Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (1):2-14 (2008)
|Abstract||Unlike many of Descartes’s other followers, Pierre-Sylvain Re´gis resists the temptations of occasionalism. By marrying the ontology of mechanism with the causal structure of concurrentism, Re´gis arrives at a novel view that both acknowledges God’s role in natural events and preserves the causal powers of bodies. I set out Re´gis’s position, focusing on his arguments against occasionalism and his responses to Malebranche’s ‘no necessary connection’ and divine concursus arguments.|
|Keywords||Regis concurrentism Descartes|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Dennis Des Chene (2003). Life After Descartes: Regis on Generation. Perspectives on Science 11 (4):410-420.
Dennis Des Chene (2003). Life After Descartes: Régis on Generation. Perspectives on Science 11 (4).
Andrew R. Platt (2011). Divine Activity and Motive Power in Descartes's Physics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (4):623 - 646.
Geoffrey Gorham (2004). Cartesian Causation: Continuous, Instantaneous, Overdetermined. Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4):389-423.
Dennis des Chene (2006). Régis and Rohault. In Don Rutherford (ed.), Cambridge companion to early modern philosophy.
Tad M. Schmaltz (2002). Radical Cartesianism: The French Reception of Descartes. Cambridge University Press.
M. T. (2003). Cartesian Causation: Body-Body Interaction, Motion, and Eternal Truths. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (4):737-762.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #61,589 of 549,550 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,303 of 549,550 )
How can I increase my downloads?
|Start a new thread||There is 1 thread in this forum|
Dear Professor Ott. I have enjoyed your work on Malebranche and I'm now considering Berkeley's doctrine of the passivity of ideas. In Principles 25 he argues that essentially if we looks closely at our ideas (objects of sense) we'll come to see (1) they are passive, (2) a stronger stronger claim--it's impossible that they be active--thus non-minded nature must be causally inert. (2) Seems the right way to go--the argument as J Bennett (Learning from Six Philosophers) suggests is a priori; from the doctrine that to be is to be perceived it logically follows that nature is causally inert. I don't quite see the deduction--both K Winkler (Berkeley) and G Strawson (The Secret Connexion) have outlined how the argument might go, but I'm not convinced. Recently Jeff McDonough (J Phil argued that with respect to Berkeley's claim that 'against Malebranche we move our limbs ourselves,' a concurrentist account might save Berkeley from the consequent problem that ... (read more)