- Grinnell College
1120 Park St.
Grinnell, IA 50112 - 641-269-4764
Tammy Nyden
Grinnell College, Philosophy, Faculty Member
- Philosophy, 17th Century & Early Modern Philosophy, Baruch Spinoza, History of Science, Philosophy of Science, History of Physics, and 18 moreHistory of 17th-century Dutch Enlightenment thought, 17th Century Dutch Republic, Cartesianism, Dutch Cartesianism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Nietzche, Newtonianism, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Gender, Feminist Theory, Critical Race Theory, Critical Race Studies, History of Medicine, Feminist Philosophy, History of Experimentation, Jonathan I. Israel, and History of Philosophyedit
- Associate Professor of Philosophy at Grinnell College. Current Book Project: Paradigm's Lost: How Leiden Made Expe... moreAssociate Professor of Philosophy at Grinnell College.
Current Book Project: Paradigm's Lost: How Leiden Made Experimental Physics Real Science.
This book gives an account of the central role the University of Leiden played in the acceptance and spread of experimental physics throughout Europe and in doing so challenges two master narratives of the early modern period: Kuhn's characterization of the scientific revolution, particularly its incommensurability thesis; and the characterization of early modern philosophy in terms of an epistemological divide between Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism.edit
Research Interests:
In 1675, Burchard de Volder (1643–1709) was the first professor to introduce the demonstration of experiment into a university physics course and built the Leiden Physics Theatre to accommodate this new pedagogy. When he requested the... more
In 1675, Burchard de Volder (1643–1709) was the first professor to introduce the demonstration of experiment into a university physics course and built the Leiden Physics Theatre to accommodate this new pedagogy. When he requested the funds from the university to build the facility, he claimed that the performance of experiments would demonstrate the “truth and certainty” of the postulates of theoretical physics. Such a claim is interesting given de Volder’s lifelong commitment to Cartesian scientia. This chapter will examine de Volder’s views on experiment and show that they are not Newtonian or inductivist, as is sometimes claimed. While de Volder thinks we need deductive reasoning from first principles to provide evidence of the certainty of the content of our physical theories, he also contends that we need experiment to provide evidence of the certainty of the existence of the particular bodies those theories discuss. This approach to experiment is based on a distinction between rational certainty and the certainty of material bodies in the actual world. While this account is deeply influenced by Descartes, it is importantly different than Descartes’ distinction between absolute and moral certainty. De Volder’s “Cartesian Empiricism” is best understood as a continuation and further development of a long tradition of teaching through observation at Leiden.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In 1675, Burchard de Volder (1643–1709) was the first professor to introduce the demonstration of experiment into a university physics course and built the Leiden Physics Theatre to accommodate this new pedagogy. When he requested the... more
In 1675, Burchard de Volder (1643–1709) was the first professor to introduce the demonstration of experiment into a university physics course and built the Leiden Physics Theatre to accommodate this new pedagogy. When he requested the funds from the university to build the facility, he claimed that the performance of experiments would demonstrate the “truth and certainty” of the postulates of theoretical physics. Such a claim is interesting given de Volder’s lifelong commitment to Cartesian scientia. This chapter will examine de Volder’s views on experiment and show that they are not Newtonian or inductivist, as is sometimes claimed. While de Volder thinks we need deductive reasoning from first principles to provide evidence of the certainty of the content of our physical theories, he also contends that we need experiment to provide evidence of the certainty of the existence of the particular bodies those theories discuss. This approach to experiment is based on a distinction between rational certainty and the certainty of material bodies in the actual world. While this account is deeply influenced by Descartes, it is importantly different than Descartes’ distinction between absolute and moral certainty. De Volder’s “Cartesian Empiricism” is best understood as a continuation and further development of a long tradition of teaching through observation at Leiden.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Philosophy and Conatus
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This introduction opens a discussion about what we call here “Cartesian Empiricisms.” Under this label we place some of the complex transformations of Descartes’ ideas in the second half of the seventeenth century. Our aim is to highlight... more
This introduction opens a discussion about what we call here “Cartesian Empiricisms.” Under this label we place some of the complex transformations of Descartes’ ideas in the second half of the seventeenth century. Our aim is to highlight the use of experiment within the Cartesian framework, which—with the exception of a few scattered studies on seventeenth-century Cartesians—was largely neglected in the literature. In this introduction, we provide an overview of Cartesian scholarship and the use of the rationalist-empiricist distinction in both the history of philosophy and the history of science; we show that the rationalist-empiricist narrative is in crisis and contend that examining figures who do not neatly fit the dichotomy is a useful approach to a re-evaluation of the period. We end with a summary of the chapters, which cover a number of Cartesians strongly committed to the importance of experimental natural philosophy and further our understanding of how Cartesians in the second half of the seventeenth century understood and utilized knowledge from observation, experience, and experiment.
Research Interests: 17th Century & Early Modern Philosophy, Empiricism, Seventeenth Century, 17th-Century Studies, Cartesianism, and 6 moreRationalism, Descartes, René, Philosophy of Science, History of the Philosophy of Science, Epistemology of Experimentation, History of the Human sciences, Scientific Revolution, Descartes, and Rationalism – Empiricism
In 1675, Burchard de Volder (1643–1709) was the first professor to introduce the demonstration of experiment into a university physics course and built the Leiden Physics Theatre to accommodate this new pedagogy. When he requested the... more
In 1675, Burchard de Volder (1643–1709) was the first professor to introduce the demonstration of experiment into a university physics course and built the Leiden Physics Theatre to accommodate this new pedagogy. When he requested the funds from the university to build the facility, he claimed that the performance of experiments would demonstrate the “truth and certainty” of the postulates of theoretical physics. Such a claim is interesting given de Volder’s lifelong commitment to Cartesian scientia. This chapter will examine de Volder’s views on experiment and show that they are not Newtonian or inductivist, as is sometimes claimed. While de Volder thinks we need deductive reasoning from first principles to provide evidence of the certainty of the content of our physical theories, he also contends that we need experiment to provide evidence of the certainty of the existence of the particular bodies those theories discuss. This approach to experiment is based on a distinction between rational certainty and the certainty of material bodies in the actual world. While this account is deeply influenced by Descartes, it is importantly different than Descartes’ distinction between absolute and moral certainty. De Volder’s “Cartesian Empiricism” is best understood as a continuation and further development of a long tradition of teaching through observation at Leiden.
Research Interests:
This paper will examine the work of two physics professors at the University of Leiden: Burchard de Volder (1643-1709) and his successor, Willem J ‘s Gravesande (1668-1742). Both men are responsible for innovations in pedagogy that... more
This paper will examine the work of two physics professors at the University of Leiden: Burchard de Volder (1643-1709) and his successor, Willem J ‘s Gravesande (1668-1742). Both men are responsible for innovations in pedagogy that emphasize the demonstration of experiment: de Volder was the first university physics professor to demonstrate experiments in his classroom and created the Leiden Physics Theatre for that purpose; one generation later, ‘s Gravesande taught in that same theatre and provided students with the first comprehensive textbook in experimental physics. While both men emphasize experiment in their pedagogy, they differ in their epistemological commitments. De Volder, a Cartesian, demonstrates experiments to inspire his young students, still greatly affected by sensory perception, to take on the daunting task of true science, which for him involves deduction from first principles. In contrast, ‘s Gravesande, a Newtonian, teaches his students how to use experiments in order to gain reliable information about the world. This paper studies their respective positions in the ongoing vis viva controversy as a means of understanding the influence Locke’s epistemology had on early eighteenth-century physics, particularly on the Dutch reception of Newton.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Baruch Spinoza, the seventeenth century Dutch rationalist, has always been seen as a bit of an anomaly within the Western tradition. His monism, unique conception of God as Nature, and ethical focus on human freedom or liberation has... more
Baruch Spinoza, the seventeenth century Dutch rationalist, has always been seen as a bit of an anomaly within the Western tradition. His monism, unique conception of God as Nature, and ethical focus on human freedom or liberation has occasioned some comparisons with Asian philosophies. Unfortunately, almost all of these comparisons take the form of vague passing remarks within the context of a work or discussion with another philosophical focus. The reader is often left to wonder what the particular commonalties are and may even get the impression that such comparisons result from frustrations in placing certain Spinozistic views within the European tradition, rather than concrete affinities with various Asian traditions. This is unfortunate, as it would be beneficial to see how a Western philosopher might approach the fundamentally ‘Eastern’ philosophical problem of human liberation and the nature of the self. In this paper I argue that Spinoza provides a decidedly Western answer to this problem and that his answer may be viewed as a middle ground between Sankara's Advaita Vedantic approach and Santaraksita's Vajrayana Buddhist approach.
Research Interests:
Cartesian Empiricisms considers the role Cartesians played in the acceptance of experiment in natural philosophy during the seventeenth century. It aims to correct a partial image of Cartesian philosophers as paradigmatic system builders... more
Cartesian Empiricisms considers the role Cartesians played in the acceptance of experiment in natural philosophy during the seventeenth century. It aims to correct a partial image of Cartesian philosophers as paradigmatic system builders who failed to meet challenges posed by the new science’s innovative methods. Studies in this volume argue that far from being strangers to experiment, many Cartesians used and integrated it into their natural philosophies. Chapter 1 reviews the historiographies of early modern philosophy, science, and Cartesianism and their recent critiques. The first part of the volume explores various Cartesian contexts of experiment: the impact of French condemnations of Cartesian philosophy in the second half of the seventeenth century; the relation between Cartesian natural philosophy and the Parisian academies of the 1660s; the complex interplay between Cartesianism and Newtonianism in the Dutch Republic; the Cartesian influence on medical teaching at the University of Duisburg; and the challenges chemistry posed to the Cartesian theory of matter. The second part of the volume examines the work of particular Cartesians, such as Henricus Regius, Robert Desgabets, Jacques Rohault, Burchard de Volder, Antoine Le Grand, and Balthasar Bekker. Together these studies counter scientific revolution narratives that take rationalism and empiricism to be two mutually exclusive epistemological and methodological paradigms. The volume is thus a helpful instrument for anyone interested both in the histories of early modern philosophy and science, as well as for scholars interested in new evaluations of the historiographical tools that framed our traditional narratives.
Research Interests:
Cartesian Empiricisms considers the role Cartesians played in the acceptance of experiment in natural philosophy during the seventeenth century. It aims to correct a partial image of Cartesian philosophers as paradigmatic system builders... more
Cartesian Empiricisms considers the role Cartesians played in the acceptance of experiment in natural philosophy during the seventeenth century. It aims to correct a partial image of Cartesian philosophers as paradigmatic system builders who failed to meet challenges posed by the new science’s innovative methods. Studies in this volume argue that far from being strangers to experiment, many Cartesians used and integrated it into their natural philosophies. Chapter 1 reviews the historiographies of early modern philosophy, science, and Cartesianism and their recent critiques. The first part of the volume explores various Cartesian contexts of experiment: the impact of French condemnations of Cartesian philosophy in the second half of the seventeenth century; the relation between Cartesian natural philosophy and the Parisian academies of the 1660s; the complex interplay between Cartesianism and Newtonianism in the Dutch Republic; the Cartesian influence on medical teaching at the University of Duisburg; and the challenges chemistry posed to the Cartesian theory of matter. The second part of the volume examines the work of particular Cartesians, such as Henricus Regius, Robert Desgabets, Jacques Rohault, Burchard de Volder, Antoine Le Grand, and Balthasar Bekker. Together these studies counter scientific revolution narratives that take rationalism and empiricism to be two mutually exclusive epistemological and methodological paradigms. The volume is thus a helpful instrument for anyone interested both in the histories of early modern philosophy and science, as well as for scholars interested in new evaluations of the historiographical tools that framed our traditional narratives.
Research Interests:
Seventeenth-century Holland was a culture divided. Orthodox Calvinists, loyal to both scholastic philosophy and the quasi-monarchical House of Orange, saw their world turned upside down with the sudden death of Prince William II and no... more
Seventeenth-century Holland was a culture divided. Orthodox Calvinists, loyal to both scholastic philosophy and the quasi-monarchical House of Orange, saw their world turned upside down with the sudden death of Prince William II and no heir to take his place. The Republicans seized this opportunity to create a decentralized government favourable to Holland's trading interests and committed to religious and philosophical tolerance. The now ruling regent class, freshly trained in the new philosophy of Descartes, used it as a weapon to fight against monarchical tendencies and theological orthodoxy. And so began a great pamphlet debate about Cartesianism and its political and religious consequences. This important new book begins by examining key Radical Cartesian pamphlets and Spinoza's role in a Radical Cartesian circle in Amsterdam, two topics rarely discussed in the English literature. Next, Nyden-Bullock examines Spinoza's political writings and argues that they should not be seen as political innovations so much as systemizations of the Radical Cartesian ideas already circulating in his time. The author goes on to reconstruct the development of Spinoza's thinking about the human mind, truth, error, and falsity and to explain how this development, particularly the innovation of parallelism - the lynchpin of his system - allowed Spinoza to provide philosophical foundations for Radical Cartesian political theory. She concludes that, contrary to general opinion, Spinoza's rejection of Cartesian epistemology involves much more than the metaphysical problems of dualism - it involves, ironically, Spinoza's attempt to make coherent a political theory bearing Descartes's name.