Francesco Piro

The status of «Admiration» in Descartes and Spinoza is illustrated by F. Piro as an index of different anthropological options, concerning the relationships between emotions and rationality and the role that they play in social, political and religious behavior. The differences in metaphysical assumptions that separate the two thinkers as well as the internal evolution of their thinking are enucleated under such perspective. In the background there are at least three main philosophical issues: (i) the classic issue of the «primary» emotions (also in the current form of a question about the «anthropological universals»); (ii) the issue of the existence and nature of moral sentiments and, at the end, (iii) that of the status of the «admirable» or «amazing» in the age of the scientific revolution.

this book concerns the debates on the functions of "imagination" (phantasia, imaginatio) in the arousal of passions in the Aristotelian and post-Aristotelian traditions till the XVIIth Century. The simple fact that often a mental representation is followed by pleasure or sorrow and that these emotions can cause actions, became progressively part of a wider theory of animal and human behaviour. In the case of human behaviour, the "force of imagination" became a kind of general justification of all kind of anomic and irregular behaviour and beliefs, including true paranormal conditions of the body. The book recapitulates the main evolution of this way of seeing passions - from Aristotle to Avicenna and his Latin followers - till the age of the authors who see the inner work of "imagination" as a constant danger for human reason, and imagination itself as faculty to control with care for its propension to be the "advocate" of the "inferior part of the soul", such as Gianfrancesco Pico, Juan Luis Vivés, Pierre Charron, Blaise Pascal and a large part of the French Augustinian Moral Philosophers.

This paper discusses Leibniz's passages concerning Durand de Saint-Pourçain. Thee passages pose a curious question: Leibniz undoubtedly shared the wide condamnation of Durand's theological view that God doesn't concur to the creaturely actions (or concurs only in an indirect way), and therefore reaffirms the classical doctrine of continuous creation, just as Descartes or Malebranche do. At the same time, he saw Durand's doctrine of God's foreseeing as a promising one, even as an anticipation of Leibniz's own Principle of Sufficient Reason. Can these two claims be consistent between them? This paper tries to affirm that it is, both focusing Leibniz's particular version of theological concurrentism and the former discussions on Durand, Concurrentism and God's Action in the run of the XVIIth Century.

The Argument of the “Perpetual Miracle” and its Theological Implications: on Leibniz-Malebranche Relationships. One of Leibniz’s strongest arguments against the Occasionalists is that, since they see all natural laws only as constant connections, Occasionalists are unable to distinguish a natural law from a constantly repeated miracle. The paper shows that Leibniz’s argument is not entirely adequate as a criticism of Malebranche, in that it stems from a theology that is quite different to that of Malebranche. For Malebranche, miracles are the effects of God’s “particular will” and are quite different even from God’s legal distribution of Grace. A miracle ruled by a law is, therefore, a conceptual impossibility. To Leibniz, miracles include everything that overrules creatures and their forces. Miracles may thus be governed by laws and, indeed, all miracles performed by God in our world are regulated by the laws of Leibniz’s Kingdom of Grace.

The paper discusses the passages of Vico's letters and "Scienza nuova prima" (1725) concerning Grotius and blaming him as a "Socinian". First of all, it tries to identify the sources which allowed Vico to see Grotius as a hidden Socinian. In fact, these sources exist and they are to find in German debates on Natural Right, since many exponents of Lutheran and Calvinian "orthodoxy" expressed similar doubts on Grotius. In particular, the works of Guilelmus Van der Muelen (1659-1739) may have been influencial on Vico, since they considered carefully Grotius' view on the most ancient customs and rights as proofs that Grotius considered the most ancient peoples as better and more sociable than actual ones, a naturalist view which cannot be conciliated with the doctrine of the original sin and with the importance of religion for the acquisition of the virtue of justice. These sources can explain Vico's decision to elaborate his view of the origin of civil society, starting with the simplicity of the "bestioni" but who can arrive to civility only through the fear and horror for natural wonders (the thunder) and the religious awe derivating from it.