Robert Boyle's understanding of the world and all its characteristics in nature

INTRODUCTION.

            The goal of a natural philosopher according to Boyle is to make provision of an intelligible and consistent explications of the phenomena of nature. He posited that God can or may intervene in the course of nature, which implies that the philosopher must have a fuller grasp of the phenomena, God bringing back of a particular effect which is evident in the phenomena either through the normal cause of nature or by his supernatural intervention implies that a rich explanation should not be only on a natural one, but also one well grounded in the phenomenon to be explained.[1] Boyle described the sources in which human beings might discover earthly knowledge; the book of scripture, the book of nature, and the Book of Conscience. Boyle strives at analysing the relationship between religious belief and the development of the natural philosophy, Boyle's natural philosophy constitutes with his theology, a tightly woven fabric in which his conception of the universe as a work of divine artifice is a common thread. In Boyle's view, the study of natural philosophy facilitates the acceptance of the truths of natural religion; First, the natural philosopher studies final causes, and from the consideration of the power and wisdom of the creator as displayed in the creation is led to acknowledge God's existence. Second, the natural philosopher learns to distinguish material from immaterial substances and comes to realize that body and soul cannot have the same essential attributes. The natural philosopher, observing that bodies are perishable, can infer that souls are not.[2] This paper is concern in exposing Robert Boyle's understanding of the world and all its characteristics in nature and also a critical evaluation will be given it; to achieve this we shall consider the following in our discourse, First; creation of the material world (human), second; how laws are given to humans, third; Robert Boyle view on the final causes, Matter and Form etc.

ROBERT BOYLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD.

            Robert Boyle had a precise notion and understanding of creation, for Boyle there is no possibility of a world without law and also our world is a world which consist time, this is contrary to Konard Daspodius view who posited a comet "drift without laws" though Leibniz in line with Robert Boyle recognised that a world is made of laws but argued that not all the laws pertain to nature, to him ( Boyle) God does nothing out of order and it is impossible even to feign events which are not regular. Boyle also indicated that some object / event in the world are lawless, when he speaks of the world being without laws he avoids making a generalization of his position considering the fact that there are laws that are not laws of nature giving example of the law that creates connection between the body and soul.[3] Boyle's world view is also that nature was nothing but the 'Art of God" and because it is the doing of the supreme being and a supreme craftsman then it implies that all things found in nature were truly artificial and, thus mechanical. Boyle  aimed at replacing Aristotelianism with a natural science that will place the divine artificer the first cause of all natural phenomena.[4]  Boyle did think that the whole world worked artificially, that natural and forced motions did not differ in kind, and that nature possessed no "inward principle" of its own. He did not, however, view God as the immediate mover in nature; instead he perceived him as a divine crafts- man who had constructed a "great automaton" that reflected the design and skill of its maker and functioned on the same natural principles as imperfect devices built by human artisans.[5] Boyle relate the Aristotelian grasp of art to the theological field to explain how his conception of craftsman which is God create the world by moving parts of matter into a whole being. It is clear that he rejected the Aristotelians' "natural" principles, Boyle posited  a Peripatetic grasp of "artificial" alterations to the outer characteristics  of  bodies and the only way leading to change for artisans is through the  mechanical connection.[6] Also Boyle's was able to refute the Aristotelian notion of immanent "natures" because he believed that matter and the whole material bodies, were devoid of any ability to act purposefully or to contain their ends in themselves,[7] his Peripatetic principles shows intelligence and will to material bodies, this conflicted profoundly with Boyle's theological views. The world as a product of God's artifice was made of dumb, brute matter, the passive instrument of the omniscient and omnipotent agent who fashioned it into marvelous "Being" of  interconnected parts. Boyle argued, the "great masses" and the "smallest fragments of matter" worked on mechanical principles.[8]  He stated that Bodies gain the characteristics of their being  only when God effect motion on the matter, he caused the first motion in matter and this shows his full superiority over the world and its composition. This being created by God exhibit effects that is from their participation with their creator but they had no inherent ability to function except as that which participates in God. Boyle employed his understanding of Peripatetic artifice to describe the process by which God had constructed the world.[9]

            In Boyle's view, the ability to create matter was solely reserved for God alone, though  Human beings, however, worked upon matter in the same manner as the divine artificer. Human artifice differed in scope and degree from divine craftsmanship, but not in kind. As a knowledgeable and powerful agent, a mechanic could fashion useful objects that operated on the same principles as the natural products of God's labour, he could also manipulate material substances to produce experimental knowledge of natural phenomena.[10] Robert Boyle went further to explain how law is given, according to him the supreme being having made matter, started it moving, and giving it laws, he further formed the matter into structures and shapes, consequently in understanding the world created by God, Boyle gave the explanation of matter, shape and time; following the trait of Newton Isaac he explained matter in its nature is one and according to Boyle God creates this matter and institute laws on them which differs from the laws of nature (earth). This world according to Boyle must to have bounds and thus be finite and if it does not have then it will be infinite and if the world is bounded here comes the possibility of another world created by God. Boyle posit a three distinct possibilities, first that the initial set up of the matter involved may differ and the laws in question may also differ, implying that the laws and matter could have been formed in different times by God and as such some parts of matter would be of themselves quiescent and determine to continue at rest till some outward agent force it into motion while other parts of the matter may possibly have the power of moving itself and do not lose the power by the motion they excite in quiescent bodies.[11]

                        Boyle still on understanding of the world wrote a powerful and an influential treatise on the final causes of natural things he posited that there is are final causes and he also claimed that in many cases we can have epistemic access to these final causes. For Boyle, he highlighted four types of final causes. First, is the “grand and General Ends of the whole World, such as the Exercising and Displaying the Creators immense Power ….” Second, are the ends in the nature and motions of the celestial objects and the Earth. Third, there are the ends that pertain to the parts of animals and fourth there are human ends. Boyle was quite adamant that there are no ends that pertain to inanimate objects. In particular, he rejects any form of immanent teleology in virtue of which material objects are able to direct their behaviour: “For inanimate Agents act not by choice, but by a necessary impulse, and not being endowed with Understanding and Will, cannot of themselves be able to moderate or to suspend their actions”.[12]

CONSIDERING RENAISSANCE ARISTOTELIANISM, CAMBRIDGE PLATONISTS, THOMAS AQUANAS, ROBERT BOYLE, HENRY MORE ON NATURE AND HUMANS.

            It is important to note that  The Aristotelianism of the Renaissance was an extraordinarily diverse tradition;  These philosophers believed that all bodies were composed of a mixture of the four elements (earth, water, air, and fire), conditioned by the four qualities  (hot, cold, wet, and dry)  a mixture that did not exist per se, but  that was informed. according to them Forms made each body the kind of object it is; without form, matter was believed to be a pure conceptualization without ontological reality. What actually exists, according to the philosophers, is individual objects, composites of matter and form. The substantial form accounted for the essence, or nature, of the object; it accounted for the characteristic behaviour of that kind of substance (human beings reason, horses neigh, fire heats). Accidental forms accounted for properties that might vary among individuals of the same essential nature (some horses are black, some are white).[13] Thomas Aquinas, By introducing the notion of esse as the act of the substantial form, Aquinas was able to preserve both the intimate union of soul and body and then separate subsistence of the human soul between the death of the body and its resurrection. After death, according to Aquinas, the soul remains a substance composed of its essence and its act of being, yet with the resurrection of the body the intimate union is restored. Boyle was aware of the theological implications the Schoolmen would read into any denial that the human soul is the substantial form of the human body.[14] Boyle himself was able to avoid the pitfalls involved in these various conceptions of the human soul by appealing to the limits of reason; he included the nature of the union of the human soul to its body in his category of inexplicable things.[15]

            Cambridge Platonists -  ( example Henry More's) postulated an intermediary between God and natural phenomena, although the entity was a "hylarchic principle" or "plastic

nature" rather than the substantial forms of the Schoolmen. Ralph Cudworth had argued that a "plastic nature" exists and is the intermediary between God and the created world,[16] that If there were no such intermediary, he thought, then either everything that happens is the result of chance or is the result of God's direct intervention in the created world. The former he rejected on the

grounds that it is consistent with an irrational universe and atheism. He also rejected the idea that natural phenomena are the result of God's direct intervention in the created world. If God does everything directly, Cudworth explained, this would make him "immediately do all the Meanest and Triflingest things himself Drudgingly, without making use of any Inferior and Subordinate Instruments,"[17] and this would not be consistent with God's wisdom. Therefore there must be some "Agent and Executioner" that implements God's will in the world, and this agent is the "plastic nature," or "Substance Incorporeal."[18] According to Cudworth, if God did everything directly, his omnipotence would guarantee perfection in the created world.[19] The "plastic nature," on the other hand, lacking consciousness, "doth not at all Comprehend nor understand the Reason of what it self doth."[20]

            Boyle's response to the "plastic nature" he affirmed that God can conserve and direct the created world from afar, even though he (Boyle) did not understand just how this could be. "The things, that are done in the corporeal world, are really done by the parts of the universal matter, acting and suffering according to the laws of motion established by the Author of nature, he concluded that if we say that it is to God, that is an omniscient and almighty Agent, that this great work is ascribed, we shall not think it incredible.[21]

CRITIC ( AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT )ON ROBERT BOYLE'S WORLD VIEWS.

             Boyle has been criticised to have limited understanding of God (omnipotence), it appears that Boyle was bemused by the fastness of God's creative ability; for biblical story communicates that man was not created till towards the end of the six days of God's creation  work; and since  God used one day in creating beats both wild and tame together will  all the numerous Reptiles that crawl on the Earth; it is certain that among numerous different species of Animal that were created in one part of the same sixth day, and God could make a Humane Animal in an extremely short time, this gradual process of creation worth's admiration and appreciation of Boyle for the Divine creator and he willed everything to him. Considering the fact that motion was not natural to matter, but had to be added to it, it would seem credible to Boyle that God created matter first, and then gave it a push, particularly since the push had to be precisely fine tuned in order to yield just the world we now have, that matter is not naturally in motion forms the basis of one of Boyle's criticisms of Epicurus. Boyle takes Epicurus to hold that motion is an innate property of matter.[22] I affirm Boyle view as the philosopher (Thomas Aquinas) stated in his proves of the existence of God, it is clear that God is the unmoved mover, he puts all things in motion but this does not imply that God act of causing motion is an everyday activitiy; it is once, of which he causes from the beginning of creation. I disagree with Boyle in his claim that "matter and the whole material bodies, were devoid of any ability to act purposefully or to contain their ends in themselves,"[23] and agree with Aristotle principles which shows intelligence and will to material bodies also Boyle's view contrast with that of Augustine (a medieval Philosopher) notion of free will  which states that "since what is equal or superior does not make a mind the slave of passion, if it is in control and virtuous, on account of its justice, while what is inferior cannot do this on account of its weakness...nothing makes a mind give way to desire except its own will and free choice.”[24] the implication of this position is that human on their own lacks the ability in understanding the world. It is evident that Boyle had limited idea about nature, for his inability to address or define a position on the issue of form and matter brought forward by the Renaissance Aristotelian and Aquinas, on this issue I follow the path of Aristotle which says that "matter is what makes a particular unique and form is that which make a particular belongs/ classified to a group or specie".[25] About the four final causes posited by Boyle it is pertinent to note the point of which he attributes end to part of animals, because the implication of such position will be the attribution of a rational soul to animals and he did not explain nor proves his arrival of such position. Robert Boyle differs with Aristotle who posited the eternity of the world (matter coming from already substratum) but for Boyle the world consist of time. The Neo-Platonist view credited that of Boyle and it is that view which I may affirm, the Neo-Platonist states that If the existence of something requires that something else exist before it, then the first thing cannot come into existence without the thing before it existing, an infinite number cannot actually exist.

CONCLUSION

            Throughout the discourse, We discover the unified worldview of Boyle's work in which facts from , physics, and theology were but different aspects of one unified body of knowledge. In this essay, I explore Boyle's appropriation of the Aristotelian understanding of artificial processes and his translation of these concepts to a theological context to explain the creation of the world as an act of divine artifice. The essay exposes "abolition of the contrast between nature and art" in Boyle's natural philosophy, this essay highlighting Boyle's works contain evidence of various relation between his theology, natural philosophy, and the Aristotelian philosophy that he sought to replace. On various instances of Boyle, he assures us that God is the Author of the universe & free Establisher of the Laws of motion, whose general Concourse is necessary to the conservation & Efficacy of every particular Physical Agent.

Bibliography

Charles B. Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983).

Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997.

John Losee "A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" Fourth  Edition, Oxford University Press 2001

Margaret .G. Cook   " Divine Artifice and Natural Mechanism of Robert Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy of Nature" The History of Science Society, Chicago Journals, Chicago university press, 2001.

Ralph Cudworth. The True Intellectual System of the Universe, London, 1678; reprinted New York: Garland, 1978.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Robert Boyle, First published Tue Jan 15, 2002; substantive revision Mon Aug 18, 2014.

 

---

[1] Cf.  Boyle, Christian Virtuoso, (Works, vol. 5, p. 514) as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. p.161

[2] Cf. Boyle, Christian Virtuoso, (Works, vol. 5, ps. 515-522) as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. p.4

[3] Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Robert Boyle" , First published Tue Jan 15, 2002; substantive revision Mon Aug 18, 2014; Viewed may 3, 2015.

[4]Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Robert Boyle" , First published Tue Jan 15, 2002; substantive revision Mon Aug 18, 2014; Viewed may 3, 2015.

[5] Cf. Margaret .G. Cook   " Divine Artifice and Natural Mechanism of Robert Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy of Nature" The History of Science Society, Chicago Journals, Chicago University press, 2001, p.138

[6] Cf. The Origin of Forms and Qualities (cit. n. 29), Works 3:29. as quoted in  Margaret .G. Cook   " Divine Artifice and Natural Mechanism of Robert Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy of Nature" The History of Science Society, Chicago Journals, Chicago University press, 2001, p.143

[7] Cf. Margaret J. Osler, "From Immanent Natures to Nature as Artifice: The Reinterpretation of  Final Causes in Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy" (1996) p.388-407

[8] Cf. Boyle, Excellency and Grounds of the Mechanical Hypothesis (cit. n. 38). Works 4:71. as quoted in  Margaret .G. Cook   " Divine Artifice and Natural Mechanism of Robert Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy of Nature" The History of Science Society, Chicago Journals, Chicago University press, 2001, p.143

[9] Cf. Margaret .G. Cook   " Divine Artifice and Natural Mechanism of Robert Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy of Nature" The History of Science Society, Chicago Journals, Chicago University press, 2001, p.143

[10] Cf. Margaret .G. Cook   " Divine Artifice and Natural Mechanism of Robert Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy of Nature, p. 144

[11] Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Robert Boyle" , First published Tue Jan 15, 2002; substantive revision Mon Aug 18, 2014. Viewed may 3, 2015.

[12] Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Robert Boyle" , First published Tue Jan 15, 2002; substantive revision Mon Aug 18, 2014. Viewed may 3, 2015.

[13] Cf. Charles B. Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983). as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. pp. 123-125  

[14] Cf. Boyle, Origin of Forms and Qualities, vol. 3, pp. 8, 12; as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. P. 125

[15]Cf. Boyle, Things above Reason, Works, vol. 4, pp. 413, 423; Advices, Works, vol. 4, p. 454; Reason and Religion, Works, vol. 4, p. 170. as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. p. 126

[16] Cf. John Passmore, Ralph Cudworth: AnInterpretation (1951; reprint Bristol: Thoemmes, 1990), pp. 19-28. as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. pp. 126-127

[17] Cf. Ralph Cudworth, The True Intellectual System of the Universe: The First (1964), p. 149. as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. P. 127

[18] Cf. Cudworth, True Intellectual System, pp. 147, 148. as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. P. 127

[19] Cf. Cudworth, True Intellectual System, p. 150. as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. p. 128

[20] Cf. Cudworth, True Intellectual System, p. 155. as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. P. 128

[21] Cf. Boyle, Final Causes, Works, vol. 5, pp. 409, 414. as quoted in Jan .W. Wojcik, "Robert boyle and the limit of Reason", Aubum university, Cambridge University press,1997. P. 128-129

[22] Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Robert Boyle" , First published Tue Jan 15, 2002; substantive revision Mon Aug 18, 2014. Viewed may 3, 2015.

[23] cf. Margaret J. Osler, "From Immanent Natures to Nature as Artifice: The Reinterpretation of  Final Causes in Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy" (1996) p.388-407

[24] Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio, trans. Dom Mark Pontifex (Westminster: Newman Press, 1955),Introduction, p.22

[25]John Losee "A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" Fourth  Edition, Oxford University Press 2001, pp.5-7