Observations Upon Experimental Philosophy

by Margaret Cavendish, Eileen O'Neill (Editor)

Margaret Cavendish's Observations upon Experimental Philosophy holds a unique position in early modern philosophy. Cavendish rejects the picture of nature as a grand machine that was propounded by Hobbes and Descartes; she also rejects the alternative views of nature that make reference to immaterial spirits. Instead she develops an original system of organicist materialism, and draws on the doctrines of ancient Stoicism to attack the tenets of seventeenth-century mechanical philosophy. Her treatise is a document of major importance in the history of women's contributions to philosophy and science.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, College

338 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1668

About the author

Margaret Lucas Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, was the youngest child of a wealthy Essex family. At the age of 20 she became Maid of Honour to Queen Henrietta Maria and traveled with her into Persian exile in 1644. There she married William Cavendish, Marquis (later Duke) of Newcastle.

Between 1653 and 1668 she published many books on a wide variety of subjects, including many stories that are now regarded as some of the earliest examples of science fiction.

Reviews

[Steven R. Kraaijeveld]

"Cavendish’s books of natural philosophy may appropriately be viewed as published notebooks, in which the features of her system of nature unfold at the same time as she develops as a philosopher. But they are more than this. They are also a testament to her perseverance as a seventeenth-century woman attempting to make original contributions to a cutting-edge field of philosophical endeavor: natural philosophy in the age of scientific revolution. At a time when women largely wrote spiritual tracts, defenses of, and manuals for, the education of women, and discussions of the passions, Cavendish was experimenting with the genres in which to give voice to natural philosophy written by a woman." (xxxv)

For a course on perception in early modern philosophy, we're studying three major figures: Descartes, Hobbes, and Cavendish. Perhaps the description 'major figure' does not apply to Cavendish, at least not historically – she has been mostly ignored by contemporaries, and in later history has not received much attention, either (certainly not compared to the massive and persistent interest in Descartes or Hobbes). Yet she is being revived, in a way – her philosophy is at present being taken more seriously, both from a feminist perspective as well as within the history of philosophy more generally. This publication of her Observations upon Experimental Philosophy by Cambridge provides a nice example of recent scholarly interest in her works. Cavendish herself was a fascinating person, whose strong will and eccentricity – in a woman always sure to provoke scorn – paradoxically explain both her literary and philosophical productivity, as well as the fact that it has historically been disregarded. The more I read by and about Margaret, the more I appreciate her. I gave a presentation on her natural philosophy the other day – we had to read, among other things, her Observations. I share here, as part of my review, a summary of her natural philosophy as found in my handout to the class. Most of the points come from the excellent introduction to this text.

Cavendish's mature system of nature has five major features:

1) Materialism: there are neither incorporeal substances, nor incorporeal qualities in nature.
2) Complete mixture: no particle in nature can be conceived, which is not composed of both animate and inanimate matter (yet there is no fusion – inanimate and animate matter are still separate, by degrees.
3) Pan-organicism and pan-psychism: nature is everywhere filled with both sensitive and rational knowledge.
4) Continuum theory of matter: animate and inanimate matter form a single, continuous, self-subsistent organism; there are no single parts or loose atoms in nature; no vacua are possible.
5) Non-mechanical natural change: the mechanical transfer of motion via impact does not underlie all natural change; Cavendish argues for occasionalism through rational matter; that is, change through vital agreement and harmony in a unified organism.

For Cavendish, there is a single principle of all natural phenomena, namely matter. Matter comes in two degrees: animate and inanimate. Animate matter may be further subdivided into sensitive and rational matter. Sensitive matter is matter whose motions, like a 'laborer or workman,' carry along inanimate matter, giving rise to the variety of configurations in nature and making nature a single living body filled with diverse bits of knowledge. Rational matter is matter that, like an 'architect, designer, or surveyor,' imbues parts of nature with a more general knowledge of the whole; when it moves within itself, it produces fancies, thoughts, imaginations, and conceptions, and when it moves in tandem with the motions of sensitive matter, it produces sense-perception.

There you have it, roughly – Margaret Cavendish's natural philosophy. She did not have any formal education, but that did not stop her – nor should this fact prevent anyone from doing her the justice of taking her philosophy seriously.

[Qawiiah]

I read a bit of this for my dissertation and then realised that I have absolutely no interest or desire to finish this book in my own time. but this still counts, right?

[TopBob]

With atomic movement, Cavendish probes into this discovery’s implications: this movement evidences order, and even sense and reason in all creation. Rabbits, carrots, rocks, know themselves. Even your senses perceive - for themselves - what they relay

The text’s early modern context gives it an intrinsic feminist quality— it dissents from conventionally feminine topics, and grapples with the periods most eminent thinkers, especially Descartes and Hobbes.

That said, the argumentation largely hinges on a universal “motion” which is vague enough for habitual reference. Unfortunately, this makes the text read like a botched science textbook, with a fabricated foundation that makes everything somewhat unintuitive.

For her credit, Cavendish has a unique worldview and occasionally clever counter-arguments. It’s nice, also, to pair her with her early-modern contemporaries and see some ideological friction that was not permitted in her time.

[Savannah Simpkins]

I’m lowk tired of reading old ass books bc all of these people think they’re so smart but they really don’t know anything and their self assurance is slightly annoying.

cavendish doesn’t suffer from this issue as much as her contemporaries but jeez 😭😭😭 I do like her pushes towards more female involvement in the philosophical sphere even if she’s speaking down on them as she does it

[Damon]

https://www.the-reeds.com/podcast/epi...

[Kate]

The ever-increasing influence of artificial intelligence has made Cavendish's warning so extremely relevant to our day. Just like the microscope, while AI can increase our understanding of surfaces (information, data), it cannot do so without distorting our understanding of depths (felt relationships, kinship).

[Michael]

Imagine you are in a house with Descartes. There are philosophical and scientific discussions going on. But you are banned, silenced from having thoughts, from asking questions, from even caring about such issues. You are not even allowed in the room. You are told that all you can talk about is the equivalent of what is in 17 magazine. Even when Margaret's father died when she was 2, her mother did not allow her an education. It would be hard not to be pissed off. To read a woman's writing from this period (not only was writing not encouraged, but thinking thoughts was not encouraged or very much allowed) is exceptional, if not nearly impossible. Margaret would compose letters to Descartes, Hobbes, and others, but they were not sent. She had to discourse through letters with herself. Her first letter "to Descartes" is about motion. This is after she had written many poems more or less as a commentary on Lucretius.

For more, see http://homersmuse.blogspot.com/2015/0...

[Mandy]

Cavendish makes "science" awesome. It's such a shame her 17th c audience didn't take her seriously.

[Velvetink]

bookfi.org