نيكولا مالبرانش
لا تستطيع المخلوقات أن تُحدث شيئًا حقًّا؛ فالله وحده يفعل في كل مناسبة، ونحن نعرف العالم برؤية الأفكار في الله.
التموضع
مذهب المناسبات: نرى كل الأشياء في الله.
الأفكار الرئيسة
- مذهب المناسبات
- الرؤية في الله
التأثير
تأثّر بـ 2
أوغسطينوس
تأثّر بـ ✓
Malebranche invoked Augustine’s doctrine of illumination for his thesis that we see all things in God (The Search after Truth, 1674–75). N. Malebranche, De la recherche de la vérité (1674–75); SEP “Nicolas Malebranche”
أوغسطينوس › 354–430
رينيه ديكارت
تأثّر بـ ✓
Reading Descartes’ Treatise on Man in 1664 turned Malebranche to philosophy; The Search after Truth (1674–75) keeps Cartesian dualism and extension as the essence of matter. N. Malebranche, De la recherche de la vérité (1674–75); SEP “Nicolas Malebranche”
رينيه ديكارت › 1596–1650
أثّر في 4
غوتفريد لايبنتس
أثّر في ✓
Leibniz, who met Malebranche in Paris in 1675, agreed that created substances do not act on one another, but replaced occasional causes by pre-established harmony (New System, 1695). G. W. Leibniz, Système nouveau de la nature (Journal des savants, 1695); M. R. Antognazza, Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography (2009); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
التوثيق: مسجّل أيضًا في Wikidata · Wikidata
غوتفريد لايبنتس › 1646–1716
ماري آستل
أثّر في
In Letters concerning the Love of God (1695), exchanged with John Norris, Astell took up Malebranche’s view that God, as sole cause of our pleasures, alone deserves love. M. Astell and J. Norris, Letters concerning the Love of God (1695); SEP “Mary Astell”
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
ماري آستل › 1666–1731
جورج بيركلي
أثّر في ✓
Like Malebranche, Berkeley made God the cause of our ideas of sense, but in the Three Dialogues (1713) he distinguished his view from seeing all things in God. G. Berkeley, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (1713); Philosophical Commentaries (1707–08); SEP “George Berkeley”
التوثيق: مسجّل أيضًا في Wikidata · Wikidata
جورج بيركلي › 1685–1753
ديفيد هيوم
أثّر في
Hume took Malebranche’s argument that no necessary connection between finite causes and effects is perceived, but rejected his conclusion that God is the only true cause (Treatise, 1739). D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), “Of the idea of necessary connexion”; An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748); SEP “David Hume”
التوثيق: مسجّل أيضًا في InPhO · InPhO
ديفيد هيوم › 1711–1776
النقد
نقد متبادل 1
أنطوان آرنو ⇄ متبادل
انتقد
Malebranche answered Arnauld’s attack in his Réponse (1684) and later letters, defending ideas as objects in God distinct from mental modifications, against Arnauld’s view of ideas as perceptions. N. Malebranche, Réponse au livre Des vraies et des fausses idées (1684); Trois lettres (1685); SEP “Nicolas Malebranche”
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
انتقده
Arnauld argued against Malebranche’s vision in God that ideas are the mind’s own perceptions, not representative entities in God (On True and False Ideas, 1683). A. Arnauld, Des vraies et des fausses idées (1683); SEP “Antoine Arnauld”
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
أنطوان آرنو › 1612–1694
انتقده 2
داماريس كودورث ماشام
انتقده
Masham rejected the view of Malebranche, taken up by Norris, that God alone causes our pleasures and so alone deserves love (Discourse concerning the Love of God, 1696). D. Masham, A Discourse concerning the Love of God (1696); SEP “Damaris Cudworth Masham”
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
داماريس كودورث ماشام › 1659–1708
إيمانويل كانط
انتقده
Kant counted Malebranche’s continuing intuition of God among the deus ex machina answers to how concepts fit objects – ‘the greatest absurdity’ (letter to Marcus Herz, 1772). I. Kant, letter to Marcus Herz, 21 February 1772 (AA X 129–135)
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
إيمانويل كانط › 1724–1804
ينتقد 1
تشو شي
انتقد
Malebranche’s Dialogue between a Christian Philosopher and a Chinese Philosopher (1708) attacks the Neo-Confucian li, as systematised by Zhu Xi and known to him from missionary reports, as an impersonal principle that confuses God with matter – in his eyes close to Spinoza. N. Malebranche, Entretien d’un philosophe chrétien et d’un philosophe chinois sur l’existence et la nature de Dieu (1708); D. E. Mungello, “Malebranche and Chinese Philosophy”, Journal of the History of Ideas 41 (1980)
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
تشو شي › 1130–1200
الأعمال
مصادر الخطأ في العقل – نرى كل الأشياء في الله.
الموقف
Malebranche united Cartesian philosophy with Augustine’s theology. If mind and body are completely different substances, he asked, how can one act on the other? His answer was occasionalism: no created thing has real causal power; God alone acts, and creaturely events are merely the “occasions” on which he acts according to general laws. Likewise we do not perceive things through ideas in our own minds but see all things in God, in whom the ideas reside. God acts through simple general laws rather than particular wills, which also explains the existence of evil. His views influenced Berkeley, and his analysis of causation prepared the ground for Hume.
الحياة والسياق
Born in Paris in 1638, Nicolas Malebranche joined the Oratory, a congregation of priests, in 1660. Reading Descartes’s Treatise on Man in 1664 made him turn to philosophy. He spent the rest of his life in Paris writing and in lively controversies, above all with Antoine Arnauld, and corresponded with Leibniz. He died in 1715.
أعمال رئيسة أخرى
- The Search after Truth (1674)
- Treatise on Nature and Grace (1680)
- Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion (1688)
بحسب الوضع في نوفمبر 2026 · المصادر · حسّن هذه الصفحة · كيف صُنع Agora