Nicholas Westberg

This paper argues that John Duns Scotus defends a unique version of concurrentism that is not susceptible to the common objections that were occasionally raised in the scholastic period against other versions of concurrentism. In short, Scotus has systematic reasons for maintaining that natural (i.e., non-volitional and non-rational) efficient-causal agents cannot operate according to any per se teleological principle, but that their operation nonetheless depends upon some final causation. Thus, he can maintain that, in order to operate, a natural creature requires the cooperative action of God, who operates from per se final causality. This paper explores why Scotus views natural efficient causes as lacking per se final causality, but why he nonetheless maintains that their efficient causality depends upon some other source of final causality.

This article critically assesses a recent interpretation of Descartes’s physics, according to which he accepts a medieval account of the relation between God and physical creatures commonly called concurrentism. On this medieval view, God cooperates with creatures as efficient causes in bringing about change. If Descartes were to accept it, then it would entail that physical creatures (bodies) count as efficient causes in some way (otherwise God could not be said to cooperate with them), thus settling a long-standing debate about whether Cartesian bodies are efficient causes in body-body interaction. I argue on two independent bases that he does not accept this view. First, I argue that there are metaphysical difficulties with reconstructing Cartesian physics on the concurrentist view. Second, I argue that the textual evidence is not only insufficient to establish that Descartes is a concurrentist, but furthermore it supports an occasionalistic interpretation of body-body interaction instead.

This article reassesses Suárez’s claim that real essences are intrinsically logically possible. (Henceforth, this claim is referred to as ‘ILP.’) Most scholars have understood ILP as asserting the independence of logical possibility from God’s power; on their view, it in fact asserts that real essences in themselves explain logical possibility. As a result, the claim is in tension with Suárez’s other thesis that real essences are nothing in themselves. Scholars have taken two main approaches to assessing this tension. Some, like John Doyle and Norman Wells, argue that Suárez contradicts himself. There is no way for real essences both to be intrinsically logically possible and also to be nothing. More recently, however, scholars have jumped to Suárez’s defense. They argue that he avoids contradiction because they claim that he accepts some further radical thesis which allows him to remove the tension. But these scholars still accept the claim that ILP asserts that real essences explain logical possibility. This article contests this basic interpretation. I will argue that ILP is not a thesis about the explanation or ground of logical possibility. First, it abstracts from notions of actual existence; as a result, it cannot be a claim about ontological explanation. Second, in order to conceive of logical possibility, intellectual operation is necessary; thus, it is not the sort of property which can have an ontological explanation in the usual sense. Third and finally, insofar as logical possibility can be explained, Suárez turns out to explain it through God’s power.

This article aims to establish that Descartes accepted the scholastic view that God’s duration in itself (“eternity”) is not successive but “all at once,” as opposed to temporal things’ durations. Though most scholars have assumed this to be Descartes’ view, Geoffrey Gorham recently called it into question with a number of strong arguments. We contest his interpretation on multiple grounds. First, we show that when Descartes asserts that a duration which is “all at once” is “inconceivable,” he is not making a metaphysical claim but, rather, is making an epistemological one, based on the limitations of the human intellect in understanding the attributes of God. Second, we object to a number of Gorham’s systematic reconstructions of Descartes’ views. He argues among other things that divine simplicity is consistent with temporal parts and that the laws of Cartesian physics require God to have temporal parts. We refute these claims based on Descartes’ fundamental metaphysical commitments. We thus conclude that Descartes does not think that, per se, God’s existence unfolds successively, moment after moment.