Tad Schmaltz

The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism comprises fifty specially written chapters on Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and Cartesianism, the dominant paradigm for philosophy and science in the seventeenth century, written by an international group of leading scholars of early modern philosophy. The first part focuses on the various aspects of Descartes's biography (including his background, intellectual contexts, writings, and correspondence) and philosophy, with chapters on his epistemology, method, aetaphysics, physics, mathematics, moral philosophy, political thought, medical thought, and aesthetics. The chapters of the second part are devoted to the defense, development and modification of Descartes's ideas by later generations of Cartesian philosophers0in France, the Netherlands, Italy, and elsewhere. The third and final part considers the opposition to Cartesian philosophy by other philosophers, as well as by civil, ecclesiastic, and academic authorities. This handbook provides an extensive overview of Cartesianism - its doctrines, its legacies and its fortunes - in the period based on the latest research.

The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism comprises fifty specially written chapters on Rene Descartes and Cartesianism, the dominant paradigm for philosophy and science in the seventeenth century, written by an international group of leading scholars of early modern philosophy. The first part focuses on the various aspects of Descartes's biography and philosophy, with chapters on his epistemology, method, metaphysics, physics, mathematics, moral philosophy, political thought, medical thought, and aesthetics. The chapters of the second part are devoted to the defense, development and modification of Descartes's ideas by later generations of Cartesian philosophers in France, the Netherlands, Italy, and elsewhere. The third and final part considers the opposition to Cartesian philosophy by other philosophers, as well as by civil, ecclesiastic, and academic authorities. This handbook provides an extensive overview of Cartesianism - its doctrines, its legacies and its fortunes - in the period based on the latest research.

Hume criticizes Malebranche for endorsing an “abstract theory of morals” founded on reason that leaves no role for sentiment. One response in the literature argues that although Malebranche started by endorsing the kind of “abstract” morality Hume rejects, he increasingly replaced this with an incompatible “sensible” morality based on “physical motives” deriving from pleasure. However, I argue that a basis for both moralities is present in Malebranche from the start, and indeed that they are compatible parts of a single morality. In developing this argument, I draw particularly on his contribution to the dispute in early modern France over a Quietist account of “pure love.” This contribution reveals that although he did accept the sort of theory of moral truth that Hume criticized, Malebranche at the same time endorsed a theory of moral motivation that is similar in important respects to what we find in Hume.

This volume presents new research on Cartesian psychophysiology that combines historical and textual analysis with a consideration of recent advances in contemporary neuroscience research. It seeks to explain why the theory of the Cartesian brain and its communication with the mind still offers a remarkable model for cognitive studies. New research in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science has reignited interest in the role and the structure of the "Cartesian brain" among scholars of Descartes. This volume rethinks Cartesian psychology from the perspective of physiology, with the aim of redetermining the contributions of the brain and central nervous system to mental phenomena. The first part of the volume concerns the details of Descartes's own physiological account of the brain. The discussion covers his treatment not only of the anatomy of the brain, but also of the mode of interaction between mind and body, in which the pineal gland plays a central role, and of the relation between the brain and the rest of the body. The second part considers the reception and legacy of the Cartesian brain. The focus here is on understanding how Cartesian psychophysiology was received by Descartes's early modern contemporaries and immediate successors, as well as on the relevance of the Cartesian brain for contemporary neurophysiology and cognitive science. The Cartesian Brain is an essential resource for scholars and advanced students interested in Descartes, history of philosophy, history of science, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Editorial AnnouncementsTad M. SchmaltzThis issue introduces "Current Scholarship," a new series at the Journal of the History of Philosophy. This series comprises critical reviews from leading historians of philosophy of the current literature on particular historical authors or topics. Mary Louise Gill's inaugural essay in this issue concerns current scholarship on Aristotle's Metaphysics, and John Marenbon is contributing the next essay for the series, scheduled for publication in 2006, on the recent literature on the philosophy of Abelard. Future topics include late medieval ethics and the history of 20th-century analytic philosophy. We hope that the Current Scholarship reviews will prove to be a useful research tool for specialists and students alike.It is my pleasure to announce as well that Jack Zupko of Emory University will be the new Book Review Editor for the Journal. He will assume the editorship July 1, 2005. From that time, all correspondence concerning book reviews should be sent to Professor Jack Zupko, Book Review Editor, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Philosophy Department, 214 Bowden Hall, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 ([email protected]).On behalf of the Board of Directors, I would like to express my thanks to the previous Book Review Editor, Jan Wojcik of Auburn University, and to her editorial assistant, Mark Wilson, for their excellent work for the Journal during the past five years.Copyright © 2005 Journal of the History of Philosophy, Inc....

Cet article concerne l’application de la méthode « dianoématique », ou « étude des doctrines », dans le commentaire important de Martial Gueroult aux deux premières parties de l’ Éthique de Spinoza. Gueroult met l’accent sur deux affirmations distinctes dans les deux volumes de ce commentaire. La première affirmation, tirée du premier volume, est que Spinoza adopte une version du monisme dans la première partie de l’ Éthique selon laquelle Dieu, en tant que substance infinie, consiste en une union d’une infinité de substances distinctes constituées chacune d’un attribut unique. La deuxième affirmation, tirée du deuxième volume, est que Spinoza est contraint, du fait de ce qu’il écrit dans la deuxième partie de l’ Éthique, d’accepter la conclusion qu’il existe deux types de «parallélisme» différents entre les attributs divins.

Spinoza seems to argue both that “God or Nature” is mereologically simple, and that this being is mereologically complex insofar as it is composed of parts. This chapter proposes on Spinoza's behalf a resolution of this antinomy. This resolution focuses on Spinoza's mereology of the material world. It offers an alternative interpretation according to which Spinoza adheres both to the indivisibility of extended substance and to the reality of the finite modal parts that compose an infinite modal whole. In the Oldenburg Letter, Spinoza claims that “concerning whole and parts, the chapter considers things as parts of some whole to the extent that the nature of the one so adapts itself to the nature of the other so that they agree with one another as far as possible”. The chapter argues that a similar assumption underlies Peterson's argument against the reality in Spinoza of divisible spatial quantity.

While there has been a resurgence in Malebranche scholarship in the anglophone world over the last twenty years, most of it has focused on Malebranche’s theory of ideas, and little attention has been paid to his philosophy of mind. Schmaltz’s book thus comes as a welcome addition to the Malebranche literature; that he has given us such a well-researched and carefully argued study is even more welcome. The focus of this work is Malebranche’s split with Descartes on the question of our knowledge of the nature of the mind; the book concentrates specifically on Malebranche’s rejection of the claim that we know the nature of the mind better than we know the nature of body. Schmaltz maintains that Malebranche’s arguments for his position are, for the most part, successful against the Cartesians who opposed him, though he claims—and this is perhaps the central claim of the book—that “Malebranche took his negative thesis concerning our knowledge of the soul to involve not so much a rejection of Cartesianism as an internal correction of it”. While acknowledging that Augustine was “the primary inspiration for [Malebranche’s] view of the ideas that are the objects of perception”, Schmaltz’s interpretation of Malebranche’s theory of the soul “presents it as fundamentally Cartesian”. According to Schmaltz, not only is Malebranche closer to Descartes in this regard than is generally thought, he is closer to him than are many other Cartesians. Part 1 of the book examines Malebranche’s position that while we have certain knowledge of the soul’s existence, we have only confused knowledge of its nature. Part 2 focuses on Arnauld’s objection that if in fact we had no clear idea of the soul, we could not, despite Malebranche’s claims to the contrary, know anything of its immortality, spirituality, or freedom.

Hobbes s’est opposé à Descartes en affirmant que l’on doit inférer du cogito que le sujet de la pensée est matériel. Le présent article commence par examiner cet argument fameux. Selon une interprétation courante, l’argument repose sur la théorie des idées de Hobbes. Cependant, cette interprétation a été contestée dans la littérature récente. Un examen de ce débat nous conduit à examiner un autre argument selon lequel tout sujet doit être localisé dans l’univers au moyen de son extension. Ce nouvel argument sert à relier les vues de Hobbes à celles de son critique, Henry More, qui, à leur tour, sont pertinentes pour comprendre son échange avec Descartes sur la question de savoir si les esprits sont étendus. En examinant cet échange ici, nous nous proposons de confronter Descartes au matérialisme de Hobbes à un niveau plus profond que ne le permet leur discussion initiale sur le cogito.

This article considers complications for the principle in Descartes that effects are similar to their causes that are connected to his own denial that terms apply "univocally" to God and the creatures He produces. Descartes suggested that there remains an "analogical" relation in virtue of which our mind can be said to be similar to God's. However, this suggestion is undermined by the implication of his doctrine of the creation of the eternal truths that God's will differs entirely from our own. The disappearance of analogy is even more evident in Spinoza and Regis. Both linked Descartes's doctrine to the principle that an effect differs from its cause with respect to what it receives from that cause, and both argued from that principle to the conclusion that we differ from God in both essence and existence

There is considerable debate among scholars over whether Descartes allowed for genuine body–body interaction. I begin by considering Michael Della Rocca’s recent claim that Descartes accepted such interaction, and that his doctrine of the creation of the eternal truths indicates how this interaction could be acceptable to him. Though I agree that Descartes was inclined to accept real bodily causes of motion, I differ from Della Rocca in emphasizing that his ontology ultimately does not allow for them. This is not the end of the story, however, since two of Descartes’s successors offered incompatible ways of developing his conflicted account of motion. I contrast the occasionalist view of Nicolas Malebranche that changes in motion derive directly from divine volitions with the non-occasionalist claim of Pierre-Sylvain Regis that such changes derive from a nature distinct from God. In light of Della Rocca’s interpretation, it is noteworthy that the issue of eternal truths is relevant to both alternative accounts. Indeed, Regis took the doctrine that such truths are created to provide crucial support for his alternative to an occasionalist account of body–body interaction. What does not help Della Rocca, however, is that Regis’s view of motion requires a fundamental revision of Descartes’s ontology. Author Keywords: Descartes; Malebranche; Regis; Causation; Motion; Eternal Truths.

In this article, I consider Descartes’ enigmatic claim that we must assert that the material world is indefinite rather than infinite. The focus here is on the discussion of this claim in Descartes’ late correspondence with More. One puzzle that emerges from this correspondence is that Descartes insists to More that we are not in a position to deny the indefinite universe has limits, while at the same time indicating that we conceive a contradiction in the notion that the universe has a limit. I reject one attempt to resolve this apparent conflict which appeals to Descartes’ admission to More that divine omnipotence requires that God can create a vacuum in nature, and focus instead on his response to More’s claim that this omnipotence requires the possibility of a completion of the division of matter that results in atoms. Finally, I distinguish Descartes’ indefinite from two other kinds of infinity with which it might well be confused. The first is an essentially incomplete ‘potential infinity’ that Descartes discusses in the Third Meditation, and the second is the sort of quantitative infinity that Leibniz – contrary to Descartes – denies can constitute a completed whole.

This chapter is a re-consideration of the powerful set of objections to the Cartesian theory of mind that Princess Elisabeth offered in her 1643–49 correspondence with Descartes. Much of the scholarly discussion of this correspondence has focused on Elisabeth’s initial criticisms of Descartes’ views of mind–body interaction and union, and has presented these criticisms as assuming the general principle that objects with heterogeneous natures cannot interact. However, this account of the criticisms fails to capture not only their basic import, but also their connections to Elisabeth’s remarks later in the correspondence regarding both the ability of rational deliberation to lead us to happiness, and the freedom of our will from determining conditions. The attempt here is to offer a new account of Elisabeth’s objections to Cartesian interaction that serves to relate them to her critical evaluation of Descartes’ views of happiness and freedom. Such an account leads us to see Elisabeth as challenging Descartes throughout to take seriously the extent to which our mind is not merely a rational thinking thing, but also something that is profoundly conditioned by the passions that it receives from the body.

in a january 1642 letter, rené descartes advises his correspondent—his then-follower, the Utrecht medical professor Henricus Regius—to consistently endorse the view that the human mind is related to its body by means of a "substantial union": Whenever the occasion arises, as much privately as publicly, you ought to profess that you believe a human to be a true ens per se and not per accidens and the mind to be really and substantially united to the body not through position or disposition [situm aut dispositionem], as you say in your last written text, but through a true mode of union [verum modum unionis], as everyone...

This is a consideration of the connection of L’Homme to two very different forms of early modern Dutch Cartesianism. On the one hand, this work was central to a dispute between Descartes and his former disciple, Henricus Regius. In particular, Descartes charged that Regius had plagiarized L’Homme in order to distance himself from a form of Cartesian physiology in Regius that is not founded on a proof of the spirituality of the human soul. Despite this repudiation, Regius remained a prominent proponent of Cartesian medicine. On the other hand, Florentius Schuyl published a Latin translation of L’Homme that included a preface in which he defends Descartes’s doctrine of the “beast-machine” by invoking the authority of Augustine. This preface set the stage for the emphasis in the work of Clerselier and other French Cartesians on the presence in Descartes of a kind of Augustinian spiritualism.