Starting from an excerpt of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (section 7, part I), this article compares the conceptions that Hume, Locke and Malebranche uphold regarding the experience we have of the power of our will. It stresses how Hume reproduces some arguments directly taken from Malebranche’s occasionalism in order to criticize the Lockean thesis according to which our idea of power derives from our reflection on the causality of the will. It then argues that this textual evidence reveals the (...) existence of a major divergence, within the confines of empiricism, regarding the extent of the experience we have of our will. (shrink)

Si l’on souligne d’ordinaire la dette de Condillac envers Locke, notamment en ce qui concerne l’association des idées, on doit également rappeler l’importance de Malebranche dans l’élaboration de la pensée de l’abbé. Cependant la reprise condillacienne de Malebranche, une fois émancipée d’hypothèses psychophysiques sur l’union de l’âme et du corps, doit trouver de nouveaux outils pour expliquer le phénomène de la variété des esprits, que Descartes et Malebranche expliquaient facilement dans le cadre de l’union, notamment par la référence à la (...) variété des corps et des événements corporels. C’est donc la tension entre la généralité et l’unité des lois d’association des idées, d’une part, et les modalités de leur particularisation dans des esprits différents, d’autre part, qui est étudiée dans cet article. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Traité des premières véritésby Claude G. BuffierJeffrey D. BursonClaude G. Buffier. Traité des premières vérités. Édition, présentation et notes par Louis Rouquayrol. Textes cartésiens en langue française. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 2020. Pp. 379. Paperback, €32.00.Born in Poland to French parents, Claude G. Buffier, SJ (1661–1737) emerged as one of the most influential of the Parisian scriptores librorumin the first decades of the eighteenth century. Buffier is (...) perhaps best known as one of the founding editors of, and contributors to, the influential French Jesuit periodical Mémoires de Trévoux, but his works on general grammar, metaphysics, moral philosophy, and logic earned him widespread renown. His Grammaire françaiseachieved translation into Spanish, German, Italian, and English, and his Cours de sciences sur des principes nouveaux et simples pour former le langage, l'esprit, et le cœur dans l'usage ordinaire de la vie(1715) was widely adopted in France and Spain throughout the eighteenth century. Buffier's eclectic approach to philosophy, science, moral philosophy, and practical theology developed across several significant works: Principes du raisonnement(1714), Traité des premières vérités(1724), Éléments de métaphysique(1725), and Exposition des preuves les plus sensibles de la véritable religion(1732). In these works, Buffier was prescient in selectively adopting perspectives from Descartes, Malebranche, and Locke, evincing thereby his avid interest and participation in early Enlightenment discussions. Many of Buffier's texts proved to be influential on contributors to the Encyclopédie, on Voltaire, and perhaps later, as harbingers of Scottish Common Sense philosophy. Given the growing recognition of Buffier's importance thanks to the work of Kathleen Wilkins, Catherine Northeast, Jeffrey Burson, Katharine Hammerton, and others, Louis Rouquayrol's new critical edition of Buffier's most influential work, Traité des premières vérités( Treatise of First Truths) is most welcome. Rouquayrol's critical edition of the Traitéis replete with helpful [End Page 156]intertextual explanatory notes to the texts and debates that Buffier addressed, and it includes an insightful synthetic introduction, which summarizes the Traitéand addresses aspects of its philosophical and historical significance. The editor also helpfully includes a detailed chronology of Buffier's life and works, a note about the textual bases for the edition, several instructive appendices to later editions and related works by Buffier, and a profoundly helpful bibliography that includes existing editions, copies, and translations of the Traité, in addition to scholarly studies of Buffier's life and work. Rouquayrol's critical edition is, in short, the best one currently available, and it is likely to remain the standard published edition for some time.In the editor's view, Buffier's primary significance is as the inaugural eighteenth-century figure who attempted to redress the weaknesses at the heart of Cartesian "innate ideas" in ways that might have avoided Berkeley's or Malebranche's immaterialism or Hume's skepticism: "pour lutter contre les 'conséquences idéalistes du cartésianisme,'" Buffier "avait eu plutôt recours au sens commun comme à un 'complément nécessaire du sense intime, qui garantit l'existence du monde extérieur'" (13n2, quoting Étienne Gilson). This "solution mitigée" allowed for a certain reconciliation between Descartes and the "empirisme tempéré" of Locke, and more broadly, a way of moderating "les principes des Modernes" with "les poncifs des Anciens" (13). This conciliation of Lockean empiricism and certain strands of Cartesianism found in Buffier was in fact a central point made by my earlier work on Buffier's contribution to eighteenth-century Enlightenment Catholicism (see Rise and Fall of Theological Enlightenment[South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010]; also "Claude G. Buffier and the Maturation of the Jesuit Synthesis in the Age of Enlightenment," Intellectual History Review21 [2011]: 449–72). Rouquayrol's effort to revisit the complexities of this conciliation in his introduction is a welcome development. He explicitly reminds us that while Jesuits such as Buffier were prohibited from teaching particular theses associated with Descartes after 1706, they were nevertheless increasingly influenced by aspects of Cartesianism (15–17). In many... (shrink)

Dans l'histoire de la philosophie occidentale ce n'est que Kant qui parvient, en la dissociant des phénomènes de la nature, à donner à la liberté un statut métaphysique autonome. Or Malebranche anticipe Kant. Il distingue la volonté qui vient de Dieu de la liberté qui surgit de l'homme. La volonté est une force de quantité déterminée, la liberté est un rien qui n'ajoute rien à cette forme mais en détermine le mouvement. La liberté n'est rien car elle n'est pas elle-même (...) une force, par conséquent, elle permet de fonder une réflexion morale autonome. Kant by separating freedom from the phenomena of nature endows it with an autonomous metaphysical status. Malebranche anticipates Kant. He distinguishes the will which comes from God and freedom which is from man. The will is a force of a given quantity, freedom is a nothing which does not increase or decrease this force but only determines its movement. Freedom is a nothing since it is not a force itself, thus it makes possible an autonomous moral philosophy. (shrink)

David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is a philosophical and literary classic of the highest order. It is also an extremely relevant work because of its engagement with issues as alive today as in Hume's time: the design argument for a deity, the problem of evil, the dangers of superstition and fanaticism, the psychological roots and social consequences of religion. In this outstanding and unorthodox collection, an international team of scholars engage with Hume's classic work. The chapters include state-of-the-art contributions (...) on the central interpretive questions posed by the Dialogues as well as major contributions relating it to contemporary issues in philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, moral psychology, and social philosophy. Additional contributions tackle the historical and philosophical background of the Dialogues, relating it to Hume's own systematic philosophy, to the work of other key seventeenth and eighteenth-century figures - Locke, Clarke, Bayle, Cudworth, Malebranche, Spinoza, Lord Bolingbroke, and Voltaire, among others - to early modern neo-Epicureanism in the life sciences, and, notably, to what Darwin missed by thinking too much like William Paley and not enough like Hume's Philo. Overall, this volume provides fresh and even groundbreaking perspectives on Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. It is essential reading for students and scholars of Hume, the history of modern philosophy, philosophy of religion and the history and philosophy of science. (shrink)

La réflexion philosophique qui se déploie dans cet essai porte sur la question de savoir si l'empirisme de Hume fait vraiment le deuil du sujet de la connaissance. Dans le cas contraire, quelle peut être la nature du rapport du sujet humien aux sujets cartésien et kantien? D'après l'auteur de cet essai, l'empirisme de Hume ne sonne pas totalement le glas du sujet de la connaissance, car si le sujet y brille d'abord par sa passivité, il finit par donner (...) la preuve de son dynamisme cognitif lorsqu'il fait valoir sa spontanéité, à travers l'exercice de son pouvoir d'anticiper le futur, d'élaborer des idées complexes, générales ou abstraites, et de construire des relations là où l'expérience ne donne que des perceptions atomisées et fluctuantes. (shrink)

In his Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals David Hume said that a group of earlier modern philosophers, beginning with Malebranche, held that morality was founded on relations. In this paper I follow up on that suggestion by investigating pre-Humean views in moral philosophy according to which morality is founded on relations. I do that by looking at the work of Nicolas Malebranche, John Locke, and Samuel Clarke. Each of them talked prominently about relations in their accounts of basic aspects (...) of morality. Beyond that, each of them turns out to have held both metaphysical and epistemological views that might be described as founding morality on relations. Despite the definite differences between the three philosophers’ approaches, Hume does seem to have noticed a genuine connection here—even though he himself tended to ignore significant versions of this approach when criticizing it. (shrink)

Résumé La première lettre d’Arnauld à Leibniz, le 13 mars 1686, fut écrite peu de temps après la publication de ses Réflexions philosophiques et théologiques contre le Traité de la nature et de la grâce de Malebranche, dans lesquelles il critique la manière dont l’oratorien rend compte de la nature et de l’étendue de la providence divine. Or, bien que les premiers échanges entre Arnauld et Leibniz semblent privilégier la question de la liberté divine, le problème de la providence est (...) lui aussi bien présent. J’essaie de montrer que les positions d’Arnauld sur la providence, d’abord dirigées contre Malebranche dans les Réflexions, aident à jeter une lumière nouvelle sur ce qui constitue l’objet principal de ses préoccupations quand il réagit négativement au sommaire de l’article XIII du Discours de métaphysique, et que les réponses de Leibniz aux objections d’Arnauld ont elles-mêmes été influencées par sa connaissance précise de la controverse entre Arnauld et Malebranche. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.3 (2001) 442-443 [Access article in PDF] Steven Nadler, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Malebranche. Cambridge Companions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Pp. xi + 319. Cloth, $54.95. With his own Cambridge Companion, the seventeenth-century French philosopher Nicolas Malebranche has at last arrived in the English speaking world. As editor Nadler puts it, "Malebranche was widely recognized by his philosophical and theological (...) contemporaries... as an intellectual force to be reckoned with, a bold... synthesizer of... St. Augustine and Descartes and a systematic thinker of the first rank" (1). Yet until the relatively recent arrival of books or translations by scholars such as Nadler, McCracken, Jolley, Schmaltz, and Riley, Malebranche has largely been treated by Anglo-American scholars as merely the solitary proponent of the allegedly rather silly doctrine of occasionalism. The tide is now turning, and we may expect that over the next few years Malebranche's wide-ranging sophistication and significance will be more widely appreciated. Invaluable to that end will be Nadler's volume, which is of great interest both to those new to Malebranche and to seasoned scholars, for it presents accessible yet thorough introductions to Malebranche's many interesting doctrines—concerning self-knowledge, vision in God, continuous creation, occasionalism, theodicy, grace, freedom, morality, etc.—as well as raises important questions for future research. All of the essays Nadler has assembled are by well-known scholars, and all are worthwhile.The first point to make is that occasionalism—the view that God is the only true cause, and that finite substances lack all true causal power—was neither silly, nor was Malebranche its only proponent. As Nadler's own essay makes clear, the doctrine (or variations thereof) has roots in medieval philosophy as well as in Descartes, and was favored by other Cartesians preceding Malebranche, such as Cordemoy, la Forge, Geulincx, and Clauberg; further, Malebranche offered numerous distinct arguments for it, and, as evidenced in essays by Schmaltz, Rutherford, Kremer, and Riley, intended it to fit with his other metaphysical views in a complete and coherent system. Even if, as some of these same authors suggest, Malebranche failed to get everything to fit quite right, it's at least clear that the oft-raised charge that occasionalism was merely an ad hoc solution to the Cartesian mind-body problem is unjustified. There is of course room to disagree with certain details here: I've argued elsewhere, for example against Nadler, that despite evidence to the contrary Malebranche does not invoke continuous creation as an argument for occasionalism, and, in effect, against Kremer, that Malebranche can succeed in reconciling occasionalism and his conception of free will. But then the fact that scholars can disagree on points such as these is precisely evidence that Malebranche is a rich subject of study.Different essays have different virtues. Some are especially strong in philosophical analysis. Schmaltz provides penetrating analyses of Malebranche's doctrine that we see [End Page 442] all things "in God" as well as of related issues (such as the distinction between the intellectual and the sensible), and also traces their roots in or ramifications for thinkers such as Augustine, Descartes, Arnauld, and Regis; Kremer, too, does an impressive job disentangling the many discrete threads in Malebranche's theory of free will. Essays by Moreau and Riley are particularly useful for their overview or synthetic nature: Moreau presents the many points of contention in the decades-long dispute between Malebranche and Arnauld, while Riley makes explicit the implications that many of the doctrines discussed by other contributors have for Malebranche's moral theory (in the process perhaps implicitly supporting the claim that Malebranche's moral theory may be essential for understanding his metaphysics). Brown's and Robinet's contributions, the former detailing Malebranche's positive influence on or critical reception by figures such as Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Reid, the latter focusing on disputes between Malebranche, Arnauld, and Leibniz, are essential for those interested (as all should be) in working Malebranche into standard undergraduate courses on modern philosophy, and will also be... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:HUME ON THE 'DISTINCTION OF REASON1* In a 1959 paper, Richard H. Popkin1 propounded what was then taken to be a most extraordinary thesis: Hume may never have read Berkeley. Popkin's paper marks the end of one of the stranger stories in the history of philosophy, the relationship of the British Empiricists — Locke, Berkeley, Hume — to one another. The thesis was hardly news either to Berkeley or (...) Hume scholars because for several decades in careful studies of the historical contexts and sources they had relied less and less on any theory about significant common themes. In this paper I rehearse the arguments against the "partnership" doctrine and then turn to some ways in which Berkeley and Hume differ over abstractionism and the 'distinction of reason'. Finally, I discuss George Davie's suggestion that this 'distinction' may belong to a very different side of Hume's thought. The linking of Locke with Berkeley is not a feature of early commentary on Berkeley. Berkeley was seen by his contemporaries as a product of Pierre Bayle's scepticism or of Malebranche's immaterialism.2 The work of A.A. Luce, and to a lesser extent, of T. E. Jessop, seeks to restore Berkeley to a place in those traditions and to reduce his indebtedness to Locke. The work of Hume scholars from Kemp Smith to Ardal, Davie, Norton, and Popkin all places Hume outside the direct Berkeley line. So far as the traditional epistemological picture was concerned, there was not enough internal evidence to support a Hume-Berkeley connection. The argument took a different turn when a new Hume letter came to light. Hume's letter to Michael Ramsay from Orleans is dated August 31, 1737. I desire of you, if you have Leizure, to read over La Recherche de la Vérité of Pere Malebranche, the Principles of 90 Human Knowledge by Dr Berkeley, some of the more metaphysical Articles of Bailes Dictionary; such as those /...of/ Zeno, & Spinoza. Des-Cartes Meditations wou'd also be useful....5 In 1973, Michael Morrisroe, Jr., surveyed the contributions of Wiener, Popkin, Mossner, Hall, Flew, and Conroy to the debate. Morrisroe takes the several Hume references to Berkeley as internal evidence that Hume read Berkeley. He then prints a new Hume letter to Michael Ramsay, dated "Rheims. Sepfc. 29 1734. N. S." A ten sentence letter, the eighth reads: "It is my Pleasure to read over again today Locke's Essays and the Principles of Human Knowledge by Dr. Berkeley which are printed in their original state and in French copy." Morrisroe explains in a footnote that he was granted permission to make a typescript of the letter, that it was sold at auction, and that its "present location... is unknown." In addition, he thanks six graduate students: "without their attention to bibliogaphical detail this letter might not have been made ready for publication until much later." But the bibliographical detail does not include telling us whether he saw the original or how the Hume authorship was established; nor does it include speculation on what Hume means in that eighth sentence. Did Hume find one book containing Locke and Berkeley in French and in English which he then read in one day? A bilingual Locke plus a bilingual Berkeley? Or can he mean an edition of Locke's Essay in French and an edition of Berkeley's Principles in English? That seems to be the least likely interpretation, unless the reference to Berkeley is a mere parenthetical afterthought, and Hume had his hands on Locke in English and French plus an English edition of Berkeley. Whatever this letter means, we know that Locke's Essay was available in Pierre Coste's translation. Berkeley is another story. The "Principles appeared in 1710. A revised edition, together with the Three Dialogues (also revised) was published in 1734. The first French edition appears to have been in 1889. The Three Dialogues first appeared in 1713 and the first French translation in 1750. The New Theory of Vision, first published in 1709, appeared together with the first edition of Alciphron in 1732. French translations appeared together in 1734. In any case, it can be granted, if only on... (shrink)

On veut établir ici comment la relecture de Hume par l'école de Brentano, associée au projet d'une généalogie critique des théories des relations, conduit les philosophes autrichiens à élaborer une alternative décisive pour l'empirisme contemporain: l'opposition entre une psychologie fortement inspirée de Descartes et de Locke, et qui tend vers des positions typiquement conceptualistes, celle que défend Meinong, et un intuitionnisme enrichi de la référence aux « qualités de formes », dont Ehrenfels est l'initiateur. Our purpose is here to show (...) how the reading of Hume by Brentano's school, within a critical genealogy of the theory of relations, has led Austrian philosophers to set up a conclusive alternative for today's empiricism: on the one hand, a psychology deeply influenced by Descartes and Locke, and which verges on typically conceptualist positions (and which is supported by Meinong), and on the other and, an intuitionnism, strengthened by references to « gestaltqualities », initiated by Ehrenfels. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Reflection and the Stability of Belief: Essays on Descartes, Hume, and Reid by Louis E. LoebKevin MeekerLouis E. Loeb. Reflection and the Stability of Belief: Essays on Descartes, Hume, and Reid. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. xvii + 369. ISBN: 978-0-19-536876-5, Cloth, $99.00. ISBN 978-0-19-536875-8, Paper, $45.00.This book is (almost entirely) a collection of previously published essays by Louis Loeb. The first three essays focus primarily (...) on advancing the general interpretive claim that Descartes’s main epistemological goal is achieving unshakable beliefs. While essays 5–10 address many topics in Humean interpretation, they all contribute in various ways to supporting Loeb’s claim that Hume’s primary epistemological goal is achieving stable beliefs. Essay 12 compares the naturalisms of Hume and Reid. All of the collected essays are excellent.Such excellence is not surprising, for Loeb is an influential interpreter of early modern philosophy, justly renowned for the ingenuity of his readings. Spanning the last three decades, these essays display many fine qualities that have helped make Loeb such a prominent historian. Here I will briefly mention three of these qualities. First, Loeb has remarkable command of the primary historical texts and the secondary literature. This mastery is perhaps best seen in his “What is Worth Preserving in the Kemp Smith Interpretation of Hume?” (essay 9). In addition to providing a detailed exposition of a wide range of texts from Hume and Norman Kemp Smith, Loeb also makes adroit comments about the literature discussing the secondary literature when he addresses the “Canonical Understanding” of Kemp Smith (246–47). Second, Loeb effortlessly integrates historical and contemporary concerns. His “Hume’s Agent-Centered Sentimentalism” (essay 8), for instance, has [End Page 257] an interesting discussion of how Hume’s moral theory might aid contemporary utilitarians (238–44). Moreover, essays 5 (“Integrating Hume’s Accounts of Belief and Justification”) and 10 (“Psychology, Epistemology, and Skepticism in Hume’s Argument about Induction”) fruitfully discuss Hume’s epistemology in light of issues important to the contemporary distinction between internalism and externalism. Third, Loeb’s intuitive knack for isolating important connections amongst various texts and figures allows him to tell a concise story about the evolution of certain philosophical ideas that panoramically covers large portions of the history of philosophy. His “Locke and British Empiricism” (essay 11), which connects epistemological themes in Locke with Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, Malebranche, and Reid, among others, is one example. (Because this essay is, as of this writing, still forthcoming, it is the only essay that is not previously published.) Finally, all three of these qualities are prominently on display in “Sextus, Descartes, Hume, and Peirce” (essay 4), which interestingly uses contemporary views about belief (especially as developed by David Velleman) to understand Descartes and Hume “against the backdrop of Sextus and Peirce” (107). To my mind this essay is the best in the book.There are at least two main advantages of collecting these excellent essays into a book. First, the collection allows Loeb to systematically emphasize the similarities between different early modern thinkers in a way that typically strengthens the cumulative case he makes for his readings of these philosophers. Second, the volume permits us to catch a rare glimpse of how an interpreter’s views can change over time. Considering the cumulative effect of the arguments as well as the changes in Loeb’s views also provides us with a great opportunity to reflect critically on many important issues in a fruitful way. The rest of this review will focus on such critical reflections.Let us start with Descartes, as Loeb does. In his introduction to the essays, Loeb helpfully contextualizes his discussions of Descartes. He points out that his paper “Was Descartes Sincere in His Appeal to the Light of Nature?” (not included here) maintains that the arguments Descartes presents are so poor that they “suggest” that “Descartes was insincere in offering his proofs of the existence of God and in appealing to Divine veracity to validate clear and distinct perception” (9; cf. 35). Of course others have likewise contended that Descartes was a dissimulator. But in the first four chapters... (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in (...) the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Some Sources for Hume's Opening Remarks to Treatise LIVJII Graham Solomon Hume opens Book I, Part IV, Section III of the Treatise with these remarks: Several moralists have recommended it as an excellent method ofbecoming acquainted with our own hearts, and knowing our progress in virtue, to recollect our dreams in a morning, and examine them with the same rigour, that we wou'd our most serious and deliberate actions. (...) Our character is the same throughout, say they, and appears best where artifice, fear, and policy have no place, and men can neither be hypocrites with themselves nor others. The generosity, or baseness of our temper, our meekness or cruelty, our courage or pusilanimity, influence the fictions of the imagination with the most unbounded liberty, and discover themselves in the mostglaring colours. Who were these moralists? One looks in vain in the work of Malebranche, Locke, Shaftesbury and Hutcheson for such a recommendation. Did anyone make that recommendation? One moralist who did was "John Shadow," in a letter to Joseph Addison published in The Spectator, no. 586, 27 August 1714. Addison introduces Shadow's letter with the remark that it "is built upon a thought that is new, and very well carried on; for which Reasons I shall give it to the Publick without Alteration, Addition, or Amendment." I quote at length, for easy comparison with Hume: Sir, It was a good Piece of Advice which Pythagoras gave to his Scholars. That every Night before they slept they should examine what theyhad been a doing that Day, and so discover what Actions were worthy of Pursuit to Morrow, and what little Vices were to be prevented from slipping unawares into a Habit. If I might second the Philosopher's Advice, it should be mine, That in a morning before my Scholar rose, he should consider what he had been about that Night, and with the Volume XVI Number 1 57 GRAHAM SOLOMON same Strictness, as if the Condition, he has believed himself to be in, was real. Such a Scrutiny into the Actions ofhis Fancy must be of considerable Advantage, for this Reason, Because the Circumstances which a Man imagines himself in during Sleep, are generally such as entirely favour his Inclinations good or bad, and give him imaginary Opportunities of pursuingthem to the utmost; so thathis Temper will lye fairly open to his View, while he considers howitis moved when free from those Constraints which the Accidents ofreal Life put it under. Dreams are certainly the Result of our waking Thoughts, and our daily Hopes and Fears are what give the mind such nimble Relishes of Pleasure, and such severe Touches ofPain, in its Midnight Rambles. AMan that murders his Enemy, or deserts his Friend in a Dream, had need to guard his Temper against Revenge and Ingratitude, and take heed that he be not tempted to do a vile thing in Pursuit of false, or the Neglect of true Honour... I think it has been observed in the Course of your Papers, how much one's Happiness or Misery may depend upon the Imagination: ofwhich Truth those strange Workings ofFancy in Sleep are no inconsiderable Instances; so that not only the Advantage a Man has ofmaking Discoveries ofhimself, but a Regard to his own Ease or Disquiet, may induce him to accept ofmy Advice... Shadow has been identified as the poet John Byrom by various of the later editors of The Spectator? Of these, D. F. Bond footnotes Byrom's reference to Pythagoras, noting the publication in English of André Dacier's The Life ofPythagoras, with his Symbolism and Golden Verses; together with the Life ofHierocles, and his Commentaries upon the Verses. Bond notes Hierodes' comments on the following Verses: Never suffer Sleep to close thy Eye-lids, after thy going to Bed, Till thou hast examin'd by thy Reason all thy Actions of the Day Wherein have I done amiss? What have I done? What have I omitted that I ought to have done? If in this Examination, thou find that thou hast done amiss, reprimand thy self severely for it: And if thou has done any Good, rejoice. Dacier cites Porphyry and Marcus Aurelius... (shrink)

Cette monumentale etude d'Olivier Brunet reste assurement la reference majeure concernant la philosophie esthetique de David Hume (1711-1776). Les questions et les problemes relatifs au "beau", au "jugement de gout" ne se presentent pas, dans l'oeuvre du penseur ecossais, de maniere detachee, isolee du reste de sa philosophie. C'est l'un des merites d'Olivier Brunet d'avoir montre que les reflexions de Hume sur l'esthetique sont inseparables de ses concepts essentiels. Ainsi, lorsque l'on recherche les racines conceptuelles de la definition du "jugement (...) de gout" chez Hume, on retrouve les memes jalons qui structurent son ethique. En morale comme en esthetique, les "passions" jouent un role central et sont liees - chacune a leur facon - a l'"utile"; celui-ci participe a la cause du "plaisir esthetique" qui est lui-meme etroitement lie a la fameuse "sympathie", sentiment desinteresse reglant le comportement moral tel que definit par Hume. La boucle est-elle bouclee? Loin de la, car l'esthetique humienne serait encore impossible a saisir, sans y considerer l'usage que le fondateur de l'empirisme moderne fait de ses concepts-phares : la croyance, le scepticisme, l'experience, l'habitude. Olivier Brunet, enfin, ne borne pas son etude a la philosophie esthetique de Hume. De tres belles pages sont consacrees a la relation personnelle que ce dernier entretenait avec l'art, ainsi qu'aux vertus sociales, psychologiques et morales que l'auteur du Traite de la nature humaine deduisait de la contemplation du Beau. (shrink)

1. Empirisme positivisme : deux philosophes anthropologiques des limites et du devenir -- L'homme des origines -- Fétichisme et dysharmonie avec le monde -- La tension instinctive au connaître -- Contrer la mort : action et réussite : l'homme chasseur et l'homme prévoyant -- Histoire : " probabilitaire " ou science de l'histoire -- Périodisation et quête de la causalité -- Promesse ou loi -- Les discontinuités de l'histoire -- La rupture du loyalisme : partialité et universalité -- Comte ou (...) la double rupture : épistémologique et Historique -- 2. Certitudes et pensée causale -- Un ordre causal déstabilisé et ses fondements -- Malebranche et la ruine de la causalité naturelle -- Attraction newtonienne et connexions causales -- Causalité : certitudes et fictions -- Similitude, succession, inférence et loi -- 3. Passions, morale et raison -- La dynamique des passions -- De l'orgueil et de l'humilité -- Physiologie, penchants et sentiments -- Raison, passion et obligation morale -- Affectivité, individualité, sociabilité et synthèse -- 4. Société, politique et religion -- Politique, lois et moeurs -- Politique est-elle une science ? -- Religion et politique -- Le positivisme n'est pas un emnirisme. (shrink)

Lorsque Descartes fait de la connaissance de l'esprit humain la principale tâche de la philosophie, il lui applique l'idée moderne de la science comme connaissance certaine et évidente. Durant les 150 ans qui suivront, aucun penseur ne reniera cette étincelle cartésienne. Dans son sillage mais aussi contre elle, dans le ciel de la philosophie apparaît une constellation de penseurs de premier ordre : Pascal, Hobbes, Spinoza, Malebranche, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume. La recherche philosophique accompagnant la "révolution scientifique" commencée avec Galilée (...) s'engage alors dans "la voie des idées". C'est donc sur cette voie que Pierre Guenancia nous entraîne, soulignant toujours dans les différences et les oppositions entre les philosophes la perspective épistémologique qui leur est commune : l'analyse de la connaissance doit précéder la connaissance des choses de l'univers, car ce n'est qu'à partir de nos idées que nous pouvons connaître les choses. (shrink)

This volume includes the major works of the British Empiricists, philosophers who sought to derive all knowledge from experience. All essays are complete except that of Locke, which Professor Richard Taylor of Brown University has skillfully abridged.

Ouvrage majeur de la philosophie de Malebranche, De la recherche de la verite constitue un moment cle dans la reflexion philosophique a l'age classique. Si son inspiration est cartesienne, Malebranche y soutient d'emblee une theorie originale de la connaissance, de la verite et de la causalite: notamment la these de la vision en Dieu des idees et l'analyse des causes de l'erreur. Plus qu'une theorie de la connaissance, c'est donc une theorie complete de l'esprit humain et de ses multiples fonctions (...) que nous livre l'ouvrage. Cette nouvelle edition de la Recherche de la verite donne a lire pour la premiere fois dans un format accessible a tous, un texte majeur de la pensee moderne, heritier de l'age classique et annonciateur des Lumieres: les textes sont etablis a partir des deux dernieres editions de 1700 et 1712 revues par Malebranche lui-meme, et des trois premiers volumes des oeuvres Completes publiees sous la direction d'Andre Robinet; l'orthographe a ete modernisee. La ponctuation a fait l'objet d'une revision systematique; les textes cites en langue etrangere ont ete traduits ou retraduits, et leurs references mises a jour afin de tenir compte des editions les plus recentes. Enfin, le lecteur trouvera, dans ce premier volume, une presentation eclairante de cette oeuvre par Jean-Christophe Bardout, offrant ainsi des grilles de lecture et de comprehension de cet ouvrage majeur du XVIIe siecle, qui n'avait jusqu'alors fait l'objet d'aucune etude specifique. (shrink)

Nuestra intención en este artículo es exponer la concepción berkeleyana entorno al tan debatido problema de la filosofía de la modernidad que concierne a la relación, conocimiento y exterioridad. Éste constituye, en efecto, núcleo esencial de las filosofías de autores tan representativos de la época como Locke, Hume, Condillac y el propio Berkeley, entre otros. No obstante, la singularidad del planteamiento berkeleyano al respecto es tal, que bien merece por nuestra parte una reflexión antenta y por separado. Además, la influencia (...) que su aportación peculiar ejerció sobre determinados filósofos, como, por ejemplo, Condillac y Kant, y a través de ellos sobre buena parte de la filosofía posterior fue de tal índole, que sin el cabal conocimiento de ella no podría entenderse la relevancia y significación del idealismo gnoseológico en sus diferentes tipos y modalidades. En una primera sección, meramente introductoria, acometemos la exposición de la metafísica de Berkeley, destacándose sobre todo su teoría del inmaterialismo ; con ello se pretende subrayar en principio el carácter peculiar que forzosamente habrá de presentar su concepción de lo externo. El tratamiento de ésta constituye propiamente el contenido de la segunda sección, en la que, además de la identificación entre contenido sensible y realidad y de la apelación a la instancia divina como garante último de ésta, se destaca el papel preponderante que desempeña el sentido del tacto en el proceso de aprehensión de la exterioridad. (shrink)

The Ohio State University Press is to be congratulated, and Lennon and Olscamp are to be thanked for this book. Nicholas Malebranche has always been a major philosopher on the Continent but he has been less well-known in recent times within the English-speaking world. The Search was twice translated into English at the close of the seventeenth century and Malebranche was widely read and commented upon in English in both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. John Locke wrote about Malebranche. David (...) Hume not only cites him, Hume's analysis of causation is thought to owe much to Malebranche's doctrine. Some of Berkeley's earliest critics took him to be a Malebranchist. A. A. Luce argued some years ago that Malebranche is one of the most important philosophical influences upon Berkeley. Accordingly it is a delight to have the full text available and I hope it will be possible to produce a paper-back version. This translation is based on the edition of the Oeuvres complètes de Malebranche under the general editorship of André Robinet. This includes definitive editions of the Recherche and the Éclaircissements edited by Geneviève Rodis-Lewis. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:15 LOCKE, HUME AND THE NATURE OF VOLITIONS 1. The concept of a volition plays a key role in the theories of mind that both Locke and Hume devise. It is central to the views each develops on the nature of action and of explanations of actions, on the character of practical reasoning, on the nature of desire, on the ways in which, most usefully, to categorize the several (...) kinds of mental states and events. Without attending closely to their concepts of volition, one cannot get quite clear about the views of each, and the considerations thought to support those views, on the vexed questions of free action and of responsibility. Whether it be Locke or Hume, then, there is good reason to scrutinize what he says of volitions. Why take them together? The principal reason is that the views of each, when considered closely, throw a quite considerable light on those of the other (or so I hope to show). But there is a philosophical point as well. A theory of volitions more adequate than either proposes must borrow from each. What is amenable to being borrowed, and what ought to be borrowed, are fairly readily seen when the two theories are put face to face. I concentrate on three central issues: the question whether volitions are thoughts; the relationship of volition to practical reasoning; the links between volitions and their effects. Hume's views on these topics are to be found chiefly in the Treatise and the first Enquiry; Locke's, of course, in the Essay. Locke's recently published correspondence with the Dutch theologian Philippus van Limborch is, however, essential reading here, and I have made extensive use of it. 16 2. Locke and Hume agree that volitions are indefinable psychological primitives that must be invoked in an analysis of voluntary action (T 399, EHU 69, E 249). They agree, too, in a number of the things that each says in his efforts to characterize volitions. They differ, however, on a fundamental point, Hume's volitions are 'internal impression[s]' (T 399); Locke's are 'thought[s] of the Mind' (E 235). As internal impressions Humean volitions are feelings akin to, but not 'properly speaking' (T 399) instances of, passions. They are like the 'direct passions' (desire and aversion, grief and joy, hope and fear) in two respects: they are 'immediate effects of pain and pleasure' (T 399); they are 'propense and averse motions of the mind' (T 574), and thus bear a special relation to action. Though they are not thoughts they have causal, thus contingent, links to thoughts, including in particular thoughts whose content specify the so-called 'immediate object of volition' (E 66). As 'distinct impression[s]' (T 625) volitions do not modify the thoughts of their objects in the logically intimate way in which, in Hume's view, the feeling essential to belief 'modiffies] the conception' (T 625) of what is believed. Hume frequently compares volitions to commands (T 623, 629, 632; EHU 48, 64, 65, 67, 68). He also, not surprisingly, denies them truth values: because they are not capable of 'an agreement or disagreement either to the real relations of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact' it is 'impossible... they can be pronounced either true or false' (T 458; compare T 415). Locke's volitions are thoughts, not feelings; and they have their own contents and objects. '[T]he proper and only object of the will', he writes, 'is some action of ours' (E 258); in forming a volition one 17 'wills to number', say, or 'wills to walk' (C 405). Locke never says as much, but his overall theory is best read as requiring volitions to be thoughts without truth values. He contrasts 'Will' or 'the Power of Volition1 with 'Understanding' or 'the Power of Thinking' (E 128). Since 'Volition' is as much a 'Mode... £f thinking' as is 'Reasoning' or 'Judging' (E 227), however, the contrast is most plausibly taken as one between thoughts that do and thoughts that do not purport to represent the way the world is. Locke's distinction, to be examined below, between volitions and 'last judgements of the understanding' suggests the... (shrink)

Analyses in detail the accounts given respectively by Locke and by Hume of the mental factors such as pleasure, pain, uneasiness, and desire, which they see as causing all human actions. Foot argues that this enterprise was misconceived. Philosophers should no more try to describe a mechanism underlying acting on a reason than a mechanism underlying believing on a reason. Practical and theoretical reasoning are here on a par, the first issuing in action and the second in belief.

Long before the current dispute in the USA about the teaching of evolution, Hume's dialogues presented and critically analyzed the idea of intelligent design. What should we teach our children about the creation of the world? What should we teach them about religion? The characters Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo passionately present and defend different answers to that question. Demea opens the dialogue with a position derived from René Descartes and Father Malebranche — God's nature is a mystery, but God's existence (...) can be proved logically. Cleanthes attacks that view, both because it leads to mysticsm and because it attempts the impossible task of trying to establish existence on the basis of pure reason, without appeal to sense experience. As an alternative, he offers a proof of both God's existence and God's nature based on the same kind of scientific reasoning established by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. Taking a skeptical approach, Philo presents a series of arguments that question any attempt to use reason as a basis for religious faith. He suggests that human beings might be better off without religion. The dialolgue ends without genuine agreement among the characters, justifying Hume's choice of dialogue as the form of presentation. (shrink)

Long before the current dispute in the USA about the teaching of evolution, Hume's dialogues presented and critically analyzed the idea of intelligent design. What should we teach our children about the creation of the world? What should we teach them about religion? The characters Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo passionately present and defend different answers to that question. Demea opens the dialogue with a position derived from René Descartes and Father Malebranche — God's nature is a mystery, but God's existence (...) can be proved logically. Cleanthes attacks that view, both because it leads to mysticsm and because it attempts the impossible task of trying to establish existence on the basis of pure reason, without appeal to sense experience. As an alternative, he offers a proof of both God's existence and God's nature based on the same kind of scientific reasoning established by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. Taking a skeptical approach, Philo presents a series of arguments that question any attempt to use reason as a basis for religious faith. He suggests that human beings might be better off without religion. The dialolgue ends without genuine agreement among the characters, justifying Hume's choice of dialogue as the form of presentation. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is show how an initially appealing objection to David Hume's account of judgment can only be put forward by philosophers who accept an account of judgment that has its own sizable share of problems. To demonstrate this, I situate the views of John Locke, David Hume, and Thomas Reid with respect to each other, so as to illustrate how the appealing objection is linked to unappealing features of Locke's account of judgment.

This paper has a modest, but important, aim: to gain a better understanding of the relationship between John Locke's and David Hume's theories of causal power in the operations of external objects. The task is important because it focuses on an issue involving these two philosophers astonishingly not much discussed amongst commentators. (edited).

Le succes des Essais de John Locke sur l'origine, les modalites et le but de l'entendement humain fut similaire au triomphe de Newton en physique. Cet ouvrage initie tout le courant empiriste qui le suit, ainsi que la psychologie comme science. Il reste, a ce jour, la plus etudiee des oeuvres de Locke. Les livres I et II, ici edites dans une traduction nouvelle, presentent l'acte fondateur (que reproduiront Berkeley et Hume) de la these sensualiste: la critique de l'inneisme et (...) la source empirique de toute idee. Cette nouvelle traduction offre au lecteur un texte issu d'une lecture enrichie par trois siecles d'exegese. (shrink)

The atomism of quantum physics has foundations more than twenty-five centuries old. Atomism is a philosophy, deductive and metaphysical. John Locke and David Hume suppressed the full philosophy of atomism in their presentations, but this book aims to restore and critique atomism's philosophical foundations, which will change the way we view the modern world.

This is a review of a volume including Locke's Second Treatise, Rousseau's Social Contract, and Hume's "Of the Original Contract." The Rousseau essay is translated by Gerard Hopkins, and Ernest Baker provides an introduction to the texts.

La conception malebranchiste de la liberté est originale. Malebranche ne croit pas en une liberté d’indifférence absolue, c'est-à-dire en une capacité d’opérer un choix indépendamment de toute motivation. Il ne croit pas non plus que nous puissions indifféremment choisir entre deux motivations de force inégale : au moment où on se détermine, le bien le plus grand (du moins selon l’apparence) l’emporte. La liberté réside seulement dans le fait que l’on n’est pas obligé de se déterminer : nous pouvons toujours (...) suspendre notre consentement. Cette conception est exposée à des objections que Pierre Bayle a formulées et qui tentent de la mettre en contradiction avec d’autres thèses de Malebranche : son occasionalisme, sa théorie de la création continuée, l’obscurité de l’âme à elle-même, sa théologie des voies de l’action divine. Nous discuterons ces objections et verrons si Malebranche est en mesure de leur résister. (shrink)

Analyses in detail the accounts given respectively by Locke and by Hume of the mental factors such as pleasure, pain, uneasiness, and desire, which they see as causing all human actions. Foot argues that this enterprise was misconceived. Philosophers should no more try to describe a mechanism underlying acting on a reason (as e.g. a prudential or moral reason) than a mechanism underlying believing on a reason. Practical and theoretical reasoning are here on a par, the first issuing in action (...) and the second in belief. (shrink)

English summary: In 1693, Locke wrote a number of works on the philosophy of Malebranche, contributing to the same controversy as Arnauld on the status of ideas, addressing specifically the questions of how to increase our limited knowledge. This critical edition presents Lockes practical critique with its opposition to the immediate vision of eternal truths, and to the assurance that comes of it. French description: Locke redige autour de 1693 plusieurs notes sur la philosophie de Malebranche. Ces critiques n'ont pas (...) eu le succes de celles d'Arnauld. Elles participent pourtant a la meme controverse sur le statut des idees. Mais l'idee n'est pas l'essentiel; Locke en traite dans le cadre d'un debat plus large: comment accroitre notre savoir limite? La critique a une visee pratique: s'opposer a la vision immediate des verites eternelles et a l'assurance qui en decoule. La tolerance et la liberte individuelle dependent de la modestie de chacun dans la recherche d'une connaissance limitee. La critique de Locke est loin de toujours respecter la pensee de Malebranche, mais elle manifeste les risques encourus quand on fait de Dieu un instrument de la connaissance plutot que son terme inaccessible. Cette nouvelle edition traduit les textes connus, ajoute des manuscrits inedits et les insere dans une presentation a deux voix, pour mieux deployer la coherence interne de chacun des protagonistes. (shrink)

_Postures of the Mind _was first published in 1985. Minnesota Archive Editions uses digital technology to make long-unavailable books once again accessible, and are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions. Annette Baier develops, in these essays, a posture in philosophy of mind and in ethics that grows out of her reading of Hume and the later Wittgenstein, and that challenges several Kantian or analytic articles of faith. She questions the assumption that intellect has authority over all (...) human feelings and traditions; that to recognize order we must recognize universal laws—descriptive or prescriptive; that the essential mental activity is representing; and that mental acts can be analyzed into discrete basic elements, combined according to statable rules of synthesis. In the first group of essays—"Varieties of Mental Postures"—Baier evaluates the positions taken by philosophers ranging from Descartes to Dennett and Davidson. Among her topics are remembering, intending, realizing, caring, representing, changing one's mind, justifying one's actions and feelings, and having conflicting reasons for them. The second group of essays—"Varieties of Moral Postures" - explores the sort of morality we get when all of these capacities become reflective and self-corrective. Some deal with particular moral issues—our treatment of animals, our policies regarding risk to human life, our contractual obligations; others, with more general questions on the role of moral philosophers and the place of moral theory. These essays respond to the theories of Hobbes, Kant, Rawls, and MacIntyre, but Baier's most positive reaction is to David Hume; _Postures of the Mind _ affirms and cultivates his version of a moral reflection that employs feeling and tradition as well as reason. (shrink)

Cet article consiste en un commentaire suivi de la section IV de l’ Enquête sur l’entendement humain. Il poursuit trois finalités : expliciter la structure de l’argumentation sceptique par laquelle Hume déconstruit la rationalité de l’inférence causale, éclairer le texte par certaines mises en perspectives historiques (en confrontant notamment Hume à Locke) et mettre en évidence le geste d’approfondissement de l’empirisme qui s’y joue : la théorie sceptique du raisonnement causal ne peut être atteinte qu’en dépassant l’expérience courante et immédiate (...) que chacun fait de son entendement. (shrink)

John Locke (29 August 1632 - 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism". Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Sir Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory. His work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as (...) well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as David Hume, Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He postulated that, at birth, the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to Cartesian philosophy based on pre-existing concepts, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception. This is now known as empiricism. An example of Locke's belief in Empiricism can be seen in his quote, "whatever I write, as soon as I discover it not to be true, my hand shall be the forwardest to throw it into the fire." This shows the ideology of science in his observations in that something must be capable of being tested repeatedly and that nothing is exempt from being disproven. Challenging the work of others, Locke is said to have established the method of introspection, or observing the emotions and behaviors of one's self.Locke's concept of man started with the belief in creation. We have been "sent into the World by order, and about his business, are his Property, whose Workmanship are, made to last during his, not one anothers Pleasure." Like the two other very influential natural-law philosophers, Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, Locke equated natural law with the biblical revelation, since in their view both had originated in God and could therefore not contradict each other. "As a philosopher, Locke was intensely interested in Christian doctrine, and in the Reasonableness he insisted that most men could not hope to understand the detailed requirements of the law of nature without the assistance of the teachings and example of Jesus.". (shrink)

Cet article discute la philosophie de Damaris Masham (née Cudworth) (1658-1708), qui a dialogué avec plusieurs philosophes de son époque dans ses deux livres et ses lettres. Parmi ses interlocuteurs philosophiques figurent non seulement de grands philosophes, canoniques (John Locke, Nicolas Malebranche, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz), mais aussi des philosophes considérés aujourd’hui comme « mineurs » (John Norris, et Ralph Cudworth) – ainsi que, plus indirectement, Pierre Bayle et Mary Astell. La plus grande partie de mon analyse portera sur sa discussion (...) avec Locke et Cudworth, mais j’aborde aussi son rapport à Malebranche et Norris. Je retrace son rapport avec Locke et Cudworth afin de clarifier sa position philosophique vis-à-vis de ces interlocuteurs, et d’interroger la valeur d’une histoire de la philosophie dont les paramètres ont été fixés sans prise en compte de la contribution des femmes – dans le cas présent, il s’agit de remettre en cause l’utilité de l’« empirisme » et du « rationalisme » comme catégories classificatoires. (shrink)

The philosophers René Descartes (1596–1650), Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715), Benedict Spinoza (1632–77), and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) are grouped together as rationalists because they held that human beings possess a faculty of reason that produces knowledge independently of the senses. In this regard, they contrast with empiricist philosophers, such as John Locke and David Hume, who believed that all knowledge arises from the senses. The rationalists contended that proper use of reason would yield the first principles of metaphysics, the most basic (...) science of all. Metaphysics was also called “first philosophy,” and it took as its subject matter nothing less than the basic properties and principles of everything. For our purposes, it is important to note that the rationalists believed that metaphysics could provide foundations for specialized disciplines, including ethics and physics, and also medicine and other applied subjects. The rationalists and their followers developed theoretical positions of ambitious intellectual scope, ranging from metaphysical conclusions about the existence and nature of God to detailed theories of physical and physiological processes. Although they put great store in the faculty of reason for establishing overarching principles, they looked to observation and experience to provide data and evidence for their detailed theories. They took special interest in the metaphysics and physics of the human organism, and this led them to psychological topics concerning the characteristics and principles of animal behavior, the process of sense perception, the passions, and emotions, and appetites, the cognitive operations of the mind (including attention and understanding), and the relation between mental phenomena and bodily processes in the brain and sense organs. The various rationalists, but especially Descartes, made original contributions to these topics. After considering the character of psychology as a discipline in the seventeenth century, we will examine these contributions in turn. (shrink)