Abstract
Descartes famously endorsed the view that (CD) God freely created the eternal truths, such that He could have done otherwise than He did. This controversial doctrine is much discussed in recent secondary literature, yet Descartes’s actual arguments for CD have received very little attention. In this paper I focus on what many take to be a key Cartesian argument for CD: that divine simplicity entails the dependence of the eternal truths on the divine will. What makes this argument both important and interesting is that Descartes’s scholastic predecessors share the premise of divine simplicity but reject the CD conclusion. To properly understand Descartes, then, we must determine precisely where he diverges from his predecessors on the path from simplicity to CD. And when we do so we obtain a very surprising result: that despite many dramatic prima facie differences, there is no substantive difference between the relevant doctrines of Descartes and the scholastics. Or so I argue.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All Descartes references are to CSM(K). The relevant correspondence (in order) includes To Mersenne 4/15/30 (III 23) and 5/6/30 (III 24-5), To [Mersenne] 5/27/30 (III 25), To Mersenne 5/27/38 (III 103), To Hyperaspistes 8/41 (III 194), To [Mesland] 5/2/44 (III 235), To More 2/5/49 (III 363), and To [Arnauld] 7/29/48 (III 358). The other texts include Burman (III 343, 347-8), 5 th Replies (II 261), and 6th Replies (II 291, 293 ff.). For hints of the doctrine, see also Principles I.22, 23 (I 200, 201). (See also Marion 1981, 270-71, for useful classification of these texts.)
Mathematics: To Mersenne 4/15/30 (III 23); Logic: To [Mesland] 5/2/44 (III 235), Principles I.49 (I 209); Metaphysics: To Mersenne 5/6/30 (III 25), Principles I.49 (I 209); Physics: To [Arnauld] 7/29/48 (III 358), To More 2/5/49 (III 363); Morality: 6thReplies (II 291, 293-4), Principles I.22 (I 200); Theology: To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24), Burman (III 348).
Principles I.48-49 (I 208-9).
5th Replies, II 261; To [Mersenne], 5/27/30 (III 25).
To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 281).
Pessin 2006.
Frankfurt 1977 makes this point in passing (20).
Principles I.23 (I 201); 3 rdMed. (II 34); 2ndReplies (II 98); To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24); To [Mersenne], 5/27/30 (III 25); To Mersenne, 6/28/40 (III 155); To [Mesland], 5/2/44 (III 235); Burman (III 347-8), etc.
For example: DM 31.12.40 (200-1), 31.12.45 (205), 31.12.46 (206).
4thReplies (II 164).
Cf. Wells 1961 for references (189 ff.).
DM 31.12.39 (200).
I argue in Pessin (Descartes and the Eternal Truths) (in preparation) that the same doctrine may be found in Scotus and Ockham; I provide there, too, a far more detailed account of Suarez than is possible here.
Suarez cites various texts: ST I.10.3.ad3 and I.16.7.ad1, and Truth 1.5.ad11 and 1.6.ad2, ad3.
Cf. ST I.21.2, I.16.1.
Sents. d. 19, q.5. For some discussion, cf. Maurer 1970 (98-99).
De ente et essentia, 3.
ST I.16.7, ad 2.
Suarez does later recognize Aquinas’s limited purpose in invoking the divine intellect: DM 31.12.46.
Some key Aquinas texts include: ST I.14.6, I.14.5, I.15.2, I.34.3; Truth 3.2; Power I.3.5.
ST I.25.3.
DM 31.12.45 (205).
Burman (III 347-8); Principles I.23 (I 201).
Burman (III 347-8).
To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24).
Compare ST I.3.7 and Discourse IV (I 128-9); ST 1.3.7 and 4 th Replies (II 164 ff.); and SCG I.18 and 2 nd Replies (II 99) and Principles I.23 (I 200-1). For some discussion, see Kaufman 2003 (556-60).
Central texts include: Principles I.60 ff. (I 213 ff.); To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280); 1 st Replies (II 85-6); Burman (III 347 ff.).
Principles I.62 (I 214-15).
To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280).
To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280).
DM 7.1.4 (18).
Cf. Descartes’s 2 nd Replies (II 98), Discourse IV (I 128).
Compare DM 7.1.5 and To ***, 1645 or 1646 (III 280).
2ndReplies (II 98), 5thReplies (II 253-4), 6thReplies (II 294), To [Mersenne], 5/27/30 (III 25), Burman (III 347), Principles I.19 (I 199).
ST I.13.12. Cf. Sents., d.2, q.1, a.3; ST I.13.4.ad3. For some discussion, see Adams 1987 (916).
Cf. ST I.13.5; Power q.1, a.1.
Cf. Stump 2003 discussing similar notions in Aquinas (Chs. 3, 5).
ST I.19.6.
See Adams 1987 for discussion and references (1171 ff.).
Ord. I, d.46, q.1. For discussion, see Adams 1987 (1171 ff.).
ST I.19.6 (108).
Alanen & Knuuttila 1988: “… The Augustinian expression “potuit sed noluit” and other formulations of the distinction between God’s volition and capacity were used, for example, by such twelfth century theologians as Hugh of St. Victor, Odo of Ourscamp, William of St. Thierry, Bernhard of Clairvaux, the anonymous author of Summa sententiarum, Peter Lombard, Simon of Tournai, Robert of Melun, and Peter of Poitiers. Many of them vigorously criticized Abelard’s view, condemned as heretical by Pope Innocent II, according to which the perfect goodness of God implies that he does everything he can do.” (24-25)
ST I.25.5; cf. Power I.5.
Again, Alanen & Knuuttila 1988: “In the first half of the thirteenth century the distinction between God’s capacity and his exercised power, which was implied in the frequently used formula ‘potuit sed noluit’, was reformulated and baptized potentia Dei absoluta/potentia Dei ordinata.” (29)
ST I.25.3.
ST I.25.5.
ST I.25.5.
ST I.25.1, ad4.
ST I.14.4.
Cf. ST I.19.3, ad6.
Textual support for this conclusion may be found in Descartes’s discussion of the “real distinction” at Principles I.60 (I 213). Suppose a particular mind and body are paired in a union; Descartes’s God clearly has the power, at that time, to separate them, even if, at that time, the power is not exercised. This seems to be a clear (and easily multiplied) example of an unexercised capacity. Moreover Descartes notes that this power is “something [God] could not lay aside.” A natural explanation of why not would be that God could not lay aside any powers. But if so, then He will eternally preserve the power not to will that p, even if He eternally actually does will that p.
Principles I.23 (I 201).
Cunning 2003.
Schmaltz 1991.
Rozemond (forthcoming).
Pessin 2007.
Med., Preface (II 7).
Pessin 2007.
To Mersenne, 5/6/30 (III 24).
References
Adams, M. M. (1987). William Ockham, 2 Vols. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Alanen, L. (1985). Descartes, Duns Scotus and Ockham on omnipotence and possibility. Franciscan Studies, Annual 23(45), 157–88.
Alanen, L. (1988). Descartes, omnipotence, and kinds of modality. In P. H. Hare (Ed.), Doing Philosophy Historically (pp. 182–200). Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Alanen, L., & Knuuttila, S. (1988). The foundations of modality and conceivability in Descartes and his predecessors. In S. Knuuttila (Ed.), Modern modalities: Studies of the history of model theories from medieval nominalism to logical positivism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bennett, J. (1994). Descartes’s theory of modality. The Philosophical Review, 103(4), 639–667.
Beyssade, J. M. (1981). Création des vérités éternelles et doute métaphysique. Studia Cartesiana, 2, 86–105.
Bouveresse, J. (1983). La Théorie Du Possible Chez Descartes. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 37, 293–310.
Broughton, J. (1987). Necessity and physical laws in Descartes’s philosophy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 68, 205–21.
Burns, R. (1989). The divine simplicity in St. Thomas. Religious Studies, 25, 271–93.
Chappell, V. (1997). Descartes’s ontology. Topoi, 16, 111–127.
Cook, M. (2002). Desgabets on the creation of the eternal truths. Pacific A.P.A. presentation, March.
Cronin, T. J. (1960). Eternal truths in the thought of descartes and of his adversary. Journal of the History of Ideas, 4, 553–59.
Cunning, D. (2003). Descartes on the immutability of the divine will. Religious Studies, 39, 79–92.
Curley, E. M. (1984). Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. The Philosophical Review, 93(4), 569–97.
Curley, E. M. (1988). Behind the geometrical method: A reading of Spinoza’s ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dutton, B. (1996). Indifference, necessity, and Descartes’s derivation of the laws of motion. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 34(2), 193–212.
Frankfurt, H. (1977). Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. In F. Moyal (Ed.) (1991), René Descartes: Critical assessments, Vol. 3 (pp. 17–35). London: Routledge.
Funkenstein, A. (1975). Descartes, eternal truths and the divine omnipotence. In F. Moyal (Ed.) (1991), René Descartes: Critical assessment, Vol. 3 (pp. 54-67). London: Routledge.
Geach, P. (1973). Omnipotence. Philosophy, 48, 7–20.
Gueroult, M. (1968/1985). Descartes’ philosophy interpreted according to the order of reasons, II: The soul and the body. Transl. Roger Ariew. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Jolley, N. (1990). The light of the soul. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Karofsky, A. (2001). Suárez’s doctrine of eternal truths. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 39(1), 23–47.
Kaufman, D. (2003). Divine simplicity and the eternal truths in Descartes. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 553-579.
Kenny, A. (1968). Descartes: A study of his philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kenny, A. (1970). The Cartesian circle and the eternal truths. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 692–700.
Knuuttila, S. (1996). Duns Scotus and the foundations of logical modalities. In L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, M. Dreyer (Eds.), Jon Duns Scotus: Metaphysics and ethics (pp. 127–143). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Loeb, L. (1981). From Descartes to Hume: Continental metaphysics and the development of modern philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Marion, J.-L. (1981). Sur la théologie blanche de Descartes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Maurer, A. (1970). St. Thomas and eternal truths. Medieval Studies, 32, 91–107.
Nelson, A., & Cunning, D. (1999). Cognition and modality in Descartes. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 64, 137–53.
Nolan, L. (1997). The ontological status of Cartesian natures. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 78, 169–94.
Normore, C. (2003). Duns Scotus’s modal theory. In T. Williams (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Duns Scotus (pp. 129–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pessin, A. (2001). Malebranche’s distinction between general and particular volitions. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 39(1), 77–99.
Pessin, A. (2003). Descartes’s nomic concurrentism: Finite causation and divine concurrence. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41(1), 25–49.
Pessin, A. (2006). Descartes on the divine eternal truths. Yeditepe’de Felsefe, 31, 133–66.
Pessin, A. (2007). Descartes’s theory of ideas. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ideas/).
Plantinga, A. (1980). Does God have a nature? Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Rozemond, M. (2009). Descartes’s ontology of the eternal truths.
Schmaltz, T. (1991). Platonism and Descartes’ view of immutable essences. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, 73(2), 129–170.
Stump, E. (2003). Aquinas. London: Routledge.
Wells, N. (1961). Descartes and the scholastics briefly revisited. New Scholasticism, 2, 172–90.
Wells, N. (1982). Descartes’ uncreated eternal truths. The New Scholasticism, 56(2), 185–99.
Wilson, M. (1978). Descartes. London: Routledge.
Aquinas
ST = Summa theologica, transl. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1948/1981).
Truth = Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, transl. Robert W. Mulligan, S. J. (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1952).
Sents. = Scriptum super libros sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, ed. R. P. Mandonnet, O. P. (Paris: Sumptibus P. Lethielleux, 1929)
De ente et essentia
Power = Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei, transl. English Dominican Fathers (London: Burns, Oates, & Washbourne Ltd., 1932).
SCG = Summa Contra Gentiles, transl. Anton C. Pegis (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975).
Descartes
CSM(K) = The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, v. I, II, transl. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch, and v. III, transl. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, & A. Kenny (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 1985, 1991). References are to volume and page number.
Burman = Conversation with Burman, in CSM III.
Discourse = Discourse on the Method, in CSM I.
Meds = Meditations on First Philosophy, in CSM II.
Principles = Principles of Philosophy, in CSM I.
Replies = Objections and Replies, in CSM II.
Ockham
Ord. = Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (Ordinatio), Distinctiones IV-XVIII. Eds. Girard I. Etzkorn & Francis E. Kelly, Opera Theologica, vol. IV. 1979.
Scotus
Ord. = Ordinatio. In Opera omnia, vol. I-VII. Ed. P. Carolo Balic (Vatican: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950-73).
In Metaph. = Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis
Suarez
DM = Disputationes Metaphysicae, in Opera Omnia, ed. Carolo Berton (Paris: Vives, 1856-66), vols. 25-26. DM 31 = On the Essence of Finite Being as Such, transl. Norman Wells (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1983); DM 7 = On the Various Kinds of Distinctions, transl. Cyril Vollert, S.J., S.T.D. (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1947).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pessin, A. Divine Simplicity and the Eternal Truths: Descartes and the Scholastics. Philosophia 38, 69–105 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9189-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9189-1