DOCSLIB.ORG

Two Arguments Against the Particular Content Reading of Nicolas Malebranche's 'General Volitions' in the Treatise on Natur

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Two Arguments Against the Particular Content Reading of Nicolas Malebranche's 'General Volitions' in the Treatise on Natur Two Arguments Against the Particular Content Reading of Nicolas Malebranche’s ‘General Volitions’ In the Treatise on Nature and Grace, Malebranche states that the idea of God “includes two attributes absolutely necessary to the creation of the world: an unlimited wisdom and an irresistible power,” and that “His power is nothing other than His will.” 1 Having identified God’s power with his volition, Malebranche goes on to discuss God’s actions (the manifestations of his power) in terms of ‘general’ and ‘particular volitions.’ God acts by general volitions when “He acts in consequence of the general laws which He has established,” and by particular volitions when “the efficacy of His will is not determined by some general law to produce some effect.” Given these definitions, it is natural to ask what the relation is between God’s action, volition, and the laws he established. Steven Nadler, in his paper “Occasionalism and General Will in Malebranche,”2 identified two different accounts of the relation in question, differing primarily over the nature of God’s general volitions. On one account, God’s general volitions are simply identical with the general laws (and so themselves make no references to particular objects), while on the other account, to speak of God acting by general volitions is to speak of God acting by volitions with particular content (i.e. ones which do make references to particular objects) which are themselves in accordance with the general 1 Traité de la nature et de la grace (1680), volume 14 of the Oeuvres complètes de Malebranche (André Robinet, ed., Paris: J. Vrin, 1958-67). Throughout, I use the translation by Thomas Taylor: Treatise on Nature and Grace, in Malebranche: Philosophical Selections, Steven Nadler, ed., Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company (1992). All page references to the Treatise are to the translation. 2 Journal of the History of Philosophy 31 (1993), pp. 31-47. Reprinted in The Rationalists: Critical Essays on Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, Derk Pereboom, ed., Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (1999), pp. 343-62. All pages references will be to the reprinted version. laws established by God. Nadler goes on to argue for the latter reading. Recently, Andrew Pessin has published a series of articles supporting Nadler’s position.3 Pessin acknowledges that the text does not consistently lend itself to one reading over the other,4 but holds that Nadler’s reading is nevertheless more plausible. My aim in this paper is to provide two new arguments against the reading advocated by Nadler and Pessin. The first rejects an assumption active both in how they see certain passages from Malebranche supporting their reading and in how they see aspects of their reading as being necessary if Malebranche is to be read as coherent. This assumption, I argue, would probably not be accepted by Malebranche, and is implausible in itself. The second and shorter argument deals with Malebranche’s solution to the problem of evil. While both Nadler’s and Pessin’s reading and the reading they reject are able to make sense of this solution, I argue that the latter is superior insofar as the solution is intended to offer consolation to those affected by evil. I 3 “Malebranche’s Doctrine of Freedom/Consent and the Incompleteness of God’s Volitions,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8(1) (2000), pp. 21-53; “Malebranche’s natural theodicy and the incompleteness of God’s Volitions,” Religious Studies 36 (2000), pp. 47-63; “Malebranche’s Distinction Between General and Particular Volitions,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (January 2001): pp. 77- 99. 4 Partly in response to Andrew Black (“Malebranche’s Theodicy,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 35 (January 1997), pp. 27-44), who points out the inconsistency of Nadler’s reading with Malebranche’s describing the laws of nature as themselves efficacious and with Malebranche’s emphasis on the small number of divine volitions. Pessin offers a useful schematization of the debate, in terms of the content of the volitions.5 (GC) is the reading he and Nadler attack, while (PC) is the reading they advance: (GC): A “general volition” for Malebranche is one whose content is general: a “particular volition” is one whose content is particular. (PC): All divine volitions have particular contents, but a “general volition” is one in accord with general laws, while a “particular volition” is one not in accord with general laws.6 While Pessin goes some to some length the specify what is involved in general vs. particular content, for this paper it will be sufficient to think of general content as involving universal quantification over objects and times in the form of laws (e.g. “moving bodies tend to continue their motion in a straight line”,7 which could be recast in quantificational terms) and particular content as involving no universal quantification but only reference to particular objects and times. On (GC), then, when Malebranche distinguishes between general and particular volitions, he is making a distinction of volitional content. On (PC), by contrast, Malebranche is distinguishing what Pessin calls ‘nomic’ from ‘anomic’ volitions, where both types of volitions have particular content. What does have general content, on (PC), are the laws with which general volitions are in accord. Pessin acknowledges that a number of passages in Malebranche seem to support (GC) directly, but he contends that a number of others strongly support (PC). A close 5 Bringing in the notion of the content of a volition allows the debate to present volitions as statements (e.g. “Let it be that…”), but it is worth noting that it is not clear that Malebranche would grant that every one of God’s volitions could be adequately reflected in a statement. I do not consider here how this issue might affect the debate. 6 Pessin, “Malebranche’s Distinction…” pp. 77-78. 7 Treatise, p. 261. consideration of two of the latter will reveal an assumption under which both he and Nadler are working: I say that God acts by general wills, when he acts in consequence of general laws which he has established… God acts by particular wills when the efficacy of his will is not determined… by some general law to produce some effect.8 Pessin, while acknowledging that a reading of this passage in accordance with (GC) is possible, contends that it shows how Malebranche directly links nomicity with general volitions and anomicity with particular volitions in just the way (PC) claims. But Pessin intends the passage to support the overall picture of general volitions (PC) provides, with particular divine actions being the result of particular volitions in accordance with general laws (Nadler quotes this passage for the latter purpose9).10 This latter intention is more clearly evident in Pessin’s quotation of a series of passages in which Malebranche describes God’s relation to laws as one of submission, obeyance, observing, etc. 11 What seems to support (PC) in such passages is the implication that, as Nadler puts it, “God is, by means of… individual acts of will, simply executing or following through the laws instituted at creation.”12 I think that it would be a mistake for the proponent of (GC) to deny that Malebranche is committed to particular 8 Treatise, p. 263-64. Quoted in Pessin, “Malebranche’s Distinction…” p. 79. 9 Nadler, “Occasionalism…” p. 354. 10 In fact, merely citing this passage in support of the connection between general/particular volitions and nomicity/anomicity would hardly be evidence for (PC) over (GC). For a proponent of (GC) would grant that Malebranche is making such a direct connection in that any divine volition with general content is itself a general law, and God only acts by particular volitions when the general volitions (i.e. the laws) are insufficient for some end. On the development of Malebranche’s position on explaining when God acts by particular volitions see p. 94 of Denis Moreau, “Malebranche on Disorder and Physical Evil: Manichaeism or Philosophical Courage?” in The Problem of Evil in Early Modern Philosophy, Kremer and Latzer eds., Toronto: University of Toronto Press (2001), pp. 81-100. 11 One clear example is “men should know that God is so much the master of nature that if He submits to His established laws, it is rather because He so desires than by an absolute necessity,” Treatise, p. 262. Quoted by Pessin, “Malebranche’s Distinction …” p. 81. 12 Nadler, “Occasionalism…” p. 354. Since Nadler goes on to say, for the sake of consistency with divine immutability, that particular divine volitional acts need not themselves be temporal, it seems that he should also ultimately recast the language about the laws being instituted at creation. divine actions that are in accordance with general laws. For when two billiard balls bounce off one another, this is a particular event, and since for Malebranche God is the only true cause, there must be a sense in which it is correct to say that the bouncing is a particular divine action. But what Nadler and Pessin assume, without any real argument, is that any particular divine action requires a corresponding volition with particular content. Nadler simply states (in the course of denying that God’s volitions themselves have to be temporal, as opposed to just having temporal content), All that is required [by (PC)] is a one-to-one correspondence between temporal events and divine volitions, such that for each event x (physical or mental) there is an individual volition (with a particular content) in God causing that event to occur when it does (“Let it be the case that x at t)… But note, God still wills particular events that occur in time, and not just general laws.13 Pessin identifies the assumption and provides some motivation for it, though he seems to think it too obvious to require detailed support: we’re concerned with God’s practical volitions, those that are causally efficacious.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Modern” Philosophy: Introduction
    “Modern” Philosophy: Introduction [from Debates in Modern Philosophy by Stewart Duncan and Antonia LoLordo (Routledge, 2013)] This course discusses the views of various European of his contemporaries (e.g. Thomas Hobbes) did see philosophers of the seventeenth century. Along with themselves as engaged in a new project in philosophy the thinkers of the eighteenth century, they are con- and the sciences, which somehow contained a new sidered “modern” philosophers. That might not seem way of explaining how the world worked. So, what terribly modern. René Descartes was writing in the was this new project? And what, if anything, did all 1630s and 1640s, and Immanuel Kant died in 1804. these modern philosophers have in common? By many standards, that was a long time ago. So, why is the work of Descartes, Kant, and their contempor- Two themes emerge when you read what Des- aries called modern philosophy? cartes and Hobbes say about their new philosophies. First, they think that earlier philosophers, particu- In one way this question has a trivial answer. larly so-called Scholastic Aristotelians—medieval “Modern” is being used here to describe a period of European philosophers who were influenced by time, and to contrast it with other periods of time. So, Aristotle—were mistaken about many issues, and modern philosophy is not the philosophy of today as that the new, modern way is better. (They say nicer contrasted with the philosophy of the 2020s or even things about Aristotle himself, and about some other the 1950s. Rather it’s the philosophy of the 1600s previous philosophers.) This view was shared by and onwards, as opposed to ancient and medieval many modern philosophers, but not all of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations Spring 2010 Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection Jason Skirry University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Skirry, Jason, "Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection" (2010). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 179. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/179 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/179 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Malebranche's Augustinianism and the Mind's Perfection Abstract This dissertation presents a unified interpretation of Malebranche’s philosophical system that is based on his Augustinian theory of the mind’s perfection, which consists in maximizing the mind’s ability to successfully access, comprehend, and follow God’s Order through practices that purify and cognitively enhance the mind’s attention. I argue that the mind’s perfection figures centrally in Malebranche’s philosophy and is the main hub that connects and reconciles the three fundamental principles of his system, namely, his occasionalism, divine illumination, and freedom. To demonstrate this, I first present, in chapter one, Malebranche’s philosophy within the historical and intellectual context of his membership in the French Oratory, arguing that the Oratory’s particular brand of Augustinianism, initiated by Cardinal Bérulle and propagated by Oratorians such as Andre Martin, is at the core of his philosophy and informs his theory of perfection. Next, in chapter two, I explicate Augustine’s own theory of perfection in order to provide an outline, and a basis of comparison, for Malebranche’s own theory of perfection.
    [Show full text]
  • Time Atomism and Ash'arite Origins for Cartesian Occasionalism Revisited
    Time Atomism and Ash‘arite Origins for Cartesian Occasionalism Revisited Richard T. W. Arthur Department of Philosophy McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario Canada Time Atomism and Ash’arite Origins for Occasionalism Revisited Introduction In gauging the contributions of Asian thinkers to the making of modern “Western” philosophy and science, one often encounters the difficulty of establishing a direct influence. Arun Bala and George Gheverghese Joseph (2007) have termed this “the transmission problem”. One can establish a precedence, as well as a strong probability that an influence occurred, without being able to find concrete evidence for it. In the face of this difficulty (which appears to occur quite generally in the history of thought) I suggest here that the influence of earlier thinkers does not always occur through one person reading others’ work and becoming persuaded by their arguments, but by people in given epistemic situations being constrained by certain historically and socially conditioned trends of thought—for which constraining and conditioned trends of thought I coin the term "epistemic vectors"—and opportunistically availing themselves of kindred views from other traditions. As a case in point, I will examine here the claim that the doctrine of Occasionalism arose in seventeenth century Europe as a result of an influence from Islamic theology. In particular, the Ash’arite school of kalâm presented occasionalism as a corollary of time atomism, and since to many scholars the seventeenth century occasionalism of Cartesian thinkers such as De la Forge and Cordemoy has appeared as a direct corollary of the atomism of time attributed to Descartes in his Meditations, Ash’arite time atomism is often cited as the likely source of Cartesian Occasionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of the Imagination in Vico and Malebranche
    STRUMENTI PER LA DIDATTICA E LA RICERCA – 86 – Paolo Fabiani The Philosophy of the Imagination in Vico and Malebranche Translated and Edited by Giorgio Pinton Firenze University Press 2009 the philosophy of the imagination in Vico and male- branche / paolo Fabiani. – Firenze : Firenze university press, 2009. (strumenti per la didattica e la ricerca ; 86) http://digital.casalini.it/97864530680 isBn 978-88-6453-066-6 (print) isBn 978-88-6453-068-0 (online) immagine di copertina: © elenaray | dreamstime.com progetto grafico di alberto pizarro Fernández © 2009 Firenze university press università degli studi di Firenze Firenze university press Borgo albizi, 28, 50122 Firenze, italy http://www.fupress.com/ Printed in Italy “In memory of my mother ... to honor the courage of my father” Paolo Fabiani “This is more than my book, it also represents Giorgio Pinton’s interpretation of the imagi- nation in early modern philosophy. In several places of my work he felt obliged to simplify the arguments to easy the reading; he did it in agreement with me. In a few others, he substituted, with intelligence and without forcing, the structure of the original academic version in a differ- ent narrative organization of the contents. He has done a great job. It is an honor for me that the most important translator of Vico’s Latin Works into Eng- lish translated and edited my first philosophical essay. I heartly thank Giorgio Pinton, a true master of philosophy; Alexander Bertland, a very good scholar in Vico studies; and the editorial staff of FUP, expecially
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Specter of Spinozism: Malebranche, Arnauld, Fénelon
    The Specter of Spinozism: Malebranche, Arnauld, Fénelon What might a French Bishop, a German Lutheran polymath, two unorthodox Catholic priests—both French, one an Oratorian Cartesian in Paris and the other a Jansenist on the lam in the Spanish Low Countries—and a Huguenot exile in the Dutch Republic, all contemporaries in the second half of the seventeenth century, possibly have in common? The answer is not too difficult to find. François Fénelon, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Nicolas Malebranche, Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Bayle—like so many others in the period—all suffered from Spinozaphobia (although Bayle, at least, had some admiration for the “atheist” Spinoza’s virtuous life). Just as the specter of communism united Democrats and Republicans in the rough and tumble world of American politics in the 1940s and 50s, so the specter of Spinozism made room for strange bedfellows in the equally rough and tumble world of the early modern Republic of Letters. One of the topics which accounts for a good deal of the backlash against Spinoza, and which led some thinkers to accuse others of being—willingly or in spite of themselves—Spinozists, was the perceived materialism of Spinoza's theology. If one of the attributes of God is extension, as Spinoza claimed, then, it was argued by his critics, matter itself must belong to the essence of God, thereby making God material or body.1 And anyone whose philosophy even looks like it places extension or body (in whatever form) in God must be a Spinozist. Thus, Arnauld explicitly invokes Spinoza (a philosopher “who believed that the matter from which God made the world was uncreated”) as he insists that Malebranche's claim, in the Vision in God doctrine, that something called "intelligible extension" is in God—which is why we are able to cognize 1 material bodies by apprehending their ideas or intelligible archtypes in God—is tantamout to making God Himself extended.2 Arnauld was certainly not alone in claiming that Malebranche’s theory of “intelligible extension” implies a kind of Spinozism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Heresy and the Debates on Descartes's Philosophy
    Church History Church History and and Religious Culture 100 (2020) 172–186 Religious Culture brill.com/chrc The Concept of Heresy and the Debates on Descartes’s Philosophy Aza Goudriaan Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and ETF Leuven, Leuven, Belgium [email protected] Abstract This article explores connotations of ‘heresy’ in theological traditions before and dur- ing Descartes’s life. Lutheran and Reformed Protestants, themselves considered heretics by the Church of Rome, adopted the patristic heresiology while designat- ing sixteenth-century antitrinitarian and Anabaptist teachings as heresies. Francisco Suárez and Gisbertus Voetius knew the late medieval conceptuality (e.g., Council of Konstanz, 1418). Voetius possibly thought of Descartes when describing certain philo- sophical views as “smacking of heresy.” This was not, however, an outright charge of heresy. In fact, Descartes’s readiness to be corrected contradicted the traditional hereti- cal quality of “stubbornness.” Plempius’s expression “Cartesian heresy” seems to have been rare. For anti-Cartesians, the rich vocabulary of error made the complex term ‘heresy’ easily avoidable. Keywords heresy – René Descartes – confessions of faith – Francisco Suárez – Gisbertus Voetius – Vopiscus Fortunatus Plempius – Jacques Bénigne Bossuet 1 Introduction In modern historiography,the concept of heresy is occasionally being used with regard to representatives of the new philosophies of the early modern period. Steven Nadler, for example, published a study of Spinoza’s Heresy: Immortality and the Jewish Mind and, more recently, together with Ben Nadler he wrote a © aza goudriaan, 2020 | doi:10.1163/18712428-10002001 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NCDownloaded4.0 license.
    [Show full text]
  • Controversies on Nature As Universal Legality (1680-1710) Sophie Roux
    Controversies on Nature as universal Legality (1680-1710) Sophie Roux To cite this version: Sophie Roux. Controversies on Nature as universal Legality (1680-1710). Natural Law and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Europe„ Ashgate Publishing Ltd, pp.199-214, 2009. halshs-00806472 HAL Id: halshs-00806472 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00806472 Submitted on 7 Apr 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. CONTROVERSIES ON NATURE AS UNIVERSAL LEGALITY (1680-1710) (SOPHIE ROUX) Introduction1 Two distinct interests can justify a study of the emergence and the development of the notion of Nature's law. This notion is omnipresent in moral and political texts in the 18th century, so its origin can perhaps be sought by supposing, as is suggested by these texts, that this notion was in fact developed in the field of physical science from which it was later exported2. It is clear that this direction is rich in illusions if we do not maintain sufficient distance from the object studied, which in this case is particularly ideological. Ill-controlled retrospection has also paved the way of the second direction, that taken by historians working on the origins of modern science.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Philosophy Seventeenth-Century Philosophy PHIL 360; 2017 Prof
    Department of Philosophy Seventeenth-century Philosophy PHIL 360; 2017 Prof. Emily Carson Leacock 936 [email protected] Office hours: W 10-11:30 The purpose of this course is to introduce students to important texts and issues of seventeenth-century philosophy. We will focus on the development of early modern metaphysics and epistemology through the works of René Descartes (1596-1650), Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618-1680), Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715), Margaret Lucas Cavendish (1623-1673), Anne Conway (1631-1679), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), and John Locke (1632-1704). The early modern period in philosophy can be characterized by a shift away from Scholastic Aristotelianism towards a conception of the world compatible with the new mechanistic science. The interplay between science and philosophy is hinted at in a comment from Descartes to Mersenne: “These six Meditations contain all the foundations of my physics. But please do not tell people this, for that might make it harder for supporters of Aristotle to approve the Meditations. I hope that readers will gradually get used to my principles, and recognise their truth, before noticing that they destroy the principles of Aristotle.” We will begin by considering various ways in which the ‘new science’ forces a reconsideration of basic metaphysical and epistemological questions. This will take us to topics ranging from materialism, dualism, mind-body interaction, causation, to the possibility and limits of knowledge about the nature of the world. Texts: Descartes’ Meditations, Leibniz’s Philosophical Essays and Locke’s Essay concerning human understanding are available at The Word bookstore on Milton Street.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Steven Nadler
    An Interview with Steven Nadler LUCIO BIASIORI Università degli Studi di Padova Steven Nadler (Columbia, Ph.D. 1986) is William H. Hay II Professor & Evjue-Bascom Professor in Humanities at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has also been a visiting professor at Stanford University, the University of Chicago, the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (Paris), the École Normale Supérieure (Paris), and the University of Amsterdam (where he was the holder of the Spinoza Chair in 2007). Most of his research has been devoted to the study of philosophy in the seventeenth century, including Descartes and Cartesianism, Spinoza, and Leibniz. He has also examined antecedents of early modern thought in medieval Latin philosophy and (especially with respect to Spinoza) medieval Jewish philosophy, and has written on medieval Jewish rationalism (especially Saadya ben Joseph, Maimonides, and Gersonides). His publications include Spinoza: A Life (Cambridge, 1999; second edition, 2018); The Best of All Possible Worlds: A Story of Philosophers, God, and Evil (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2008; paperback, Princeton 2010); The Cambridge History of Jewish Philosophy: From Antiquity through the Seventeenth Century (2009), co-edited with Tamar Rudavsky; A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age (Princeton, 2011) and The Philosopher, the Priest, and the Painter: A Portrait of Descartes (Princeton, 2013). Heretics: The Wondrous (and Dangerous) Beginnings of Modern Philosophy (Princeton University Press), a graphic book (with Ben Nadler), was published in 2017. His most recent books are Menasseh ben Israel: Rabbi of Amsterdam (“Jewish Lives”, Yale, 2018) and, as co-editor, The Oxford Handbook to Descartes and Cartesianism.
    [Show full text]
  • Sylvia's Mathematical Family Tree
    Mathematical Family Tree of Sylvia Wiegand Desiderius Erasmus Collège de Montaigu / University of Turin Jakob Milich Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau / Universität Wien (1520) Bonifazius Erasmi Erasmus Reinhold Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg (1509) Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg (1535) Johannes Volmar Nicolaus (Mikołaj Kopernik) Copernicus Valentine Naibod Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg (1515) (1499) Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg / Universität Erfurt Georg Joachim von Leuchen Rheticus Rudolph (Snel van Royen) Snellius Ludolph van Ceulen Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg (1535) Universität zu Köln / Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg (1572) Moritz Valentin Steinmetz Willebrord (Snel van Royen) Snellius Universität Leipzig (1550) Universiteit Leiden (1607) Christoph Meurer Jacobus Golius Marin Mersenne Universität Leipzig (1582) Universiteit Leiden (1612) Université Paris IV-Sorbonne (1611) Philipp Müller Frans van Schooten, Jr. Jan Jansz Stampioen, Jr. Universität Leipzig (1604) Universiteit Leiden (1635) Erhard Weigel Christiaan Huygens Petrus Ryff Universität Leipzig (1650) Universiteit Leiden / Université d'Angers (1647) Universität Basel (1584) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Emmanuel Stupanus Académie royale des sciences de Paris (1676) Universität Basel (1613) Nicolas Malebranche Johann Caspar Bauhin (1672) Universität Basel (1649) Jacob Bernoulli Nikolaus Eglinger Universität Basel (1684) Universität Basel (1660) Johann Bernoulli Universität Basel (1690) Leonhard Euler Giovanni Battista (Giambattista) Beccaria Jean Le Rond d'Alembert Universität Basel (1726) Joseph Louis Lagrange Pierre-Simon Laplace Università di Torino (1754) Simeon Denis Poisson École Polytechnique (1800) Michel Chasles École Polytechnique (1814) H. A. (Hubert Anson) Newton Yale University (1850) E. H. (Eliakim Hastings) Moore Yale University (1885) Leonard Eugene Dickson The University of Chicago (1896) Burton Wadsworth Jones The University of Chicago (1928) Irving Reiner Cornell University (1947) Lawrence S.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Washington Modern Philosophy
    University of Washington Mer P (PHIL322) Spring 2020 C: Instructor: MW 2:30pm-4:20pm, classes will be Anthony Fisher [email protected] conducted on Zoom. office SAV M382; office hours on Zoom only: There are no in-person classes. Friday 2-3pm and by appointment. C : This course surveys the history of philosophy in the Early Modern period, starting with Ren Descartes and the rise of mechanist philosophy. We will examine criticisms of Descartes’s philosophy by Prince Elisabeth of Bohemia and study Nicolas Malebranche’s developments of the Cartesian system. We will explore further reactions to Descartes by Anne Conway and Margaret Cavendish and proceed to study Gottfried Leibniz’s philosophical system and developments by Emilie Du Chtelet. Then we will venture into the empiricist tradition with a close reading of George Berkeley and David Hume, finishing with Immanuel Kant’s major contributions to the larger debate of the period. We will focus mostly on metaphysical and epistemological themes in these thinkers but with a sensitivity to the scientific considerations that helped motivate these thinkers to offer original and ground-breaking systems of nature. Along the way we will cultivate an appreciation for the importance of the history of philosophy and the value in investigating what thinkers of previous eras argued for and how it relates to philosophy today. Rr tbooks: (1) Descartes, 1998. D M M F P, Fourth Edition. Trans. Donald A. Cress (Hackett) (2) Berkeley, 1982. A T C Pin H Knowledge. Ed. Kenneth Winkler (Hackett) (3) Hume, 1993. A E C H Utanding, Second Edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Schrecker Papers Ms
    Paul Schrecker papers Ms. Coll. 987 Finding aid prepared by Megan Evans and Chase Markee (2014) and Alexandra M. Wilder (2017). Last updated on May 30, 2017. University of Pennsylvania, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts 2014 May 14 and 2017 May 4 Paul Schrecker papers Table of Contents Summary Information....................................................................................................................................3 Biography/History..........................................................................................................................................4 Scope and Contents....................................................................................................................................... 4 Administrative Information........................................................................................................................... 6 Related Materials........................................................................................................................................... 7 Controlled Access Headings..........................................................................................................................7 Collection Inventory...................................................................................................................................... 9 I. Teaching and lectures.......................................................................................................................... 9 II. Writings
    [Show full text]