Like their contemporary counterparts, early modern philosophers find themselves in a predicament. On one hand, there are strong reasons to deny that sensations are representations. For there seems to be nothing in the world for them to represent. On the other hand, some sensory representations seem to be required for us to experience bodies. How else could one perceive the boundaries of a body, except by means of different shadings of color? I argue that Nicolas Malebranche offers an extreme -- (...) and ultimately unworkable -- attempt to solve this riddle. Most commentators claim that Malebranche defends an adverbial theory of sensation, according to which a sensation is merely a way in which an act of sensing happens. The adverbial reading is wrong, or so I argue. Once we arrive at a more accurate reading, we shall see that his position is much more strange than is currently thought. Nevertheless, Malebranche’s view is similar to the adverbial theory in one respect, albeit it at a very high level of generality. His view thus inherits two of the main problems that afflict adverbial theories. Although Malebranche fails to solve them, his ingenious attempts to do so are instructive. (shrink)

In VI.ii.3 of The Search After Truth Malebranche offers an argument for the view that only God is a cause. Here I defend an interpretation of the argument according to which Malebranche is supposing (quite rightly) that if there is a necessary connection between a cause and its effect, then if creatures were real causes, God's volitions would not be sufficient to bring about their intended effects. I then consider the argument from constant creation that Malebranche offers in Dialogues on (...) Metaphysics and on Religion. If Malebranche holds that God is literally creating things in their entirety at each and every moment, it is difficult to understand how his system could make room for finite substances, and it is difficult to understand how he can allow that finite minds are to be held accountable for what they do. Here I defend a weakened version of the doctrine of constant creation according to which God is constantly creating the modifications of things but is not constantly creating things in their entirety. (shrink)

Cílem příspěvku je představit a zhodnotit filosofickou pozici A. N. Whiteheada, podle které je dualismus fatálním omylem v jádru moderní vědecké kosmologie, a proto je možné pokládat jej za jednu z příčin moderních ekologických a socioekonomických krizí. Nejprve je shrnuta Whiteheadova kritika mechanistického materialismu, z něhož vychází dualistický rys západního myšlení, který Whitehead nazývá bifurkací přírody. Je ukázáno, jak oddělování lidské mysli a kosmu neponechává žádný prostor svébytnému vědomí a životu a jak atribut nezávislosti ducha ústí v soukromé světy zkušenosti (...) a morálky. Dále je argumentováno, že centrální motivací Whiteheadovy kosmologické koncepce je vybudování systému, v němž si estetické, náboženské a morální zájmy podají ruku s koncepty světa, které mají své kořeny v přírodních vědách. Whiteheadova kosmologie je interpretována jako posun od materialismu k organicismu a zároveň jako přechod od statického k dynamickému pojetí kosmu. (shrink)