Shepherd vol 2 ebook: Chapter 14: Conclusions Drawn on Shepherd's Materialism

Chapter 14: Conclusions Drawn on Shepherd's Materialism

In Part 2, I have built on and focused on topics in Part 1, especially Chapter 3, by expanding the scope of my topic for this volume to materialism and theism. This supports my argument in Part 1 that the content of the disputed 1819 Treatise may not be as dissimilar to the 1824 and 1827 treatises that are attributed to Shepherd. 

One key strand of my argument in Part 1, in particular chapter 3, which I furthered in Part 2 is examining Shepherd's fascination with scientific methodology and subject areas, both within pure science, such as the field of medicine, as well as philosophising about scientific areas of interest, otherwise known as natural philosophy. I have argued that we repeatedly see that Shepherd has a keen interest and vast knowledge of the sciences, even managing to critically engage with and notice irregularities in the arguments of some of the top scientists of her era, including Newton. This, I maintain, is not only of interest when interpreting Shepherd's writings and philosophy, it also shows that there is no reason to automatically assume that any scientific writing in the 1819 Treatise counts as any sort of textual evidence that it is authored by a male architect and engineer rather than by Shepherd. As I show in my discussion of her use of scientific, logical methodology, such as Causa Pro Causa and Experimentum Crucis, Shepherd is more than capable of scientific, technical scholarship. Indeed, Shepherd even chooses to discuss the example of gold, which is consistent with her passion for geology, another field that Boyle dismisses as irrelevant to confirming Shepherd's authorship of the 1819 Treatise. 

In addition, in Part 1 I note that Boyle claims that Shepherd does not deal with metaphysical topics such as force and power in her Treatises, so the 1819 Treatise is inconsistent with her 1824 and 1827 topic areas. Yet this is to ignore the groundbreaking, astute observation Shepherd makes that Newton fails to adequately explain his theory of attraction between objects and, unsatisfactorily, he resorts to what she considers occult and mysterious elements at work. So I find it perfectly plausible that Shepherd would be capable of writing about forces and powers in physics and metaphysics in the 1819 Treatise. 

Another key strand of my overarching argument in Part 1 that I pick up and develop in Part 2 is materialism. In this volume I explore a variety of materialist approaches, ranging from methodological materialism to the nuances between different types of theistic soft materialism. In Part 1 I focus on to what extent Shepherd could have been a pre-philosophical materialist. In Part 2, I examine further materialist approaches that fit with Shepherd's philosophy, such as methodological materialism, theist materialistic ontology, and more generally, soft materialism. I have drawn parallels between Bacon and Shepherd, and related them to Newton, in order to analyse Shepherd's style of theist or agnostic materialism. 

Furthermore, in Part 1, Chapter 3 I argue that Boyle has seriously underestimated the extent to which Shepherd is knowledgeable about and identifies with Priestley’s philosophy. So in my Appendices containing my Philosophy Fluency podcast scripts, I explore how significant this oversight is for fully appreciating Shepherd's views. I discuss Priestley’s Mild Theist, Soft Materialist outlook and why he is relevant to understanding Shepherd's views. I argue that Priestley is an excellent framework for understanding how theist materialism was a viable and plausible stance in the Early Modern period. He also provides us with an example of a philosophical approach that Shepherd could identify with, so his views indirectly inform us about Shepherd, especially how she is capable of balancing mild Theism and soft Materialism. In these Appendices, I also incorporate other thinkers relevant to my exploration of Early Modern dissident theists and scientific materialism. In this way, in the following Appendices, I show how Shepherd does not have to strike out completely on her own in order to combine theism and materialism in her era because it fitted in with the intellectual, dissident milieu of her day.