|
The Hobbes–Wallis controversy was a polemic debate that continued from the mid-1650s well into the 1670s, between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the mathematician John Wallis. It was sparked by ''De corpore'', a philosophical work by Hobbes in the general area of physics. The book contained not only a theory of mathematics subordinating it to geometry and geometry to kinematics, but a claimed proof of the squaring of the circle by Hobbes. While Hobbes retracted this particular proof, he returned to the topic with other attempted proofs. A pamphleteering exchange continued for decades. It drew in the newly formed Royal Society, and its experimental philosophy, to which Hobbes was (on principle) opposed. The sustained nature of the exchanges can be attributed to several strands of the intellectual situation of the time. In mathematics there were open issues, namely the priority (pedagogic, or theoretical) to be assigned to geometry and algebra; and the status of algebra itself, which (from an English standpoint) had been pulled together by the text of William Oughtred, as more than a collection of symbolic abbreviations. Socially, the formation of the group of Royal Society members, and the status of the publication ''Philosophical Transactions'', was brought to a point as the quarrel proceeded, with Hobbes playing the outsider versus the self-selecting guild. Hobbes was an easy target, on the ground chosen by Wallis. The failure of his attempts to solve the impossible problems he set himself were inevitable, but he neither backed down completely, nor applied adequate self-criticism. And on the level of character, Wallis was as intransigent as Hobbes was dogmatic, and this inflicted damage on both of their reputations. Quentin Skinner writes: "There is no doubt that at the personal level Wallis behaved badly (as was widely conceded at the time)."〔Quentin Skinner, ''Visions of Politics'' (2002), p. 328.〕 Part of the significance of the controversy is that Hobbes felt that, in the later stages, the Royal Society was in some way complicit in the attacks from Wallis, despite the fact that he had many friends as Fellows in it. This attitude presented one of the obstacles to Hobbes himself becoming a member, though not the only one. ==Hobbes attacks the universities== Hobbes in ''Leviathan'' (1651) joined others in attacks on the existing Oxbridge academic system, essentially a monopoly in England of university teaching. These attacks, especially that of John Webster in ''Examen academiarum'', stung replies from Oxford professors. Wallis joined in, but the first wave of rebuttals came from other major names. The issue of the universities was heavily loaded at the time, and the orthodox Presbyterian minister Thomas Hall lined up with ''Vindiciae literarum'' (1654). He had been arguing since ''The Pulpit Guarded'' (1651) that university learning was the bastion of defence against proliferating unorthodoxy and heresy.〔Christopher Hill, ''Change and Continuity in 17th Century England'' (1974), p. 131.〕〔Allen G. Debus, ''The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries'' (2002), pp. 406-7.〕 Webster had put the other side of the argument, in ''The Saints Guide'' (1653), casting doubt on the need for a university-educated clergy. In 1654 Seth Ward (1617–1689), the Savilian Professor of Astronomy, replied in ''Vindiciae academiarum'' to the assaults. It was an anonymous publication of Ward and John Wilkins, but not intended to conceal its authorship (JohN WilkinS signed N.S. and SetH WarD signed H.D.).〔Margery Purver, ''The Royal Society: Concept and Creation'' (1967), note 12 p. 66.〕 The agenda and tone for the controversy was first set by Ward when he launched a general attack on Hobbes. Wilkins wrote a preface to ''Vindiciae academiarum''; the main text by Ward mentioned Hobbes, who was the particular target of an appendix. Ward claimed in both places that Hobbes had plagiarised Walter Warner.〔Aloysius Martinich, ''Hobbes: A Biography'' (1999), p. 266.〕 Before ''Leviathan'', Wilkins certainly was not hostile to Hobbes, and in fact wrote a Latin poem for the 1650 ''Humane Nature; or the Fundamental Elements of Policy'', an edition of part of the ''Elements of Law'' of Hobbes; and the preface to that book has been attributed to Ward. But the emergence of the full scope of the philosophy of Hobbes in ''Leviathan'' lost him allies who may have shared somewhat in his starting assumptions, but who felt a need to distance themselves from his conclusions, as Ward did in his ''Philosophicall Essay'' of 1652. 〔Parkin, pp. 154-5.〕 Ward went on to make a full-dress attack on Hobbes the philosopher, the ''In Thomae Hobbii philosophiam exercitatio epistolica'' of 1656, dedicated to Wilkins.〔Parkin, p. 162.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hobbes–Wallis controversy」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|