Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Boundaries, Extents and CirculationsLeibniz and the Petrifying Virtue of the Place

Boundaries, Extents and Circulations: Leibniz and the Petrifying Virtue of the Place [The medieval account of fossils is that animals are sometimes changed into stones because of the petrifying virtue of certain places. This doctrine continues well into the second half of the seventeenth century. The standard account, then, is that fossils are the remains of animals; it inherits the difficulty of explaining how the remains are petrified, or are constituted by some matter different from that of the original animals. It is easy to see how this doctrine could evolve to become the view of Athanasius Kircher and others that fossils are the creation of the power of the place mimicking animals, without there being any actual remains of animals. Kircher and the others provide a ready answer for the obvious differences between fossils and living creatures, including the problem of the stony matter of the fossils, but they achieve this status at the cost of severing links between creatures and fossils. This is the background for Leibniz’s writings on fossils. I trace Leibniz’s development from a follower of Kircher to one of his critics (having been influenced by Nicolaus Steno among others). I also show the resilience of the original doctrine; ultimately Leibniz’s rejection is only partial.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Boundaries, Extents and CirculationsLeibniz and the Petrifying Virtue of the Place

Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Book Series (volume 41)
Editors: Vermeir, Koen; Regier, Jonathan
Ariew, Roger
Boundaries, Extents and Circulations — Sep 15, 2016
Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/boundaries-extents-and-circulations-leibniz-and-the-petrifying-virtue-8IPf50vvg2

References (32)

Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
ISBN
978-3-319-41074-6
Pages
33 –54
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-41075-3_2
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[The medieval account of fossils is that animals are sometimes changed into stones because of the petrifying virtue of certain places. This doctrine continues well into the second half of the seventeenth century. The standard account, then, is that fossils are the remains of animals; it inherits the difficulty of explaining how the remains are petrified, or are constituted by some matter different from that of the original animals. It is easy to see how this doctrine could evolve to become the view of Athanasius Kircher and others that fossils are the creation of the power of the place mimicking animals, without there being any actual remains of animals. Kircher and the others provide a ready answer for the obvious differences between fossils and living creatures, including the problem of the stony matter of the fossils, but they achieve this status at the cost of severing links between creatures and fossils. This is the background for Leibniz’s writings on fossils. I trace Leibniz’s development from a follower of Kircher to one of his critics (having been influenced by Nicolaus Steno among others). I also show the resilience of the original doctrine; ultimately Leibniz’s rejection is only partial.]

Published: Sep 15, 2016

Keywords: Seventeenth Century; Organic Origin; Original Fire; Early Manuscript; Shark Tooth

There are no references for this article.