{"title":"Locke and Holenmerism","authors":"G. D. Biase","doi":"10.5206/LS.2019.6242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Locke’s conception of God’s manner of being present everywhere is unclear. As Jasper Reid noted in The Metaphysics of Henry More, Locke seemed to agree with the Cambridge Platonist Henry More that God, like spirits, is substantially present in space (a conception which More labelled “anti-Nullibism”); however, it is not clear whether he endorsed More’s idea of God as an infinitely extended being, filling space with His amplitude of presence, or rather the alternative, scholastic conception, which More named “holenmerism” and which affirmed that God is present everywhere as a whole in the whole and a whole in the parts. The paper attempts to explore this question in detail by focusing on an episode in Locke’s later correspondence, which suggests that he voluntarily maintained an ambiguous attitude towards holenmerism. The episode focuses on the dispute which Locke had with Johannes Hudde in 1697 on how to prove God’s uniqueness; the “physical” proof he provided to settle the dispute could support both holenmerism and anti-holenmerism. However, Locke’s proof relied heavily on the analogy between spirits and bodies which he had drawn in the Essay, when he had defined their identity over time in the same way; the paper suggests that this and other evidence coming from the Essay, involving Locke’s reading of Newton’s De gravitatione, seems to indicate that he conceived of anti-holenmerism as the hypothesis to be preferred from an epistemic point of view.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Locke Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2019.6242","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Locke’s conception of God’s manner of being present everywhere is unclear. As Jasper Reid noted in The Metaphysics of Henry More, Locke seemed to agree with the Cambridge Platonist Henry More that God, like spirits, is substantially present in space (a conception which More labelled “anti-Nullibism”); however, it is not clear whether he endorsed More’s idea of God as an infinitely extended being, filling space with His amplitude of presence, or rather the alternative, scholastic conception, which More named “holenmerism” and which affirmed that God is present everywhere as a whole in the whole and a whole in the parts. The paper attempts to explore this question in detail by focusing on an episode in Locke’s later correspondence, which suggests that he voluntarily maintained an ambiguous attitude towards holenmerism. The episode focuses on the dispute which Locke had with Johannes Hudde in 1697 on how to prove God’s uniqueness; the “physical” proof he provided to settle the dispute could support both holenmerism and anti-holenmerism. However, Locke’s proof relied heavily on the analogy between spirits and bodies which he had drawn in the Essay, when he had defined their identity over time in the same way; the paper suggests that this and other evidence coming from the Essay, involving Locke’s reading of Newton’s De gravitatione, seems to indicate that he conceived of anti-holenmerism as the hypothesis to be preferred from an epistemic point of view.
洛克关于上帝无处不在的方式的概念是不清楚的。正如贾斯珀·里德(Jasper Reid)在《亨利·莫尔的形而上学》(The Metaphysics of Henry More)中所指出的,洛克似乎同意剑桥柏拉图主义者亨利·莫尔(Henry More)的观点,即上帝就像灵魂一样,本质上存在于空间中(莫尔称之为“反虚无主义”);然而,尚不清楚他是否赞同莫尔的观点,即上帝是一个无限延伸的存在,以他的存在充满空间,或者更确切地说,是另一种学术观念,莫尔称之为“holenmerism”,并断言上帝无处不在,作为整体存在于整体中,整体存在于部分中。本文试图通过关注洛克后期通信中的一个插曲来详细探讨这个问题,这表明他自愿对霍尔梅主义保持一种模棱两可的态度。这一集主要讲述了洛克在1697年与约翰内斯·赫德关于如何证明上帝的独特性的争论;他为解决争端而提供的“实物”证据既可以支持霍尔默主义,也可以支持反霍尔默主义。然而,洛克的论证在很大程度上依赖于他在《随家论》中提出的精神和肉体之间的类比,当时他以同样的方式定义了它们随着时间的推移的身份;这篇论文认为,这一点以及来自《随文》的其他证据,包括洛克对牛顿的《万有引力论》的阅读,似乎表明,从认识论的角度来看,他认为反霍尔梅斯主义是一种更可取的假设。