A free discussion of the doctrines of materialism and philosophical necessity
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
A free discussion of the doctrines of materialism and philosophical necessity
(18th & 19th century works)
Thoemmes Press, 1994
- Other Title
-
Discussion of the doctrines of materialism and philosophical necessity
Available at 7 libraries
  Aomori
  Iwate
  Miyagi
  Akita
  Yamagata
  Fukushima
  Ibaraki
  Tochigi
  Gunma
  Saitama
  Chiba
  Tokyo
  Kanagawa
  Niigata
  Toyama
  Ishikawa
  Fukui
  Yamanashi
  Nagano
  Gifu
  Shizuoka
  Aichi
  Mie
  Shiga
  Kyoto
  Osaka
  Hyogo
  Nara
  Wakayama
  Tottori
  Shimane
  Okayama
  Hiroshima
  Yamaguchi
  Tokushima
  Kagawa
  Ehime
  Kochi
  Fukuoka
  Saga
  Nagasaki
  Kumamoto
  Oita
  Miyazaki
  Kagoshima
  Okinawa
  Korea
  China
  Thailand
  United Kingdom
  Germany
  Switzerland
  France
  Belgium
  Netherlands
  Sweden
  Norway
  United States of America
Note
Reprint. Originally published in 1778, London
Spine title: Discussion of the doctrines of materialism and philosophical necessity
Includes bibliographical references and index
Description and Table of Contents
Description
The "Free Discussion" between Richard Price and Joseph Priestley (1778) originated as a correspondence between the two after the publication of Priestley's "Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit", his most important philosophical work (1777). At the time it was thought remarkable that a controversey such as this could be conducted so amicably, but then the two were close friends. Nevertheless their philosophical, as opposed to their oft mentioned political views, were at opposite ends of a spectrum. Price believed that matter was passive and that explanations of such concepts as force and action at a distance were best expressed in mathematical terms. In this he was following a long tradition of British Mathematical Scholarship derived from Colin Maclaurin. Priestley, following a different tradition derived from Rowning and Boscovitch, thought that matter was not merely to be acted on, as Price would have argued, but was itself, and of itself, active. This led to Priestley denying the conventional dualism of matter and spirit. The result is that this correspondence is perhaps the clearest expression of the differences between materialism and immaterialism in 18th century philosophy.
by "Nielsen BookData"