I am wondering how I can avoid using the words intent and meaning. As in , Newton’s remark on the apple was intended by Newton to lay claim to an idea.
What I can say is that thought does not contradict what I know about Newton.
At the moment I have a live thought about Newton and the apple. It may die as I lean more about the subject or it may survive. Explaining a whole by a part. i.e. Newtons mechanics explain a part but certainly not the whole of Newton’s cosmos. The sense of perspective in Newtons story about an apple, seems to suggest that recourse to ‘vulgar’ atheistic thought can be rejected by Newton and a defensive argument engaged with.
The apple story, patterns well with his wider perspective on reading and literalism. It does not contradict.
Going to take a look at a differing example of creative thought and being alive in the next post.
It may include some elves but no gnomes (1).
A popular feature in early modern science writing is to stereotype the medieval ‘world perspective’ by noting that it believed in gnomes. It would perhaps be better to question the modern ‘world perspective’ that the middle- ages possesses a static object sometimes referred to as the medieval mind.