaphysical foundations are not meant to ground the science of physics alone, and instead are to lay the foundation for all knowledge of the natural world. By analysing her previously mostly overlooked conception of what ‘a being’ is in chapter 3, we will see that Du Châtelet’s metaphysical foundations address how we gain knowledge of a natural world in our everyday experience of natural beings and thus come to know ‘beings’ in the first place, i.e. prior to scientific judgements on them. The present paper thus asserts that Du Châtelet’s metaphysical foundations are more than a method for her physics. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to argue that the Neptuno Alegórico and the Theatro de Virtudes Políticas, which were composed in 1680 by the Novohispanic philosophers Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz and Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora to accompany respectively two arches erected to celebrate the entry of the Spanish viceroy to Mexico City, are notable not only as examples of panegyrical Baroque literature but also as philosophical texts aimed at moral instruction. To be specific, I argue that (...) the Neptuno and the Theatro belong to a hybrid genre that I label ekphrastic moral mirrors. Ekphrastic moral mirrors, which constitute a subset of the traditional speculum principis, are characterized by offering moral instruction to a prince indirectly, by means of an elaborate ekphrasis of a work of art (which, in the case of the Neptuno and the Theatro, were the two arches that they were paired with). I also argue that, insofar as the Neptuno and the Theatro create different audiences that are mutually aware of each other in virtue of systematically relying on ekphrasis deployed in a public setting, they are potentially more effective for moral instruction than other traditional mirrors of princes. (shrink)

Matthew Leisinger (2020) argues that previous interpretations of John Locke’s account of akrasia (or weakness of will) are mistaken and offers a new interpretation in their place. In this essay, we aim to recapitulate part of this debate, defend a previously articulated interpretation by responding to Leisinger’s criticisms of it, and explain why Leisinger’s own interpretation faces textual and philosophical problems that are serious enough to disqualify it as an accurate reconstruction of Locke’s views. In so doing, we aim to (...) shed further light on Locke’s views on the various ways in which humans are prone to err in their pursuit of happiness. (shrink)