This paper aims both to tackle the technical issue of deciphering Hobbes’s derivation of the sine law of refraction and to throw some light to the broader issue of Hobbes’s mechanical philosophy. I start by recapitulating the polemics between Hobbes and Descartes concerning Descartes’ optics. I argue that, first, Hobbes’s criticisms do expose certain shortcomings of Descartes’ optics which presupposes a twofold distinction between real motion and inclination to motion, and between motion itself and determination of motion; second, Hobbes’s optical theory presented in Tractatus Opticus I constitutes a more economical alternative, which eliminates the twofold distinction and only admits actual local motion, and Hobbes’s derivation of the sine law presented therein, which I call “the early model” and which was retained in Tractatus Opticus II and First Draught, is mathematically consistent and physically meaningful. These two points give Hobbes’s early optics some theoretical advantage over that of Descartes. However, an issue that has baffled commentators is that, in De Corpore Hobbes’s derivation of the sine law seems to be completely different from that presented in his earlier works, furthermore, it does not make any intuitive sense. I argue that the derivation of the sine law in De Corpore does make sense mathematically if we read it as a simplification of the early model, and Hobbes has already hinted toward it in the last proposition of Tractatus Opticus I. But now the question becomes, why does Hobbes take himself to be entitled to present this simplified, seemingly question-begging form without having presented all the previous results? My conjecture is that the switch from the early model to the late model is symptomatic of Hobbes’s changing views on the relation between physics and mathematics.
...MoreSimilar Citations
Article
Tarek R. Dika;
(2022)
Descartes’s Deduction of the Law of Refraction and the Shape of the Anaclastic Lens in Rule 8
Article
Robert Goulding;
(2022)
The Harvest of Optics: Descartes, Mydorge, and their paths to a theory of refraction
Book
Francesco Maurolico;
Riccardo Bellé;
Ken'ichi Takahashi;
(2017)
Francisci Maurolyci Optica
Article
Dijksterhuis, Fokko Jan;
(2013)
Jeu de Paume and Jeux de la Raison in Seventeenth-Century Optics
Chapter
Malet, Antoni;
(2001)
Descartes and Hobbes on Optical Images
Article
Carlos Alvarez Jiménez;
Vincent Jullien;
Carmen Martínez-Adame;
(2019)
On the Analytic and Synthetic Demonstrations in Fermat’s Work on the Law of Refraction
Article
Gregorio Baldin;
(2018)
Points, Atoms and Rays of Light: History of a Controversy from Mersenne to Hobbes
Article
Malet, Antoni;
(2001)
The power of images: Mathematics and metaphysics in Hobbes's optics
Article
Janiak, Andrew;
(2010)
Substance and Action in Descartes and Newton
Article
Schmaltz, Tad M.;
(2003)
Cartesian Causation: Body--Body Interaction, Motion, and Eternal Truths
Chapter
Alexandrescu, Vlad;
(2009)
The Double Question of the Individuation of Physical Bodies in Descartes
Article
Schemmel, Matthias;
(2014)
Medieval Representations of Change and Their Early Modern Application
Chapter
Roux, Sophie;
(2006)
Découvrir le principe d'inertie
Article
Helge Kragh;
(2018)
The Lorenz-Lorentz Formula: Origin and Early History
Chapter
Goulding, Robert;
(2012)
Chymicorum in morem: Refraction, Matter Theory, and Secrecy in the Harriot-Kepler Correspondence
Article
Goulding, Robert;
(2014)
Thomas Harriot's Optics, between Experiment and Imagination: The Case of Mr Bulkeley's Glass
Article
Rodolfo Garau;
(2016)
Springs, Nitre, and Conatus. The Role of the Heart in Hobbes's Physiology and Animal Locomotion
Book
Descartes, René;
(2001)
Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology
Article
Schuster, John A.;
(2012)
Physico-Mathematics and the Search for Causes in Descartes' Optics---1619--1637
Chapter
Dijksterhuis, Fokko Jan;
(2007)
Constructive Thinking: A Case for Dioptrics
Be the first to comment!