DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham E-Theses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Durham E-Theses Durham E-Theses Theodicy and evolution: aspects of theology from Pierre Bayle to J.S. Mill Loades, Ann Lomas How to cite: Loades, Ann Lomas (1975) Theodicy and evolution: aspects of theology from Pierre Bayle to J.S. Mill, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/8091/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. THEODICY AND EVOUJriON: ASPECTS OF THEOJXXSy FROM PIERRE BAYIE TO J .S . MILL By Atiu Ixsmas Loades, B.A., M.A. A Thesis Submitted in Fullilaient of the Reqtiiremeats for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Durhara University, 1975 Table of Contenta Page Summaxy ii Preface iii Introduotion 1 Section I % Bayle to Kant A Bayle 6 B Leibniz . 29 G- Lixmaeus and Hiune 75 B Kant 119 Section II t Malthus to Coleridge A Malthua' 205 B Ki'asmua j)aK'win 222 0: Paley 239 3) Coleridge 262 Section III ; Dai'vdn in his context A Chamlsers to Kill 35^ B Conclusion 451 Bibliography 455 ii Summary This study is an attempt to describe how a number of thinkers from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries approached the problem of theodicy in relation to physical evil. Most of those studied also concerned themselves with the natural sciences, aspects of which they sought to relate to their theology. It was sometimes difficult for them to write publishable theology, which would not incur the censure of the authorities, so various devices were employed. This means that some of the work under discussion has to be approached historically ±a order to ascertain the author»s meaning. ' The study falls into three sections. Each of the first two follows the same pattern. Three preliminary investigations lead to one substantial chapter, involving reference to the earlier material of the section. Thus the analysis of Bayle, Leibniz and Hume relates to the chapter on Kaiit, and that of Mai thus, Erasmus Darwin and Paley, to the chapter on Coleridge. The two sections are related to one another in that Mal^hus, Erasmus Darwin and Paley were all In their own ways reacting to Hume, and Coleridge was reacting to the work of his immediate predecessors in this country and also to the writings of ILeibniz arid Kant,. The third section contains one main chapter, together with an extended summary of the study. IT is related to the previous two sectioixs Jjn that i;u attempts to pursue the coneem with theodicy in the writings of those mentioned for the first time, in the light of their possible awareness of writers discussed eai'lier. iii mSFACE I wish to acknowledge my indehtednesss to Mr. R»P. MdDermott and Mr» J.JJ. Rogerson of the Bepartmemt of Theology? 14r» E.J, Kearns of the Bepartment of French} ¥sr» B.A. Whewell of the Department of Fnilosophy, all of Durham University! and above all to Professor W.A. VJhitehousOj Department of Theology, University of Kent. In proper names and all technical terma standard modern spelling is used, except in quotations where the form used is as in the source qiioted. Introcluctioii When A.C. Bradley gave a series of Gifford Lectures in 1907 entitled Ideals of Religion, he presented the press with a summary which Was printed as the "Introduction". In this sunimary he asked the question, "Do we realise how utterly different from the picture of the world which would have been sanctioned by an orthodox theologian a humdi-ed years ago, is the picture habitually presented to and active ijn the average cultivated European mind of today j.n regard to the beginning an.d history of the earth and man, or their possible or probable future, or the causation of events, whether usual or unusual, that happens here or anywhere in the Universe?"' This study is concerned with certain features of that "orthodox" picture before and after Darwjji published The Origin of Species, ana with the impact that woik made on theological thinking. The particular topic within the general field which is of special interest here is that laiown as 3 • "theodicy", a term probably invented by Leibniz. its meaning may be briefly defined as the "problem" of how to jiistify Gtod in his deal• ings wi-ch man and with his creation, given tha. claim that there is a divinely good, wise and powerful Creator, and thoJi this is compatible with the presence of evil in the world, supposing evil to be that which God detests. aie topic of related interest has been excluded from the discussion, so far as possible, namely, the topic of whether it is meaningful to assert belief in a creator who possesses a will which his creatures not only can but do disobey. "Theodicy" is integrally related to that area of "natural" theology which may be referred to as - 2 "design" theology. This latter area, which was concerned to derive a kind of theology from nature, was substantially undermined quite indepoidently of the tradition of natural philosophy represented by Darwin, by the philosophical tradition represented b^J Hume. By paying care and attention to the writings of some of the central figures involved in the xmdermiriiiig it ma.y be possible to discover what it was that so deeply concerned theta about this kind of theology, and the theodicy appropriate to it.. Whether or not theodicy is a proper concern for a Qiristian theologian depends upon what one thinks the tasks of such a theologian are to be. "Any attempts to defend God, any kind of theodicy is wholly alien to Cliristian faith; a god v/hom man has to try to defend is no longer God." This may or may not be the case, but there is no attempt in this study to discuss this question. Rather, I intend to look at the work of some who have thought theodicy to be a proper topic for a Christian theologian, even though some of those to whom reference will be made represent points of view critical of and often hostile to those of the so-called "orthodox" theologians of their period. It may be that theodicy is an attempt to answer questions that have no answer, and in this case theologians may well be grateful to those who enable the truth of this to be seen. But it will not do initially to accept "impenetrable mystery" as the reply to the question being raised. As Plev/ says, "the point has been put that - 3 - the kno\vn and undisputed facts decisively falsify the fundamental theist claim, that, in the full but basic sense specified, God exists." To escape the charge of wilful self-delusion, he goes on, the believer should show how and why this is not necessarily so since God is so defined in the Christian tradition as having "a set of characteristics vthich one might'uninstntctedly have thought, mu.st make it. impossible toi squai'e an existence claim with some of the most obvious facts of the world around us." If the world-picture has changed, it may be that the discussion of theodicy can be no more than an historical exercise for a theologian, who would then be attempting to assess the "performance value" which a cluster of ideas once had, and the confidence they engendered, a confidence which would have to be sought from new sources once the ideas were discredited. However, it might also be the case that from the analysis hints mig^it be discerned as to how to set. about constructing a '^theology of nature", or at any rate to jnake some minor contribution to such a construction. A theology related to nature would be a particular area of Christian theology which might be related to "scien.ce". As W.A. Whitehouse put it, writing of the Christian interest in "science", "the fundamental concern is to promote and deepen a true understanding in man of his place in the order of time and nature, and to clarify the question about a relationship with God •which will govern imagination, aspiration, and action all the dealings men have with their fellov/s, With the things about them, and with the tasks of ciillture and politics." 4 - And with theology and nature in mind, one may usefully adopt his employment of tte word '"nature" to mean "a conventional way of referriiig to the environraen,t within which I have emerged, with other beings some of whom I recognize as my fellow men, an environment which provides vast fields of possible experience." Finally one may note that later on in his book he writes that another aspect of the Christian's concern "is to anticipate any 10 ' ill-conceived religious commitments" ^ and it might be the case that iattention to this area of religious commitment as it has been seen in the past might at the very least provide oie with information about how not to relate theology and "ecology" together in a naive way.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 This Is the Penultimate Version of the Essay. for the Final Version, Please See Brandon Look (Ed.), the Continuum Companion To
    This is the penultimate version of the essay. For the final version, please see Brandon Look (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Leibniz, London/New York: Thoemmes Continuum Press (2011), 289–309. KANT, THE LEIBNIZIANS, AND LEIBNIZ Anja Jauernig, University of Pittsburgh 1. Introduction It is clear that Leibniz’s philosophy was very important for Kant. This importance is reflected, for example, in the number of Kant’s explicit references to Leibniz. He is the most mentioned philosopher in Kant’s corpus overall.1 What is much less clear is in what ways Leibniz was important for Kant, and how exactly the relation between Leibniz’s and Kant’s philosophy should be understood. The historian of philosophy who is trying to clarify this relation is faced with various kinds of difficulties. To begin with, it is not easy to determine which of Leibniz’s own writings Kant had access to, and even less easy to say which of them he actually read. More generally, in Kant’s treatment of broadly speaking Leibnizian themes his sources and targets are often unclear. Is his discussion aimed at Leibniz himself, or at later Leibnizians (broadly conceived)? If we hope to understand Kant’s relation to Leibniz, we have no choice but also to investigate Kant’s relation to these later Leibnizians, and their relations to Leibniz. This reveals yet another difficulty. Which later Leibnizians are we to examine in this context? Some obvious candidates directly come to mind: Christian Wolff (1679–1754), the most well-known philosopher in early eighteenth-century Germany; Conrad Gottlieb Marquardt (1694–1749) and Martin Knutzen (1713–1751), Kant’s teachers in Königsberg; and Friedrich Christian Baumeister (1709–1785), Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714–1762), Georg Friedrich Meier (1718–1777), and Johann 1 More precisely, a computer count returns 495 hits for Leibniz in all of Kant’s writings (excluding the lecture notes).
    [Show full text]
  • Stanton Lecture 6
    1 Stanton Lecture 7: The Objectivity of Feeling By Jon Milbank Simon Blackburn has suggested that philosophy today finds itself essentially back with the set of problematics enunciated by Berkeley and Hume. This is certainly the case, if we abandon the idea that these two non-English thinkers stand in a line of peculiarly English empiricism. To the contrary, they both rejected Locke’s representationalist account of how we verify our thoughts, together with his foundationalist account of how thinking is built-up, step by step, from initial ideas which are direct mental translations of sensory impressions. Nor did they accept the more rationalist side of Locke, deriving from Descartes, which saw the contribution of judgement as clearly deriving from within our own minds, without admixture of anything arriving from exteriority. And so it is clear that, already, both Berkeley and Hume rejected ‘the myth of the given’. But because they were in a wilder sense empiricists, distrustful of any dogmatic claims to given fixities, they also in consequence invoked the spectre of a holism about belief that is entirely fluid. In either case, therefore, it is possible to construe their thought as being as much idealist as it is empiricist. Yet in either case again, both thinkers stepped back from a sceptical mode of idealism through a mode of speculative spiritual realism (and not materialism) that involved some measure of faith and even of religious faith. Berkeley escapes from solipsistic phenomenalism, denial of the reality of matter and scepticism about personal identity through his revival of the Cappadocian view that exteriority consists of finitely imaged mixtures of the divine ideas, or of the divine language.
    [Show full text]
  • January Meeting Occasion for Elections, Funding Decisions
    Published by the International Berkeley Society Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4237 USA Summer 2007 January Meeting Occasion for Elections, Funding Decisions The annual meeting of the International Berkeley Currently, the Society has about 125 Society was held on Saturday evening, January 20, active members; another 25 are arrears 2007 at Whitehall, Berkeley’s Rhode Island home in dues payments. Half of our members near Newport. Margot Grosvenor, president of the are involved in teaching and research National Society of Colonial Dames of America in (mostly in philosophy), and half are Rhode Island, welcomed the Society either retired academics or non- to the house, and elections followed Migely academicians interested in Berkeley shortly thereafter. Elected for three- (especially his time in Rhode Island). year terms were President Stephen Two-thirds live in the U.S.; the rest live in England, Daniel (Texas A&M University), Canada, France, Ireland, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Vice-President Timo Airaksinen Finland, México, Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland, Daniel (University of Helsinki), Secretary- Slovenia, Japan, Estonia, Australia, and Venezuela. Treasurer Nancy Kendrick (Wheaton College, MA), Membership Secretary Genevieve Those present at the meeting decided that future Migely (Cornell College, IA), and Recording Secre- membership forms should include a request not only tary Amy Garrison (Naval War College, RI). Other for dues and Whitehall library purchases but also for Executive Committee officers—past donations to support research on Berkeley’s life and President Lou Alfonso, Archivist (and thought. In the past the Society has aided in publishing former secretary-treasurer) Maureen translations of Berkeley’s writings and helped defray Lapan, and Philosophy Associations costs of international conferences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Works of George Berkeley. Vol. 1 of 4. by George Berkeley
    The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of George Berkeley. Vol. 1 of 4. by George Berkeley This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license Title: The Works of George Berkeley. Vol. 1 of 4. Author: George Berkeley Release Date: May 20, 2012 [Ebook 39746] Language: English ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WORKS OF GEORGE BERKELEY. VOL. 1 OF 4.*** The Works of George Berkeley D.D. Formerly Bishop of Cloyne Including his Posthumous Works With Prefaces, Annotations, Appendices, and An Account of his Life, by Alexander Campbell Fraser Hon. D.C.L., Oxford Hon. LL.D. Glasgow and Edinburgh; Emeritus Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in the University of Edinburgh In Four Volumes Vol. 1: Philosophical Works, 1705-21 Oxford At the Clarendon Press 1901 Contents Preface . .2 George Berkeley, By The Editor . 10 Errata . 73 Commonplace Book. Mathematical, Ethical, Physical, And Metaphysical . 74 Editor's Preface To The Commonplace Book . 74 Commonplace Book . 78 An Essay Towards A New Theory Of Vision . 181 Editor's Preface To The Essay Towards A New Theory Of Vision . 181 Dedication . 202 An Essay Towards A New Theory Of Vision . 206 An Appendix To The Essay On Vision . 299 A Treatise Concerning The Principles Of Human Knowledge304 Editor's Preface To The Treatise Concerning The Prin- ciples Of Human Knowledge .
    [Show full text]
  • Immaterialism
    1 Immaterialism Jasper Reid The term ‘immaterialism’ was introduced by George Berkeley in the third of his Three Dialogues (1713), to designate his own opinion that there was no such thing as material substance, and that bodies were not to be understood in terms of qualities that inhered in an independent, unthinking substratum, but rather as collections of mind-dependent ideas. The term ‘idealism’ would subsequently come to be used for positions of this kind, especially among German philosophers, first introduced by Christian Wolff in 1721 and first applied to Berkeley’s own position by Christoph Matthaeus Pfaff in 1725 (Bracken 1965: 19–21). Both terms are ambiguous—witness the case of Joseph Berington’s ‘immaterialism’ below—but ‘idealism’ has been used over the centuries to designate a far wider range of theories than ‘immaterialism’, and it is the latter term that I shall use here. Now, whereas the history of most philosophical positions can be traced back almost as far as the discipline itself, immaterialism is unusual in that its birth can be pin-pointed to a precise moment in time, in the first decade of the eighteenth century. There are, it is true, a few candidates for earlier precursors: but they really are very few indeed. In a well-known 1982 article, Myles Burnyeat argued not only that immaterialism was not endorsed in (Western) antiquity but that, for philosophical reasons, it could not have been (Burnyeat 1982: 3–4). Admittedly, it has been pointed out that Burnyeat’s thesis might not be not entirely correct, at least if one allows ‘antiquity’ to extend as far forward as the fourth century A.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley's Principles and Dialogues
    Berkeley's Principles and Dialogues background source materials Edited by C. J. McCracken Michigan State University I. C. Tipton University of Wales Swansea PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb22ru, uk http: //www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa http: //www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de AlarcoÂn 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain q Cambridge University Press 2000 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2000 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Janson Text 10.25/13 pt. System DeskTopPro/UX [bv] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Berkeley's Principles and Dialogues : backgrond source materials / edited by C.J. McCracken, I.C. Tipton. p. cm. ± (Cambridge philosophical texts in context) Includes bibliographical references and index, ISBN 0-521-49681-0 (hbk) ± ISBN 0-521-49806-6 (pbk.) 1. Berkeley, George, 1685±1753. Treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge. 2. Berkeley, George, 1685±1753. Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. 3. Knowledge, Theory of. 4. Idealism. 5. Soul. I. McCracken, Charles J. (Charles James),
    [Show full text]
  • Floyer Sydenham 13092020
    Andrew Baker FLOYER SYDENHAM An 18th century Platonic Visionary …we perused with infinite pleasure the elegant translation of Floyer Sydenham. (Thomas Jefferson Hogg, The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley, Vol. 1, E. Moxon, 1858, p.192) 1 INTRODUCTION I first heard of Floyer Sydenham as the forerunner of Thomas Taylor. The name was intriguing. Many years later I came across him again when I was researching the philosopher James Harris, as a patron of music, and for his connection with Thomas Anson of Shugborough and the 18th century Greek Revival. I learned that Sydenham had been Harris’s friend for nearly fifty years and that their philosophical careers were closely intertwined. There seemed to be hardy any biographical information about Sydenham. There were notes about his sad death, at the point of his entering Debtors’ Prison, and its influence on the formation of the Royal Literary Fund. There were some recollection by Thomas Taylor. I found one modern scholarly article on his work. James Harris left a huge family archive, of great interest for his musical connections. This is now in Hampshire Archives at Winchester. A search on the National Archive catalogue will discover very little about Sydenham, but I had a hunch there must be more. Hampshire Archive’s own catalogue revealed that there were no letters from Sydenham to Harris, suggesting that Harris asked for what there were to be destroyed (they may have contained dangerously controversial material), but there were many from mutual friends to Harris and these contain a great deal of biographical information about the forgotten philosopher.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarah Fielding: Satire and Subversion in the Eighteenth­ Century Novel
    Jameson, June (2008) Sarah Fielding: Satire and Subversion in the Eighteenth- Century Novel. Doctoral thesis, University of Sunderland. Downloaded from: http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/id/eprint/3682/ Usage guidelines Please refer to the usage guidelines at http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/policies.html or alternatively contact [email protected]. SARAH FIELDING: SATIRE AND SUBVERSION IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY NOVEL A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Sunderland for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June Jameson October 2008 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to the University of Sunderland for the support of this study, to Elisabeth Knox and Diane Davies at the Graduate Research School, to staff at the Murray Library, particularly Jane Moore at the Inter-Library Loans Department, and to Sue Cottam, Hazel Holt and the girls at the English Office at Priestman Building. Special thanks are also due to Mrs. Miriam M. Smith for her unwavering support. I am indebted to all the teaching staff at the ADMC department who have spurred me on with cheery smiles and words of encouragement through difficult times. I am grateful to Professor Stuart Sim who encouraged me to undertake this study and inspired confidence while acting as my Supervisor. Most of all, I would like to thank Professor Richard Terry, my Director of Studies, for patiently guiding me through to completion and for sharing with me his expert knowledge of the eighteenth century. DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my husband Ken and our family who stalwartly support me at all times above and beyond the call of duty.
    [Show full text]
  • From Laws to Liturgy: an Idealist Interpretation of the Doctrine of Creation
    Durham E-Theses From Laws to Liturgy: An Idealist Interpretation of the Doctrine of Creation EPSEN-III, EDWARD,JOSEPH How to cite: EPSEN-III, EDWARD,JOSEPH (2017) From Laws to Liturgy: An Idealist Interpretation of the Doctrine of Creation, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12176/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 From Laws to Liturgy: An Idealist Interpretation of the Doctrine of Creation Edward Epsen Abstract Christian idealism is an interpretative framework for developing the doctrine of creation in the parallel contexts of theology and philosophy. It recommends itself by its explanatory fecundity and consilience. Against physical realism’s claim that the physical world is ontologically fundamental and mind- independent, idealism holds that it is constituted by facts about the organization of human sense experience.
    [Show full text]
  • David Bartha
    GOD, WORLD AND ARCHETYPES: A VOLUNTARIST INTERPRETATION OF BERKELEY’S PHILOSOPHY by David Bartha Submitted to Central European University Department of Philosophy In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Supervisor: Michael Griffin CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2019 GOD, WORLD AND ARCHETYPES 1 COPYRIGHT NOTICE I hereby declare that the dissertation contains no materials accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions, and no materials previously written and/or published by another person, except where appropriate acknowledgment is made in the form of bibliographical reference, etc. CEU eTD Collection 2 ABSTRACT ABSTRACT In this dissertation, I seek to contribute to our growing understanding of the constructive side of Berkeley’s thought by focusing on those theologically-motivated metaphysical tendencies in his works that point to the significance of the divine will. Through systematically investigating topics like the role God’s will plays in creating and maintaining the world as well as his relationship to nature and its laws, I will try to show that the voluntarist inclinations are not accidental or incidental but form an essential and coherent aspect of his philosophy. I aim to substantiate that God’s absolutely free volitional activity is so fundamental in his thought that voluntarism can be seen as what informs and motivates his quite idiosyncratic views about various crucial issues, such as the divine nature, the physical world, the laws of nature, the role of science or the divine archetypes. Since voluntarism is primarily a view about the divine nature, emphasising the conceptual and metaphysical priority of God's will over his intellect, first—in chapter 2—I turn to Berkeley’s theological views, trying to show that his standpoint on the divine attributes and the proper language we are to use to characterize God is best interpreted as voluntarist.
    [Show full text]
  • On Descartes' Passive Thought
    On Descartes’ Passive Thought On Descartes’ Passive Thought The Myth of Cartesian Dualism Jean- Luc Marion Translated by Christina M. Gschwandtner The University of Chicago Press :: Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2018 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief quotations in critical articles and reviews. For more information, contact the University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637. Published 2018 Printed in the United States of America 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 1 2 3 4 5 ISBN- 13: 978- 0- 226- 19258- 1 (cloth) ISBN- 13: 978- 0- 226- 19261- 1 (e- book) DOI: https:// doi .org/ 10 .7208/ chicago/ 9780226192611 .001 .0001 Originally published as Sur la pensée passive de Descartes. © Presses Universitaires de France, 2013. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Marion, Jean-Luc, 1946– author. | Gschwandtner, Christina M., 1974– translator. Title: On Descartes’ passive thought : the myth of Cartesian dualism / Jean-Luc Marion ; translated by Christina M. Gschwandtner. Other titles: Sur la pensée passive de Descartes. English Description: Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifi ers: LCCN 2017035328 | ISBN 9780226192581 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780226192611 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Descartes, René, 1596–1650. | Mind and body— Philosophy. | Philosophy, French—17th century. Classifi cation: LCC B1875 .M336613 2018 | DDC 194—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017035328 This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48– 1992 ( Permanence of Paper).
    [Show full text]
  • The Diary of Thomas Naish
    WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY Bernrbs %ramIJ VOLUME XX FOR THE YEAR 1964 Impression of 350 copies THE DIARY OF THOMAS NAISH EDITED BY DOREEN SLATTER DEVIZES 1965 © Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Records Branch, 1965 Set in Times New Roman 10/ll pt. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY THE HEREFORD TIMES LTD., MAYLORD STREET, HEREFORD CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . ix INTRODUCTION . 1 The Naish Family 1 The Diarist . 8 Patrons, Friends, and Associates 12 The Political Situation 18 The Manuscript . 20 Note on Transcription 21 THE DIARY o1= THOMAS Ngusn 22 INDEX 81 LIST OF MEMBERS . 95 PUBLICATIONS o1= THE BRANCH 101 V PREFACE The Branch is indebted to Bodley’s Librarian for permission to reproduce the text here printed. The Bishop of Salisbury, the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury, the Town Clerk of Salisbury, the Rector of St. Edmund’s Church, Salisbury, the Librarian of Worcester College, Oxford, and the County Archivists of Devon, Hampshire, and Wiltshire also gave access to the records in their possession, from which much of the material in the Introduc- tion and Notes is drawn. The Branch is also indebted for the assistance of the County Archivists of Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, and Somerset, and the Librarian of Lambeth Palace Library. The editor of the diary has asked, in addition, that her sincere thanks might be recorded to Mr. E. R. C. Brinkworth (who first suggested that the Branch should publish Naish’s diary), Dr. N. J. Williams, and Mr. R. B. Pugh (successive former Honorary Editors of the Branch), Miss D.
    [Show full text]