David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (6):1107 - 1129 (2011)
Central to Nicolas Malebranche?s theodicy is the distinction between general volitions and particular volitions. One of the fundamental claims of his theodicy is that although God created a world with suffering and evil, God does not will these things by particular volitions, but only by general volitions. Commentators disagree about how to interpret Malebranche?s distinction. According to the ?general content? interpretation, the difference between general volitions and particular volitions is a difference in content. General volitions have general laws as their content and particular volitions have particular contents. The ?particular content? interpretation holds that all of God?s volitions have particular contents. The difference between general and particular volitions is whether the content of the volition is in accordance with the laws that God has established. A proper interpretation of this distinction is essential to understanding Malebranche?s theodicy, as well as his account of occasionalism and God?s causal activity in the world. In this paper, I defend the ?particular content? interpretation of the distinction
|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
Andrew G. Black (1997). Malebranche's Theodicy. Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (1):27-44.
Desmond M. Clarke (1995). Malebranche and Occasionalism: A Reply to Steven Nadler. Journal of the History of Philosophy 33 (3):499-504.
Nicholas Jolley (1990). The Light of the Soul: Theories of Ideas in Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes. Oxford University Press.
Charles J. McCracken (1983). Malebranche and British Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Andrew Pessin (2000). Malebranche's Natural Theodicy and the Incompleteness of God's Volitions. Religious Studies 36 (1):47-63.
Andrew Pessin (2000). Malebranche's Doctrine of Freedom / Consent and the Incompleteness of God's Volitions. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8 (1):21 – 53.
David Cunning (2003). Systematic Divergences in Malebranche and Cudworth. Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (3):343-363.
Andrew Pessin (2001). Malebranche's Distinction Between General and Particular Volitions. Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (1):77-99.
David Cunning (2008). Malebranche and Occasional Causes. Philosophy Compass 3 (3):471–490.
Lawrence Nolan (2012). Malebranche on Sensory Cognition and "Seeing As&Quot;. Journal of the History of Philosophy 50 (1):21-52.
Sukjae Lee (2012). Berkeley on the Activity of Spirits. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (3):539-576.
Steven Nadler (2008). Arnauld's God. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (4):pp. 517-538.
Sr Mary Bernard Curran (2009). Malebranche on Disinterestedness. Philosophy and Theology 21 (1/2):27-41.
Keith Hossack (2003). Consciousness in Act and Action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (3):187-203.
Fred Ablondi (1996). Causality and Human Freedom in Malebranche. Philosophy and Theology 9 (3-4):321-331.
Tad M. Schmaltz (2010). Malebranche and Leibniz on the Best of All Possible Worlds. Southern Journal of Philosophy 48 (1):28-48.
Nicolas Malebranche (1992). Treatise on Nature and Grace. Clarendon Press.
Added to index2011-12-16
Total downloads28 ( #63,881 of 1,102,451 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #121,593 of 1,102,451 )
How can I increase my downloads?