Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Divine Simplicity and the Eternal Truths: Descartes and the Scholastics

  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Descartes famously endorsed the view that (CD) God freely created the eternal truths, such that He could have done otherwise than He did. This controversial doctrine is much discussed in recent secondary literature, yet Descartes’s actual arguments for CD have received very little attention. In this paper I focus on what many take to be a key Cartesian argument for CD: that divine simplicity entails the dependence of the eternal truths on the divine will. What makes this argument both important and interesting is that Descartes’s scholastic predecessors share the premise of divine simplicity but reject the CD conclusion. To properly understand Descartes, then, we must determine precisely where he diverges from his predecessors on the path from simplicity to CD. And when we do so we obtain a very surprising result: that despite many dramatic prima facie differences, there is no substantive difference between the relevant doctrines of Descartes and the scholastics. Or so I argue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bennett 1994 (639, n.1), Jolley 1990 (32, 49), Loeb 1981 (67-68), Curley 1988 (42).

  2. All Descartes references are to CSM(K). The relevant correspondence (in order) includes To Mersenne 4/15/30 (III 23) and 5/6/30 (III 24-5), To [Mersenne] 5/27/30 (III 25), To Mersenne 5/27/38 (III 103), To Hyperaspistes 8/41 (III 194), To [Mesland] 5/2/44 (III 235), To More 2/5/49 (III 363), and To [Arnauld] 7/29/48 (III 358). The other texts include Burman (III 343, 347-8), 5 th Replies (II 261), and 6th Replies (II 291, 293 ff.). For hints of the doctrine, see also Principles I.22, 23 (I 200, 201). (See also Marion 1981, 270-71, for useful classification of these texts.)

  3. Gueroult 1968/1985, Geach 1973, Funkenstein 1975, Beyssade 1981, Wells 1982, Bouveresse 1983, Curley 1984, Alanen 1985, Schmaltz 1991, Dutton 1996. Cook 2002 notes that Desgabets also read Descartes this way.

  4. Frankfurt 1977, Wilson 1978, Plantinga 1980, Bennett 1994, Karofsky 2001.

  5. Mathematics: To Mersenne 4/15/30 (III 23); Logic: To [Mesland] 5/2/44 (III 235), Principles I.49 (I 209); Metaphysics: To Mersenne 5/6/30 (III 25), Principles I.49 (I 209); Physics: To [Arnauld] 7/29/48 (III 358), To More 2/5/49 (III 363); Morality: 6thReplies (II 291, 293-4), Principles I.22 (I 200); Theology: To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24), Burman (III 348).

  6. Principles I.48-49 (I 208-9).

  7. 5th Replies, II 261; To [Mersenne], 5/27/30 (III 25).

  8. To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 281).

  9. Pessin 2006.

  10. Those ascribing something like SA to Descartes include Broughton 1987, Alanen 1988, and Kaufman 2003.

  11. Frankfurt 1977 makes this point in passing (20).

  12. Principles I.23 (I 201); 3 rdMed. (II 34); 2ndReplies (II 98); To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24); To [Mersenne], 5/27/30 (III 25); To Mersenne, 6/28/40 (III 155); To [Mesland], 5/2/44 (III 235); Burman (III 347-8), etc.

  13. Frankfurt 1977; Kaufman 2003.

  14. Cronin 1960 and Wells 1961 are now classical sources for this scholarship.

  15. For example: DM 31.12.40 (200-1), 31.12.45 (205), 31.12.46 (206).

  16. 4thReplies (II 164).

  17. Cf. Wells 1961 for references (189 ff.).

  18. DM 31.12.39 (200).

  19. Ord. I, d. 7, q. 1, n. 27; Ord. I, d. 36, q. un. n. 60-61; Ord. I, d. 43, q. u. 5; In Metaph. Bk 9, Q 1. For some discussion of these, cf. Normore 2003 (145), Alanen & Knuuttila 1988 (36), and Alanen 1985 (176) and (178).

  20. I argue in Pessin (Descartes and the Eternal Truths) (in preparation) that the same doctrine may be found in Scotus and Ockham; I provide there, too, a far more detailed account of Suarez than is possible here.

  21. Suarez cites various texts: ST I.10.3.ad3 and I.16.7.ad1, and Truth 1.5.ad11 and 1.6.ad2, ad3.

  22. Cf. ST I.21.2, I.16.1.

  23. Sents. d. 19, q.5. For some discussion, cf. Maurer 1970 (98-99).

  24. De ente et essentia, 3.

  25. ST I.16.7, ad 2.

  26. Suarez does later recognize Aquinas’s limited purpose in invoking the divine intellect: DM 31.12.46.

  27. Some key Aquinas texts include: ST I.14.6, I.14.5, I.15.2, I.34.3; Truth 3.2; Power I.3.5.

  28. ST I.25.3.

  29. DM 31.12.45 (205).

  30. Burman (III 347-8); Principles I.23 (I 201).

  31. Burman (III 347-8).

  32. To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24).

  33. Compare ST I.3.7 and Discourse IV (I 128-9); ST 1.3.7 and 4 th Replies (II 164 ff.); and SCG I.18 and 2 nd Replies (II 99) and Principles I.23 (I 200-1). For some discussion, see Kaufman 2003 (556-60).

  34. Central texts include: Principles I.60 ff. (I 213 ff.); To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280); 1 st Replies (II 85-6); Burman (III 347 ff.).

  35. Principles I.62 (I 214-15).

  36. To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280).

  37. To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280).

  38. DM 7.1.4 (18).

  39. Cf. Descartes’s 2 nd Replies (II 98), Discourse IV (I 128).

  40. Compare DM 7.1.5 and To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280).

  41. 2ndReplies (II 98), 5thReplies (II 253-4), 6thReplies (II 294), To [Mersenne], 5/27/30 (III 25), Burman (III 347), Principles I.19 (I 199).

  42. ST I.13.12. Cf. Sents., d.2, q.1, a.3; ST I.13.4.ad3. For some discussion, see Adams 1987 (916).

  43. Cf. ST I.13.5; Power q.1, a.1.

  44. See Pessin 2001 and Pessin 2003 for detailed discussion of these possibilities in Descartes and Malebranche.

  45. Cf. Stump 2003 discussing similar notions in Aquinas (Chs. 3, 5).

  46. ST I.19.6.

  47. See Adams 1987 for discussion and references (1171 ff.).

  48. Cf. ST I.19.3. For discussion, see Adams 1987 (1177 ff.), and Stump 2003 (Ch. 3).

  49. Ord. I, d.46, q.1. For discussion, see Adams 1987 (1171 ff.).

  50. ST I.19.6 (108).

  51. Alanen & Knuuttila 1988: “… The Augustinian expression “potuit sed noluit” and other formulations of the distinction between God’s volition and capacity were used, for example, by such twelfth century theologians as Hugh of St. Victor, Odo of Ourscamp, William of St. Thierry, Bernhard of Clairvaux, the anonymous author of Summa sententiarum, Peter Lombard, Simon of Tournai, Robert of Melun, and Peter of Poitiers. Many of them vigorously criticized Abelard’s view, condemned as heretical by Pope Innocent II, according to which the perfect goodness of God implies that he does everything he can do.” (24-25)

  52. ST I.25.5; cf. Power I.5.

  53. Again, Alanen & Knuuttila 1988: “In the first half of the thirteenth century the distinction between God’s capacity and his exercised power, which was implied in the frequently used formula ‘potuit sed noluit’, was reformulated and baptized potentia Dei absoluta/potentia Dei ordinata.” (29)

  54. ST I.25.3.

  55. ST I.25.5.

  56. ST I.25.5.

  57. ST I.25.1, ad4.

  58. ST I.14.4.

  59. Cf. ST I.19.3, ad6.

  60. Cf. Nelson & Cunning 1999, and Cunning 2003.

  61. Textual support for this conclusion may be found in Descartes’s discussion of the “real distinction” at Principles I.60 (I 213). Suppose a particular mind and body are paired in a union; Descartes’s God clearly has the power, at that time, to separate them, even if, at that time, the power is not exercised. This seems to be a clear (and easily multiplied) example of an unexercised capacity. Moreover Descartes notes that this power is “something [God] could not lay aside.” A natural explanation of why not would be that God could not lay aside any powers. But if so, then He will eternally preserve the power not to will that p, even if He eternally actually does will that p.

  62. Principles I.23 (I 201).

  63. Kenny 1968, 1970.

  64. Bennett 1994, Chappell 1997, Nolan 1997.

  65. Cunning 2003.

  66. Schmaltz 1991.

  67. Rozemond (forthcoming).

  68. Pessin 2007.

  69. Med., Preface (II 7).

  70. Pessin 2007.

  71. To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24).

  72. Knuuttila 1996 argues similarly that for Scotus modal properties are construed not as ontologically real but as preconditions of intelligibility. Burns 1989 also argues that Aquinas’s relevant arguments are conditional on intelligibility.

References

  • Adams, M. M. (1987). William Ockham, 2 Vols. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alanen, L. (1985). Descartes, Duns Scotus and Ockham on omnipotence and possibility. Franciscan Studies, Annual 23(45), 157–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alanen, L. (1988). Descartes, omnipotence, and kinds of modality. In P. H. Hare (Ed.), Doing Philosophy Historically (pp. 182–200). Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

  • Alanen, L., & Knuuttila, S. (1988). The foundations of modality and conceivability in Descartes and his predecessors. In S. Knuuttila (Ed.), Modern modalities: Studies of the history of model theories from medieval nominalism to logical positivism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. (1994). Descartes’s theory of modality. The Philosophical Review, 103(4), 639–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyssade, J. M. (1981). Création des vérités éternelles et doute métaphysique. Studia Cartesiana, 2, 86–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouveresse, J. (1983). La Théorie Du Possible Chez Descartes. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 37, 293–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broughton, J. (1987). Necessity and physical laws in Descartes’s philosophy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 68, 205–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, R. (1989). The divine simplicity in St. Thomas. Religious Studies, 25, 271–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, V. (1997). Descartes’s ontology. Topoi, 16, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. (2002). Desgabets on the creation of the eternal truths. Pacific A.P.A. presentation, March.

  • Cronin, T. J. (1960). Eternal truths in the thought of descartes and of his adversary. Journal of the History of Ideas, 4, 553–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunning, D. (2003). Descartes on the immutability of the divine will. Religious Studies, 39, 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curley, E. M. (1984). Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. The Philosophical Review, 93(4), 569–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curley, E. M. (1988). Behind the geometrical method: A reading of Spinoza’s ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, B. (1996). Indifference, necessity, and Descartes’s derivation of the laws of motion. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 34(2), 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. (1977). Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. In F. Moyal (Ed.) (1991), René Descartes: Critical assessments, Vol. 3 (pp. 17–35). London: Routledge.

  • Funkenstein, A. (1975). Descartes, eternal truths and the divine omnipotence. In F. Moyal (Ed.) (1991), René Descartes: Critical assessment, Vol. 3 (pp. 54-67). London: Routledge.

  • Geach, P. (1973). Omnipotence. Philosophy, 48, 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gueroult, M. (1968/1985). Descartes’ philosophy interpreted according to the order of reasons, II: The soul and the body. Transl. Roger Ariew. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Jolley, N. (1990). The light of the soul. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karofsky, A. (2001). Suárez’s doctrine of eternal truths. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 39(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, D. (2003). Divine simplicity and the eternal truths in Descartes. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 553-579.

  • Kenny, A. (1968). Descartes: A study of his philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, A. (1970). The Cartesian circle and the eternal truths. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 692–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, S. (1996). Duns Scotus and the foundations of logical modalities. In L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, M. Dreyer (Eds.), Jon Duns Scotus: Metaphysics and ethics (pp. 127–143). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

  • Loeb, L. (1981). From Descartes to Hume: Continental metaphysics and the development of modern philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, J.-L. (1981). Sur la théologie blanche de Descartes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, A. (1970). St. Thomas and eternal truths. Medieval Studies, 32, 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A., & Cunning, D. (1999). Cognition and modality in Descartes. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 64, 137–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, L. (1997). The ontological status of Cartesian natures. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 78, 169–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Normore, C. (2003). Duns Scotus’s modal theory. In T. Williams (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Duns Scotus (pp. 129–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Pessin, A. (2001). Malebranche’s distinction between general and particular volitions. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 39(1), 77–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessin, A. (2003). Descartes’s nomic concurrentism: Finite causation and divine concurrence. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41(1), 25–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessin, A. (2006). Descartes on the divine eternal truths. Yeditepe’de Felsefe, 31, 133–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessin, A. (2007). Descartes’s theory of ideas. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ideas/).

  • Plantinga, A. (1980). Does God have a nature? Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozemond, M. (2009). Descartes’s ontology of the eternal truths.

  • Schmaltz, T. (1991). Platonism and Descartes’ view of immutable essences. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, 73(2), 129–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. (2003). Aquinas. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, N. (1961). Descartes and the scholastics briefly revisited. New Scholasticism, 2, 172–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, N. (1982). Descartes’ uncreated eternal truths. The New Scholasticism, 56(2), 185–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (1978). Descartes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Aquinas

  • ST = Summa theologica, transl. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1948/1981).

  • Truth = Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, transl. Robert W. Mulligan, S. J. (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1952).

  • Sents. = Scriptum super libros sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, ed. R. P. Mandonnet, O. P. (Paris: Sumptibus P. Lethielleux, 1929)

  • De ente et essentia

  • Power = Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei, transl. English Dominican Fathers (London: Burns, Oates, & Washbourne Ltd., 1932).

  • SCG = Summa Contra Gentiles, transl. Anton C. Pegis (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975).

Descartes

  • CSM(K) = The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, v. I, II, transl. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch, and v. III, transl. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, & A. Kenny (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 1985, 1991). References are to volume and page number.

  • Burman = Conversation with Burman, in CSM III.

  • Discourse = Discourse on the Method, in CSM I.

  • Meds = Meditations on First Philosophy, in CSM II.

  • Principles = Principles of Philosophy, in CSM I.

  • Replies = Objections and Replies, in CSM II.

Ockham

  • Ord. = Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (Ordinatio), Distinctiones IV-XVIII. Eds. Girard I. Etzkorn & Francis E. Kelly, Opera Theologica, vol. IV. 1979.

Scotus

  • Ord. = Ordinatio. In Opera omnia, vol. I-VII. Ed. P. Carolo Balic (Vatican: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950-73).

  • In Metaph. = Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis

Suarez

  • DM = Disputationes Metaphysicae, in Opera Omnia, ed. Carolo Berton (Paris: Vives, 1856-66), vols. 25-26. DM 31 = On the Essence of Finite Being as Such, transl. Norman Wells (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1983); DM 7 = On the Various Kinds of Distinctions, transl. Cyril Vollert, S.J., S.T.D. (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1947).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Connecticut College, New London, CT, USA

    Andrew Pessin

Authors
  1. Andrew Pessin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Pessin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pessin, A. Divine Simplicity and the Eternal Truths: Descartes and the Scholastics. Philosophia 38, 69–105 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9189-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9189-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation