80Accesses
Abstract
Seventeenth-century science became the generally recognized judge on the reality question, just as ancient Greek philosophers had hoped. But modern science explained nature by laws that unlike Aristotelian physics forbad any exception from them, leaving no place for explanation by free will, although it seems that by our will we can falsify any prediction made about our actions if we know the prediction. Philosophers split over defining the scope of science. The majority followed Descartes declaring that science can explain only the movement ofbodies, not what is ruled bythought, will, andjudgment, dividing the one substance Aristotle assumed into the two substances of matter and mind. A minority, the materialists or physicalists, today the overwhelming majority, followed Hobbes, declaring mental phenomena must be explained by the same laws that explain the movements of bodies, implying that thinking, judgment, and will are “epiphenomena” that lack the causal force to have an effect on the world.
Although there are philosophical arguments for and against free will, and philosophy can check scientific claims and propose questions that science should find an empirical way to answer, it is science rather than philosophy that has become the judge on what there is and must decide whether there is free will by experiment and looking for new empirical data.
This is a preview of subscription content,log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
Buy Now
- Chapter
- JPY 3498
- Price includes VAT (Japan)
- eBook
- JPY 4003
- Price includes VAT (Japan)
- Hardcover Book
- JPY 5004
- Price includes VAT (Japan)
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Literature
Albritton, Rogers. “Freedom of Will and Freedom of Action”.Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 59, 1985, pp. 239–251
Byrne, Christopher.Aristotle’s Science of Matter and Motion. Toronto: University of Toronto Pr. 2018
Ekenberg, Tomas. “Free Will and Free Action in Anselm of Canterbury”.History of Philosophy Quarterly 22, 2005, pp. 301–318
Frede, Michael. Essays in Ancient Philosophy, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought. Ed. A. A. Long. Oakland: Univ. of California Pr. 2011
Haynes, J-D. “Beyond Libet”, in A. Clark, J. Kiverstein, T. Vierkant, Hg.,Decomposing the Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013
Huxley, Thomas Henry. “On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history”.Fortnightly Review 22, 1874, pp. 555–580. Reprint inMethod and Results: Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, New York: Appleton, 1898
Jonas, Hans. “Gnosis and Modern Nihilism”,Social Research 19, 1952, 430–52
Koyré, Alexandre.From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore: John Hopkins Pr. 1957
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm.The Monadology (1714). Tr. Nicholas Rescher. University of Pittsburgh Pr 1991
Libet, Benjamin. “Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, 1985, 529–566
Libet, Benjamin; Wright, E. W.; Feinstein, B.; Pearl, D. K. “Subjective Referral of the Timing for a Conscious Sensory Experience”.Brain 102, 1979, 191–22
McKenna, Michael, “Compatibilism”,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2019
Nagel, Thomas. “What is it like to be a bat?” InMortal Questions. New York: Cambridge UP 1979, 165–180
Nagel, Thomas. “What is it like to be a bat?” In Mortal Questions. New York: Cambridge UP.What Does it All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP 1987
Nozick, Robert.Philosophical Explanations. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1981
Pascal, Blaise.Pensées and Other Writings, ed. Levi. Oxford: Oxford UP 1995
Russell, Bertrand.In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays (1935). London: Routledge 2005
Schultze-Kraft, M., … Haynes, J.-D. “The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements”.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 2015, 1080–1085
Steinvorth, Ulrich. “Zur Legitimität des Klonens.” In Ludger Schwarte, Hg., Körper und Recht: anthropologische Dimensionen der Rechtsphilosophie. München: Fink.A Secular Absolute. How Modern Philosophy Discovered Authenticity. Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Ulrich Steinvorth
- Ulrich Steinvorth
Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence toUlrich Steinvorth.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Steinvorth, U. (2024). How Far Science Replaced Philosophy, or Descartes vs. Hobbes. In: A Brief Presentation of Philosophy and Its History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72533-3_5
Download citation
Published:
Publisher Name:Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN:978-3-031-72532-6
Online ISBN:978-3-031-72533-3
eBook Packages:Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative