Helmholtz’s Classical Mechanism

Abstract

For many reasons Helmholtz’s treatise Conservation of Force stands out among the texts that should be examined for the purpose of evaluating his mechanistic conception of nature. In the Introduction to this treatise Helmholtz presents, for the first time, the conception of nature that he had previously expressed only reservedly within the context of some studies in physiology. In terms of a public statement, this clearly marks the inception of further development in his conception of nature. Here Helmholtz articulates the aims of his mechanism with clarity and resolve rarely found afterwards. He also provides arguments based on the theory of matter, allowing us to understand his early conception of nature as the continuation of an early modern line and foundational strategy of mechanism and to demarcate it from other positions. The latter leads to a new appreciation of the controversial relationship between Helmholtz and Kant. But the Introduction first reveals its relevance for the history of science when seen as a philosophical underpinning for the rest of the text, where Helmholtz explains his formulation of the conservation of energy and illustrates it with ample applications.259 The seldom disputed high status still attributed in current science and technology to the theorem of conservation makes it indubitably the most significant document for grasping Helmholtz’s mechanistic conception of nature. Although his enunciation of the law of the conservation of energy still clearly exhibits traces of its mechanistic origins, the connection between Helmholtz’s conception of nature and his part in the epochal discovery of the law was of lesser importance for how his treatise was received.260 This reflects one way of understanding Helmholtz’s theorem of conservation, regardless of its philosophy of nature parameters. The currently widespread phenomenological approach to the theorem of conservation is set up such that its unparalleled influence, extending far beyond the realm of natural research, need by no means be considered proof of an equally widespread mechanistic conception of nature. Since in mid-century Germany a variety of strong non-mechanical — be they romantic, be they positivistic — trends existed both within and outside of research, it is more accurate to say that acknowledging the theorem of conservation while ignoring how it was connected to mechanism was one of the very conditions that contributed to its dissemination.