Eric Stencil
Utah Valley University
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)
DOI 10.1080/09608788.2011.624706
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,703
External links

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

Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on Their Correspondence.Ezio Vailati - 1990 - Philosophical Review 101 (4):851-853.
Occasionalism and General Will in Malebranche.Steven M. Nadler - 1993 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 31 (1):31-47.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Nicolas Malebranche.Tad Schmaltz - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Malebranche on the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Particular Volitions.Julie Walsh & Eric Stencil - 2016 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 54 (2):227-255.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Malebranche's Doctrine of Freedom / Consent and the Incompleteness of God's Volitions.Andrew Pessin - 2000 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8 (1):21 – 53.
Systematic Divergences in Malebranche and Cudworth.David Cunning - 2003 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (3):343-363.
Malebranche's Distinction Between General and Particular Volitions.Andrew Pessin - 2001 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (1):77-99.
Malebranche and Occasional Causes.David Cunning - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (3):471–490.
Malebranche on Sensory Cognition and "Seeing As".Lawrence Nolan - 2012 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 50 (1):21-52.
Berkeley on the Activity of Spirits.Sukjae Lee - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (3):539-576.
Arnauld's God.Steven Nadler - 2008 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (4):pp. 517-538.
Consciousness in Act and Action.Keith Hossack - 2003 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (3):187-203.
Causality and Human Freedom in Malebranche.Fred Ablondi - 1996 - Philosophy and Theology 9 (3-4):321-331.
Locke on the Suspension of Desire. Chappell - 1998 - Locke Studies 29:23-38.
Malebranche and Leibniz on the Best of All Possible Worlds.Tad M. Schmaltz - 2010 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 48 (1):28-48.


Added to PP index

Total views
69 ( #159,302 of 2,462,482 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,311 of 2,462,482 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes