Abstract

Which offers the better philosophical explanation, a philosophy of nature or a philosophy of space? Yves Simon posed this question in a series of lectures at the University of Chicago in 1959. Aristotle champions the philosophy of nature which recognizes a world of substantiality, individuality, qualitative differences, and mutability. Such a world is best explained in terms of causes; causes of real things. Descartes advocates a philosophy of space which ignores or denies qualitatively distinct realities and establishes "appearance saving" laws. Thus Simon establishes the protagonists of the great dialogue: Nature versus Space, real things versus phenomena, causality versus laws, Aristotle versus Descartes. Simon does not pretend to be neutral in this debate. He favors Aristotle's theory of causality with its metaphysical-based view of nature. The Cartesian physics pays too great a price in "saving the appearances." In fact, Simon contends, it leads to an erroneous notion of science. Simon is critical of modern thinkers who have defined science in such a way that "Nature" is excluded. He is critical of early positivists in general, and Comte and Mach in particular, for giving inadequate descriptions of science. Simon contends that an Aristotelian framework is helpful in understanding science's role. In his style and approach to Aristotle's philosophy of Nature, Simon is similar to Frederick Woodbridge in the latter's efforts to show the relevance of Aristotle's view of nature. Because of his terminal illness, Yves Simon was not able to revise and publish the lectures he began in 1959. This collection of rather informal talks shows why he was a popular teacher and lecturer.--J. J. R.