In 1654 Boyle began to attend the University of Oxford where he would eventually meet another philosopher by the name of John Locke. Boyle and Locke would become closely acquainted to each other, sharing thoughts and ideas between one another. In time, Boyle and Locke would influence each other’s views on topics such as corpuscular particles and atomic theory, with Locke referring to Boyle as a mentor. Although they did have many similarities within their views on corpuscular particles and atomic theory, the two would have many differences in their viewpoints as well.
When Boyle first moved to Oxford, he began setting up experiments to confirm his ideas were correct by having true and concrete facts proven through a series of experiments. This methodology would help make a connection with mechanical philosophy, natural philosophy and the scientific community. At this time Locke, a natural philosopher, began to work with Boyle, with Locke having a similar view on experimentation, although not as strong of a view as Boyle. This common idea of experimentation between the two would lead them to many similar conclusions about natural philosophy through shared experiments. One of the most notable conclusions that would be formed by these two was their viewpoints on corpuscular particles. At the time Boyle disagreed on Aristotelian views on the elements and disagreed on the methods used to come to conclusion due to a lack of experimentation. In Boyle’s work, The Sceptical Chymist, Boyle’s first main argument was to prove corpuscular particles as the basis for what makes up “mix’t bodies” as well as their reactions between one another being somewhat random, resulting in reactions to occur. Quite similarly to Boyle, Locke also believed that the Aristotelian views were false, and the methods were invalid. Aristotelian methods were not scientific, resulting in Locke believing that Aristotle’s views were a “distinct kind of knowledge, one inferior to genuine scientific knowledge” (Stanford Encyclopedia). In Locke’s Essay he would start off similarly to Boyle, by using Boyle’s Corpuscular Hypothesis as a foundation for what makes up the world and how the world functions. Although he does use this as a basis, when referring to the essence of humans, Locke would seem skeptical of the hypothesis, but nonetheless would agree with it for most of his works. During their time at Oxford, Boyle would use the corpuscular hypothesis to study matter from a chemical perspective, while Locke would use the corpuscular hypothesis as a basis to study humans and human essence. Although they would eventually take different paths, this basis of corpuscular theory as well as experimentation would lead to many of their future ideas aligning with one another.
With the idea of corpuscular particles as the basis for a number of their works, many of their ideas were similar to one another, although when referring to human essence, Locke disagreed with Boyle. Unlike Boyle, Locke gave some validity to what Aristotle viewed the human essence as even though there was no experimentation. In Boyle’s work the origins of forms and qualities, he yet again uses the corpuscular hypothesis to start his argument. Boyle argues “there are simpler and more primitive affections of matter on which these secondary qualities, if I may so call them, depend” (Forms of origins and qualities). Boyle believed that the secondary qualities of a person that are ideas in the mind are dependent upon the primary qualities, which are dependent on the corpuscular particles that compose them. For Boyle, this belief connected everything in the universe from physical matter to even thoughts and ideas to the corpuscular particles that composed the universe. Contrary to Boyle, Locke disagreed that it was the corpuscular particles that were responsible for the secondary qualities of people. Locke believed that it was the corpuscular particles that composed the primary qualities of people similar to Boyle, but he believed that the secondary qualities had no relation to corpuscular particles. Locke believed that the secondary qualities of people resembled the ideas of a person and since the ideas of a person were not made of any matter, they were not the same as the primary qualities of one that were made of corpuscular particles. Locke first suggested “that the ideas of primary qualities are resemblances of them” (Locke vs Boyle), which would explain the primary qualities of a person such as size and shape being determined by the corpuscular particles that compose them. Yet for secondary qualities Locke claims that “ideas produced in us by these secondary qualities have no resemblances to them at all” (Locke vs Boyle), showing that these ideas formed by people do not exist as matter and cannot be seen or touched. Although this may seem like a small difference from what Boyle believed, the idea that something was able to exist without being dependent on corpuscular particles defied Boyle’s beliefs. Boyle believed that the corpuscular particles that composed the universe were responsible for everything that exists in the universe. To Boyle, the idea that something was able to exist without having any relationship with these particles was simply false since it was unable to be scientifically proven. If no experiments were able to prove that something existed to Boyle then it simply could not be concluded to be true. This difference in ideas would lead to Boyle studying more of the world from a material standpoint while Locke would pursue his studies in the human essence, not just the matter that composes people.
Overall, Boyle and Locke both had similar views to the physical world from a standpoint on corpuscular particles, but when looking at the thoughts and ideas of a person they approached it from different perspectives. The belief that corpuscular particles making up the universe was shared between both Locke and Boyle, of which their studies and beliefs would eventually lead to what we know now as atomic theory. Yet when pertaining to the idea of human essence, the philosopher’s could not have been more contrasting. While Boyle stuck to his ideas of experimentation and absolute facts that were able to be proven, Locke was able to divert from this ideology in order to come up with his own conclusions about these secondary qualities of a human.
Boyle, Robert William. “The Origin of Forms and Qualities (According to the Corpuscular …” Edited by Johnathan Bennett, Https://Www.earlymoderntexts.com/Assets/Pdfs/boyle1666_2.Pdf, 2017, www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/boyle1666_2.pdf.
Kochiras, Hylarie. “Locke’s Philosophy of Science.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 25 Sept. 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-philosophy-science/. e
Jones, Jan-Erik. “Locke vs. Boyle: The Real Essence of Corpuscular Species.” Taylor & Francis, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09608780701604955.