School #185

Newtonianism

Isaac Newton, Samuel Clarke, Roger Cotes, Voltaire, Emilie du Chatelet, Colin Maclaurin

Newtonianism is the eighteenth-century worldview that took Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' (1687) and 'Opticks' (1704) as the paradigm of all rigorous natural knowledge and extended their assumptions — absolute space and time, universal gravitation acting at a distance, mathematical demonstration from phenomena, the avoidance of unsupported hypotheses ('hypotheses non fingo') — into a general programme for philosophy, theology and even political thought. The second edition of the 'Principia' (1713) carries Roger Cotes's influential preface defending action-at-a-distance, while Samuel Clarke's correspondence with Leibniz (1715-1716) became the locus classicus for the philosophical defence of absolute space and time and of God's active providential role. On the continent, Newtonianism was popularised by Voltaire's 'Elements de la philosophie de Newton' (1738) and his collaborator Emilie du Chatelet's French translation of and commentary on the 'Principia' (published 1759); in Britain by Colin Maclaurin's 'An Account of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophical Discoveries' (1748). The Newtonian system became the model for an entire generation of natural-philosophical inquiry, from electricity and chemistry to political economy, where Adam Smith's admiration for Newton is explicit. As a worldview Newtonianism is distinct both from contemporary physics (which has displaced absolute space and time) and from Newton's own private theology and alchemy, which his public successors largely concealed.

Worldview

The Newtonian inhabits a vast, clean, lawful universe: an infinite space and time in which massy particles move according to exact mathematical laws that human reason can discover by patient observation, experiment, and demonstration. The world feels open, intelligible, and orderly; superstition, occult qualities, and Cartesian vortices recede before a chastened experimental method that asks only what can be deduced from the phenomena. Public Newtonianism — the Newtonianism of Clarke, Voltaire, du Chatelet and Maclaurin — couples this scientific rigour with a sober natural theology: the regularity of the cosmos is read as evidence of its divine Architect. The framework classifies this as Personal: the God of the Boyle Lectures and of Clarke's correspondence with Leibniz is the personal creator and providential governor of the universe, who constituted absolute space and time, established the laws of motion, and occasionally re-adjusts the planetary system; he is not the impersonal absolute of later deism. The framework classifies this as Reason in moral authority: the operative norm in disputes is mathematical demonstration from phenomena, with revelation and tradition demoted to subordinate roles in natural philosophy even where they are kept in private piety. This combination — exact science, infinite cosmos, providential theism, confidence in human reason — defined the educated worldview of the eighteenth century and supplied the template for the social sciences that followed.

Moral Implications

Newtonianism by itself is not a moral philosophy, but it underwrote a characteristic ethic of rational moderation: the world is law-governed, providence is real, superstition and fanaticism are to be avoided, and the educated person's task is to live in accord with the rational order of nature. The eighteenth-century natural religion of Clarke and the early Boyle Lecturers translated the regularity of nature into a moral law analogously universal and discoverable by reason. In political theory, the Newtonian analogy of a self-regulating system shaped both Hume's account of the passions and Smith's account of markets.

Practical Implications

The practical influence of Newtonianism is immense and unmistakable: it provided the exact mathematical foundation for celestial mechanics (perfected by Lagrange and Laplace in the eighteenth century), the framework for the classical physics of the nineteenth century, the model of demonstrative science that early chemistry, biology and economics emulated, and the underlying technology of navigation, ballistics, civil engineering and industrial machinery. As a cultural matter, Newtonianism is the first scientific worldview that became part of educated common sense, and its image of a clockwork universe governed by exact laws still shapes lay intuitions about physics long after professional physics has moved beyond it.

I. Time

Time is the great Newtonian commitment: 'absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external' ('Principia', Scholium I). It is Substantival, One-dimensional, Linear, Uni-directional and Infinite in extent, the same everywhere and for every observer. Freedom in physical dynamics is Deterministic — given the state and the forces, the future is determined — even though most public Newtonians (Clarke especially) reserved human freedom and divine intervention from this determinism. Time is the universal stage on which all events occur and against which all motions are measured.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Uni-directional

II. Space

Space is Substantival, Three-dimensional, Flat (Euclidean), and Infinite in extent — the famous 'absolute space' of the Scholium, ontologically prior to bodies and their relations and treated by Newton and Clarke as the 'sensorium of God'. Locality is Non-local in the very specific sense of universal gravitation acting instantaneously at a distance across arbitrary spatial separations, a feature that Leibniz famously objected to as an occult quality and that Clarke and Cotes defended as a mathematically warranted (if metaphysically unexplained) feature of the law. This is the central conceptual scandal that drove much of eighteenth-century natural philosophy.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Matter is Substantival, three-dimensional, Local, Conserved, and (in the standard Newtonian account) constituted of hard, impenetrable, massy particles that interact through forces. Newton himself speculated in Query 31 of the 'Opticks' (1717) about active principles in matter, but the public Newtonian framework keeps matter essentially passive and the forces (gravity, magnetism, electricity, chemical affinity) as the active principles superadded to it. Matter's Extent is Finite in the sense that the total quantity is conserved, even as it is distributed through infinite space.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The Newtonian observer is the disciplined, embodied natural philosopher — the Royal-Society virtuoso patiently measuring, calculating, and reasoning back from phenomena to their mathematical causes. Knowledge extent is Mediated: we do not see into the inner essences of bodies, but only into the regularities of their behaviour expressed in mathematical laws (a point Newton makes explicitly in the General Scholium of 1713). Knowledge retainment is Total because once a law has been demonstrated from the phenomena it is permanent intellectual property of the human community. Agency is Active and the observer Plural, since the new natural philosophy is a collective enterprise of experiment and demonstration. The observer is firmly Embodied, located at a definite place in space and at a definite moment of time.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Mediated Retainment of Knowledge: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Personal Moral Authority: Reason Theological Method: Pragmatic-civic

V. Energy

Although the modern concept of 'energy' is not yet fully formed in the early Newtonian period, the framework treats the dynamical quantities of the 'Principia' (force, momentum, vis viva) as Substantival, Conserved, and Infinite in extent — the universe is everywhere subject to the same exact laws. Du Chatelet's contributions on vis viva (the precursor of kinetic energy) and her introduction of Leibnizian and Newtonian elements into a synthetic account anticipate the nineteenth-century formulation of energy conservation. Dispersibility is Irreversible at the macroscopic level: time has a definite direction and processes such as the dissipation of motion by friction are not reversed in ordinary experience.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information is Substantival, Continuous, and Conserved: the laws of nature are exact, permanent features of the world that the natural philosopher progressively discovers but does not invent. The phenomena are the data from which laws are inferred, and the mathematical statement of a law is the compression of an infinite class of phenomena into a single intelligible structure. Personal-identity information is Conserved on the standard early-modern Christian assumption (which most public Newtonians shared) that the soul is immortal and known to God.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous
← #184 Western Esotericism All Schools #186 Classical Political Economy →

Works that name Newtonianism in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

8%
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Isaac Newton · 1687 (first ed.); 1713, 1726 (second and third revised eds)
8%
Opticks (Late)
Isaac Newton · 1704 (English first edition); 1706 (Latin)
8%
Exposition du système du monde (Mid)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1796 (revised through 1824)
8%
Traité de mécanique céleste (Mid-to-late)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1799-1825 (5 vols)
8%
Théorie analytique des probabilités (Late)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1812 (revised 1814, 1820)
8%
Micrographia (Early-career (career-defining))
Robert Hooke · 1665
8%
An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations (Mid-career)
Robert Hooke · 1674
8%
Lectures de Potentia Restitutiva (Mid-career)
Robert Hooke · 1678
8%
The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke (Posthumous)
Robert Hooke · 1705 (posthumous, ed. R. Waller; written c. 1670s-1700)
8%
General Scholium (Late)
Sir Isaac Newton · 1713 (added to 2nd edition of the Principia)
8%
Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (Posthumous)
Sir Isaac Newton · c. 1680s-90s composition; 1733 publication (posthumous)
8%
Alchemical and Theological Manuscripts (Career-spanning private work)
Sir Isaac Newton · c. 1660s-1720s

How Newtonianism resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 5 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 1 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
6 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 2 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

34 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 65% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 40% What happens to "you" when you die? A soul continues into another mode of being. 37% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. 37% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. 37% Are the dead morally present to the living? The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. 35% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering. 33% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach. 33% Does prayer change God's mind? God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted. 33% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer. 30% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have. 29% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person. 29% What makes someone the same person over time? You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. 29% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. 29% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it. 29% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos. 29% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through controlled empirical investigation. 17%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (202)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202