David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (1):91-117 (2008)
: The Cartesians have often been read as if they denied spatial presence to incorporeal substances, reserving it for extended things alone. This article explores whether this common interpretation is accurate, examining the cases of both created minds and the divine substance of God Himself. Through scrutiny of the relevant texts of both Descartes himself and his followers, it demonstrates that, in the divine case, this common interpretation is incorrect, and that the Cartesians did believe that God’s own substance really was omnipresent in a literal sense. In the case of created minds, by contrast, the article suggests that the standard reading is probably correct after all, and that these substances were indeed excluded from the spatial world: but it also suggests that, in the hands of at least some of the Cartesians, this position caused certain philosophical tensions and potential inconsistencies within their systems
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Hylarie Kochiras (2012). By Ye Divine Arm: God and Substance in De Gravitatione. Religious Studies 2012 (September):1-30.
Andrew Janiak (2013). Three Concepts of Causation in Newton. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):396-407.
Patrick J. Connolly (2014). Newton and God's Sensorium. Intellectual History Review 24 (2):185-201.
Patrick J. Connolly (2015). Space Before God? A Problem in Newton's Metaphysics. Philosophy 90 (1):83-106.
Marleen Rozemond (2014). Pasnau on the Material–Immaterial Divide in Early Modern Philosophy. Philosophical Studies 171 (1):3-16.
Similar books and articles
Andrew R. Platt (2011). Divine Activity and Motive Power in Descartes's Physics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (4):623 - 646.
Paul Audi (2011). Primitive Causal Relations and the Pairing Problem. Ratio 24 (1):1-16.
Harry M. Bracken (1964). Some Problems of Substance Among the Cartesians. American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (2):129 - 137.
Tad M. Schmaltz (1994). Human Freedom and Divine Creation in Malebranche, Descartes and the Cartesians. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 2 (2):3 – 50.
Brie Gertler (2002). Can Feminists Be Cartesians? Dialogue 41 (1):91-112.
Nicholas Okrent (2000). Leibniz on Substance and God in “That a Most Perfect Being Is Possible”. Philosophy and Theology 12 (1):79-93.
Andrej Krause (2006). Are Bolzano's Substances Simple? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (4):543-562.
Boris Hennig (2008). Substance, Reality, and Distinctness. Prolegomena 7 (1):2008.
John Russell Roberts (2007). A Metaphysics for the Mob: The Philosophy of George Berkeley. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads77 ( #46,627 of 1,780,298 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #291,765 of 1,780,298 )
How can I increase my downloads?