Abstract
This chapter presents some important facets of the scholastic background to Descartes’s conception of infinity. In particular, this chapter considers Francisco Suárez’s role in the late medieval debate over the concept of the relationship between God’s status as a perfect being and God’s status as an infinite being. Although I do not argue that Descartes knew Suárez’s position when he originally wrote the Meditations, I show that Suárez’s position lies behind Caterus’s criticisms of Descartes in the Objections and Replies that Descartes published with the Meditations. Thus, knowledge of Suárez’s position is important for assessing both the reception and success of Descartes’s proofs of God’s existence in the Meditations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Liard , Descartes (Paris: Alcan, 1903), 190; Alexandre Koyré , Essai sur l’idée de Dieu et les preuves de son existence chez Descartes (Paris: Leroux, 1922), 140; Étienne Gilson , L’esprit de la philosophie médiévale (Paris: Vrin, 1932; 3rd ed. 1969), 58; Henri Birault , Essai sur les attributs divins chez Descartes. Mémoire pour l’obtention du Diplôme d’études supérieures. Sous la direction de Monsieur Henri Gouhier (Paris: E.N.S., 1939), 38; Virgilio Lazzeroni , La formazione del pensiero cartesiano e la Scolastica (Padova: Cedam, 1940), 181; Henri Gouhier , La pensée métaphysique de Descartes (Paris: Vrin, 1962), 191; Cornelio Fabro , Introduzione all’ateismo moderno (Roma: Editrice Studium, 1964), 38; Jean-Marie Beyssade , La philosophie première de Descartes. Le temps et la cohérence de la métaphysique (Paris: Flammarion, 1979), 313.
- 2.
See also CSM II 291–292, AT VII 432.
- 3.
At least, for the reason that it is from the attribute of God’s infinity that Descartes argues for the creation of the eternal truths . See also, AT I 150, CSMK III 24–5 and AT I 152, CSMK III 25.
- 4.
One exception is Meditatio III: “omnes illas perfectiones, quas ego non comprehendere, sed quocunque modo attingere cogitatione possum” (AT VII 51–52, CSM II 35).
- 5.
See Jean-Luc Marion , Sur le prisme métaphysique de Descartes (Paris: PUF, 1986), 276 ss.; Pierre Magnard , “La fonction ‘Dieu’ dans le système,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, LXXII (1988), n. 2, 195–207; Vincent Carraud , “Descartes appartient-il à l’histoire de la métaphysique,” in Lire Descartes aujourd’hui, ed. Olivier Depré et Danielle Lories (Louvain-la-Neuve/Paris: Institut Supérieur de Philosophie/Peeters), 1997, 153–171; and, for certain respects , Jean-Louis Chedin , “Infini et subjectivité dans la pensée classique,” in Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, XCIV (1989), n. 2, 229–250. Among the old studies, see Émile Boutroux , De veritatibus aeternis apud Cartesium. Haec apud Facultatem litterarum Parisiensem disputabat Em. Boutroux (G. Parisiis: Baillière, 1874), French translation by Georges Canguilhelm , (Paris: Alcan, 1927), 59 (though the opposition is here between perfection and infinity of divine power); Octave Hamelin , Le système de Descartes (Paris: Alcan, 1921 [1911]), 227 ss. (speaking of a mutual subordination between the two attributes ); Jacques Maritain , Le songe de Descartes. Suivi de quelques Essais (Paris: Buchet/Castel, [s. d.]) 240–241 and 328, n. 48. Cfr. 227–228.
- 6.
See Philip Clayton , “Descartes and Infinite Perfection ,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, LXVI (1992), 137–147; “The Theistic Argument from Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy,” International Philosophical Quarterly, XXXVI (1996), n. 1, 5–17; Das Gottesproblem. Band 1: Gott und Unendlichkeit in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie (Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Schöningh, 1996), 43–101; Jean-Marie Beyssade , Descartes au fil de l’ordre, (Paris: PUF, 2001); Aza Goudriaan , Philosophische Gotteserkenntnis bei Suárez und Descartes: im Zusammenhang mit der nederländischen reformierten Theologie und Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts (Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 1999), 158, 165, 313. More recently, see Laurence Devillairs , Descartes et la connaissance de Dieu (Paris: Vrin, 2004), 50 ss.; Igor Agostini , L’idea di Dio in Descartes. Dalle Meditationes alle Responsiones (Firenze-Milano: Le Monnier-Mondadori Education, 2010), 30, 40–41; Dan Arbib , Descartes, la métaphysique et l’infini (Paris: Vrin, 2017), 156–159.
- 7.
This is what Goudriaan , Philosophische Gotteserkenntnis, 237, seems to do when he explains Descartes’s identification between infinite and perfect on the basis of the exigence of distinguishing God’s infinity from the infinity of the world. See, also, infra, p.
- 8.
See, for example, Thomas de Aquino, Summa theologiæ, I, 7, 3, c.: “Respondeo dicendum quod aliud est esse infinitum secundum suam essentiam, et secundum magnitudinem”.
- 9.
For the history of the infinity of God, see Leo Sweeney , Divine Infinity in Greek and Medieval Thought (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1992). For the Medieval Age, in particular, see Antoine Coté , L’infinité divine dans la théologie médiévale (1220–1255) (Paris: Vrin, 2002); Anne A. Davenport , Measure of a Different Greatness. The Intensive Infinite, 1250–1650, (Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 1999).
- 10.
See, in particular, the discussion of the intensive infinity in Question Five of his Quodlibeta, utrum relatio originis sit formaliter infinita (Johannes Duns Scotus , Quaestiones quodlibetales, q. 5, a. 1, in Opera omnia quae hucusque reperiri potuerunt, collecta, recognita, notis, scholis et commentariis illustrata a P. P. Hibernis Collegii romani S. Isidori professoribus, ed. L. Wadding, 12 voll. (Lugduni: sumptibus Laurentii Durand, 1639), rist. anast. (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968–1969) ed. Lugduni, cit., vol. XII, 113–141, especially 119).
- 11.
This is the main point of my book, L’infinità di Dio. Il dibattuto da Suárez a Caterus (1597–1641) (Roma: Editori Riuniti University Press, 2008).
- 12.
In fact, taken in itself, this identification was far from being made explicit in Aquinas , who simply deduced infinity from the fact that the divine being is not received in the essence, without pretending to identify the two (see, in particular, Summa theologiae, I, 7, 1, c.). In this sense, the solution of the Thomists in the seventeenth century was not exactly in compliance with Aquinas ; and it is not surprising that their adversaries contested their pretended fidelity to Aquinas or pretended (like Suárez) that their own solution was more faithful to Aquinas .
- 13.
Francisco Suárez , Metaphysicae disputationes, disp. 30, sect. 2, n. 21, in Opera omnia, 28 voll. (Parisiis: apud Ludovicum Vivès, 1856–1878), vol. XXVI, 70b–71a: “Haec infinitas in nullo alio consistit, nisi in hoc quod perfectio primi entis, nec est. ita praecisa ac definita ad unum genus perfectionum, quae nos in creaturis distingui videmus, ut illud solum includat, et non caetera omnia, eo eminentissimo modo qui ad summam perfectionem pertinere potest; neque etiam in singulis perfectionum generibus est. ita limitata ad certum aliquem et definitum gradum qui in participato ente intelligi possit, quin habeat perfectionem illam nobiliori et excellentiori modo quam possit a creatura participari, etiamsi magis et magis infinitum participetur. Sed hoc totum includitur in perfectione primi entis, ratione cujus dicitur omnem possibilem perfectionem continere, ut ex dictis in praecedenti assertione constat”.
- 14.
In fact, in the Prima pars of his Summa theologiae, Aquinas deals separately with God’s perfection (Question 4) and his infinity (Question 7).
- 15.
Suárez , Metaphysicae disputationes, 71a: “Ergo ex illo principio aeque infertur infinitas, sicut et summa perfectio, quia et modus perfectionis a nobis expositus convertitur cum infinitate recte declarata, et infinitas, quatenus sub illa negatione perfectionem indicat, pertinet ad perfectionem simpliciter atque adeo ad summam entis perfectionem”.
- 16.
Suárez , Metaphysicae disputationes, n. 22, 71a: “Secundo potest probari eadem illatio quia esse per essentiam non habet unde limitetur; esse enim participatum limitari potest, aut ex voluntate dantis tantam perfectionem, et non majorem, aut ex capacitate recipientis, sive illa capacitas intelligatur per modum passivae potentiae, sive tantum per modum objectivae, seu non repugnantiae; in primo autem ente, quod ex se est. suum esse, nullum principium aut ratio limitationis intelligi potest”.
- 17.
Suárez , Metaphysicae disputationes, n. 22, 71a: “Quia sicut nullam habet causam sui esse, ita non potest in illo habere limitationem”.
- 18.
Gabriel Vázquez , Commentaria ac disputationes in primam partem S. Thomae (1598), 2 voll. (Ingolstadii: Martini Nutti et Ioannis Hertsroy, 1609), pa. 1, q. 7, a. 2, disp. 25, c. 5, vol. I, 144a: “Propria igitur ratio infinitatis Dei secundum essentiam in eo posita est, ut a nulla causa habeat esse”.
- 19.
Francisco Suárez , Tractatus de divina substantia, lib. 2, c. 1, n. 2, in Opera omnia, ed. Vivès, vol. I, 46ab: “Denique esse a se immediate solum negat dependentiam a causa extrinseca, esse autem infinitum formaliter hoc non negat: nam si mente concipietur angelus finitae naturae et ex se existens sine creatione, formaliter non apprehenduntur duo contradictoria, licet virtualiter ibi includi per discursum ostendi possit. Neque e converso est aperta et formalis contradictio, si apprehendatur ens infinitum a Deo factum, unde quaeri solet an id fieri possit, ut statim dicam: non est ergo negatio, quam dicit infinitas, formaliter eadem cum negatione essendi ab alio”.
- 20.
F. Suárez , Tractatus de divina substantia, lib. 2, c. 1, n. 5, in Opera omnia cit., vol. I, 47a: “Deus ergo dicitur infinitus simpliciter proprie et quasi a priori, quia tantae perfectionis est, ut non possit in ea habere superiorem nec aequalem, qui sit distinctae naturae. Unde quod multi sancti explicant quid sit Deus, per hoc quod est tale ens, quo majus excogitari non potest, hanc ipsam negationem per infinitatem significari intelligo”.
- 21.
Here, it is impossible for me to develop this point in a more detailed explanation: see, on the subject, Agostini , L’infinità di Dio, 163 ss.
- 22.
Suárez , Metaphysicae disputationes, disp. 30, sect. 2, n. 22, in Opera omnia, ed. Vivès, vol. XXVI, 71a: “Dices, sicut primum ens ex se est., ita ex se, sine alia causa esse posse limitatum ad certum genus vel gradum perfectionis”.
- 23.
Suárez , Metaphysicae disputationes, disp. 30, sect. 2, n. 21, 71a: “Et revera est haec sufficiens demonstratio, nisi quis velit voluntarie pertinax esse, tum quia hic non potest intercedere alia ratio a priori per causam positivam, cum hoc ens nullam habeat causam”.
- 24.
Suárez , Tractatus de divina substantia, lib. 1, c. 9, 47a: “Negationem illius limitationis intelligemus significari per infinitatem essentiae Deo attributam […] Hanc negationem per infinitatem significari intelligo”.
- 25.
Descartes to More , 15 April 1649: “Dico idcirco mundum esse indeterminatum vel indefinitum, quia nullos in eo terminos agnosco; sed non ausim vocare infinitum, quia percipio Deum esse mundo maiorem, non ratione extensionis, quam, ut saepe dixi, nullam propriam in Deo intelligo, sed ratione perfectionis” (CSMK 374, AT V 344).
- 26.
As Goudriaan , Philosophische Gotteserkenntnis, 237–238, argues.
- 27.
See supra, section 2.
- 28.
See supra, section 2.
- 29.
On Caterus as disciple of Wiggers , see the decisive contribution by Jean-Robert Armogathe , “Caterus ’ Objections to God,” in Descartes and his Contemporaries: meditations, objections, and replies, ed. R. Ariew et M. Grene (Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 34–43.
- 30.
Agostini , L’infinità di Dio, in particular, 174–176, 187–191, 309–310.
- 31.
See AT VII 94, 96, 98–99; CSM II 68, 70, 71.
- 32.
See, supra, section 4.
- 33.
See, supra, section 1.
References
Agostini, I. (2008). L’infinità di Dio. Il dibattito da Suárez a Caterus (1597–1641). Roma: Editori Riuniti University Press.
Agostini, I. (2010). L’idea di Dio in Descartes. Dalle Meditationes alle Responsiones. Firenze-Milano: Le Monnier-Mondadori Education.
Arbib, D. (2017). Descartes, la métaphysique et l’infini. Paris: Vrin.
Armogathe, J.-R. (1995). Caterus’ objections to God. In R. Ariew & M. Grene (Eds.), Descartes and his contemporaries: Meditations, objections, and replies (pp. 34–43). Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Beyssade, J.-M. (1979). La philosophie première de Descartes: Le temps et la cohérence de la métaphysique. Paris: Flammarion.
Beyssade, J.-M. (2001). Descartes au fil de l’ordre. Paris: PUF.
Birault, H. (1939). Essai sur les attributs divins chez Descartes. Mémoire pour l’obtention du Diplôme d’études supérieures. Sous la direction de Monsieur Henri Gouhier. Paris: E.N.S..
Boutroux, É. (1927). De veritatibus aeternis apud Cartesium. G. Parisiis: Baillière, 1874. French translation by Georges Canguilhelm. Paris: Alcan.
Carraud, V. (1997). Descartes appartient-il à l’histoire de la métaphysique. In O. Depré & D. Lories (Eds.), Lire Descartes aujourd’hui (pp. 153–171). Louvain-la-Neuve/Paris: Institut Supérieur de Philosophie/Peeters.
Chedin, J.-L. (1989). Infini et subjectivité dans la pensée classique. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, XCIV, 229–250.
Clayton, P. (1992). Descartes and infinite perfection. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, LXVI, 137–147.
Clayton, P. (1996a). Das Gottesproblem. Band 1: Gott und Unendlichkeit in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie. Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Schöningh.
Clayton, P. (1996b). The theistic argument from infinity in early modern philosophy. International Philosophical Quarterly, XXXVI, 5–17.
Coté, A. (2002). L’infinité divine dans la théologie médiévale (1220–1255). Paris: Vrin.
Davenport, A. A. (1999). Measure of a different greatness. The intensive infinite (pp. 1250–1650). Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.
Devillairs, L. (2004). Descartes et la connaissance de Dieu. Paris: Vrin.
Duns Scotus, J. (1639). Quaestiones quodlibetales. In L. Wadding (Ed.), Opera omnia quae hucusque reperiri potuerunt, collecta, recognita, notis, scholis et commentariis illustrata a P. P. Hibernis Collegii romani S. Isidori professoribus, 12 voll. (Lugduni: sumptibus Laurentii Durand, 1639), facsimile reprint (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968–1969), vol. XII.
Fabro, C. (1964). Introduzione all’ateismo moderno. Roma: Editrice Studium.
Gilson, É. (1932). L’esprit de la philosophie médiévale. Paris: Vrin.
Goudriaan, A. (1999). Philosophische Gotteserkenntnis bei Suárez und Descartesa, im Zusammenhang mit der nederländischen reformierten Theologie und Philosophie des 17. Brill: Jahrhunderts. Leiden.
Gouhier, H. (1962). La pensée métaphysique de Descartes. Paris: Vrin.
Hamelin, O. (1921 [1991]). Le système de Descartes. Paris: Alcan.
Koyré, A. (1922). Essai sur l’idée de Dieu et les preuves de son existence chez Descartes. Paris: Leroux.
Lazzeroni, V. (1940). La formazione del pensiero cartesiano e la Scolastica. Padova: Cedam.
Liard, L. (1903). Descartes. Paris: Alcan.
Magnard, P. (1988). La fonction ‘Dieu’ dans le système. Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, LXXII, 195–207.
Marion, J.-L. (1986). Sur le prisme métaphysique de Descartes. Paris: PUF.
Maritain, J. (1932). Le songe de Descartes. Suivi de quelques Essais. Paris: Buchet/Castel.
Suárez, F. (1597). Metaphysicae disputationes. In Opera omnia (pp. 1856–1878, vol. XXVI–XXVII). 28 vol. Parisiis: apud Ludovicum Vivès.
Suárez, F. (n.d.). Tractatus de divina substantia, lib. 2, c. 1, n. 2. In Vivès (Ed.), Opera omnia (Vol. I).
Sweeney, L. (1992). Divine infinity in Greek and Medieval thought. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Vázquez, G. (1598). Commentaria ac disputationes in primam partem S. Thomae (2 Vol.). Ingolstadii: Martini Nutti et Ioannis Hertsroy, 1609.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Agostini, I. (2018). Descartes’s ens summe perfectum et infinitum and its Scholastic Background. In: Nachtomy, O., Winegar, R. (eds) Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy. The New Synthese Historical Library, vol 76. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94556-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94556-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94555-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94556-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)