Henry More and Nicolas Malebranche's Critiques of Spinoza
2013; Wiley; Volume: 23; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/ejop.12008
ISSN1468-0378
Autores Tópico(s)Historical and Literary Studies
ResumoEuropean Journal of PhilosophyVolume 23, Issue 3 p. 764-792 ARTICLE Henry More and Nicolas Malebranche's Critiques of Spinoza Jasper Reid, Jasper Reid [email protected] Department of Philosophy, King's College London, UKSearch for more papers by this author Jasper Reid, Jasper Reid [email protected] Department of Philosophy, King's College London, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 March 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12008Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract Henry More and Nicolas Malebranche, each in his own way, drew a distinction between two kinds of extension, the one indivisible and the other divisible. Spinoza also drew a comparable distinction, explaining that, insofar as extended substance was conceived intellectually, it would be grasped as indivisible, whereas, when it was instead depicted in the imagination, it would be seen as divisible. But, whereas for Spinoza these were just different views on one and the same extended substance, More and Malebranche's two kinds of extension were supposed to be really distinct from one another. Consequently, neither of them could identify Spinoza's substance with both of his own non-identical kinds; and so they faced a choice over which one they would associate it with. The intriguing thing is that here they diverged. More felt that Spinoza's substance was actually divisible, and consequently material. Malebranche felt that it was actually indivisible, and consequently ideal and divine. In each case, they felt that the other kind of extension—whichever that might be—was simply absent from Spinoza's system. This article explores this divergence between More and Malebranche's interpretations of Spinoza's metaphysics, and it seeks an explanation for it in their own respective epistemologies. References Ablondi, F. (1998), 'Le spinoziste malgré lui? Malebranche, de Mairan and Intelligible Extension', History of Philosophy Quarterly, 15: 191– 203. Anderson, P. R. (1933), Science in Defense of Liberal Religion. New York: Putnam's. Arnauld, A. (1775–83), Oeuvres de Messire Antoine Arnauld. Paris: Sigismond D'Arnay. Boyle, R. (2001), Correspondence, eds M. Hunter, A. Clericuzio and L. M. Principe. London: Pickering & Chatto. Crocker, R. (2003), Henry More, 1614–1687: A Biography of the Cambridge Platonist. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Descartes, R. (1984–91), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch, with A. Kenny in vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Descartes, R. et al. (1953), Correspondance avec Arnauld et Morus, ed. G. Lewis. Paris: J. Vrin. Gabbey, A. (1993), ' "A Disease Incurable": Scepticism and the Cambridge Platonists', in R. Popkin and A. Vanderjagt (eds) Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Köln: E.J. Brill. Gassendi, P. (1972), The Selected Works, trans. C. B. Brush. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. Getchev, G. S. (1932), 'Some of Malebranche's Reactions to Spinoza as Revealed in His Correspondence with Dortous de Mairan', Philosophical Review, 41: 385– 394. Gouhier, H. (1948), La philosophie de Malebranche et son experience religieuse. Paris: J. Vrin. Koyré, A. (1957), From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lai, Y.-T. (1985), 'The Linking of Spinoza to Chinese Thought by Bayle and Malebranche', Journal of the History of Philosophy, 23: 151– 178. Lamprecht, S. P. (1926), 'Innate Ideas in the Cambridge Platonists', Philosophical Review, 35: 553– 573. Malebranche, N. (1958–84), Oeuvres complètes, ed. A. Robinet. Paris: J. Vrin. Malebranche, N. (1995), Malebranche's First and Last Critics, trans. R. A. Watson and M. Grene. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Malebranche, N. (1997a), Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion, trans. D. Scott, ed. N. Jolley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malebranche, N. (1997b), The Search after Truth, trans. and eds T. M. Lennon and P. J. Olscamp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. More, H. (1679), Opera omnia. London: J. Macock. More, H. (1712), A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings [the (so-called) '4th edn']. London: Joseph Downing. [Containing (among other works) An Antidote Against Atheism, Enthusiasmus Triumphatus and The Immortality of the Soul, with separate pagination.] More, H. (1713), Divine Dialogues, 2nd edn. London: J. Downing. More, H. (1991), Henry More's Refutation of Spinoza, trans. A. Jacob. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. More, H. (1995), Henry More's Manual of Metaphysics, trans. A. Jacob. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. More, H. et al. (1682), Two Choice and Useful Treatises. London: James Collins & Sam Lowndes. Mungello, D. E. (1980), 'Malebranche and Chinese Philosophy', Journal of the History of Ideas, 41: 551– 578. Ndiaye, A.-R. (1980), 'Le concept d'étendue intelligible: influences gassendistes sur Malebranche d'après Arnauld', Recherches sur le XVIIème siècle, 4: 99– 113. Popkin, R. H. (1987), ' The "Incurable Scepticism" of Henry More, Blaise Pascal and Søren Kierkegaard', in R. H. Popkin and C. B. Schmitt (eds) Scepticism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Radner, D. (1978), Malebranche: A Study of a Cartesian System. Assen: Van Gorcum. Reid, J. (2003a), 'Henry More on Material and Spiritual Extension', Dialogue, 42: 531– 558. Reid, J. (2003b), 'Malebranche on Intelligible Extension', British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 11: 581– 608. Rodis-Lewis, G. (1988), 'Dortous de Mairan fut-il spinoziste?', Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 93: 165– 172. Spinoza, B. (2002), Complete Works, trans. S. Shirley, ed. M. L. Morgan. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Volume23, Issue3September 2015Pages 764-792 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)