• PhilPapers
  • PhilPeople
  • PhilArchive
  • PhilEvents
  • PhilJobs
  • Sign in
PhilPeople
 
  • Sign in
  • News Feed
  • Find Philosophers
  • Departments
  • Radar
  • Help
 
profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

John C. Henry

  •  Home
  •  Publications
    35
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  Events
    1
  •  News and Updates
    1

 More details
Areas of Interest
Philosophy of Religion
Aesthetics
Meta-Ethics
  • All publications (35)
  •  218
    Hobbes, Galileo, and the Physics of Simple Circular Motions
    Hobbes Studies 29 (1): 9-38. 2016.
    _ Source: _Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 9 - 38 Hobbes tried to develop a strict version of the mechanical philosophy, in which all physical phenomena were explained only in terms of bodies in motion, and the only forces allowed were forces of collision or impact. This ambition puts Hobbes into a select group of original thinkers, alongside Galileo, Isaac Beeckman, and Descartes. No other early modern thinkers developed a strict version of the mechanical philosophy. Natural philosophies relying solely …Read more
    _ Source: _Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 9 - 38 Hobbes tried to develop a strict version of the mechanical philosophy, in which all physical phenomena were explained only in terms of bodies in motion, and the only forces allowed were forces of collision or impact. This ambition puts Hobbes into a select group of original thinkers, alongside Galileo, Isaac Beeckman, and Descartes. No other early modern thinkers developed a strict version of the mechanical philosophy. Natural philosophies relying solely on bodies in motion require a concept of inertial motion. Beeckman and Descartes assumed rectilinear motions were rectilinear, but Galileo adopted a theory which has been referred to as circular inertia. Hobbes’s natural philosophy depended to a large extent on what he called “simple circular motions.” In this paper, I argue that Hobbes’s simple circular motions derived from Galileo’s belief in circular inertia. The paper opens with a section outlining Galileo’s concept, the following section shows how Hobbes’s physics depended upon circular motions, which are held to continue indefinitely. A third section shows the difficulty Hobbes had in maintaining a strictly mechanistic philosophy, and the conclusion offers some speculations as to why Galileo’s circular inertia was never entertained as a serious rival to rectilinear inertia, except by Hobbes.
    Hobbes: Philosophy of ScienceHobbes: Science
  •  101
    Francis Bacon, the instauratio magna: Last writings. Edited with introduction, notes, commentaries, and facing-page translations by Graham Rees. The oxford Francis Bacon, XIII. Oxford: Clarendon press, 2000. Pp. xcvi+363. Isbn 0-19-818470-0. £80·00 (review)
    British Journal for the History of Science 35 (1): 97-123. 2002.
    Francis Bacon
  •  207
    Essay Review: Henry More and Newton's Gravity, Henry More: Magic, Religion and Experiment
    History of Science 31 (1): 83-97. 1993.
    Cambridge Platonism
  •  65
    Peter Alexander. Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles: Locke and Boyle on the Natural World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Pp. 331. ISBN 0-521-26707-2. £27.50
    British Journal for the History of Science 19 (3): 357-358. 1986.
    Locke: Philosophy of Science, MiscLocke: Matter
  •  145
    Marjorie Hope Nicolson , The Conway Letters: The Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More, and their Friends, 1642–1684. Revised Edition with an Introduction and New Material Edited by Sarah Hutton. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Pp. xxix + 592. ISBN 0-19-824876-8. £55.00
    British Journal for the History of Science 26 (3): 357-358. 1993.
    Cambridge PlatonismAnne Conway17th/18th Century British Philosophy, Misc
  • Prev.
  • 1
  • 2
  • Next
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University
PhilPeople is currently in Beta Sponsored by the PhilPapers Foundation and the American Philosophical Association
Feedback