Nicolas Malebranche
Rzeczy stworzone nie mogą naprawdę być przyczyną niczego; sam Bóg działa przy każdej okazji, a świat poznajemy, widząc idee w Bogu.
Umiejscowienie
Okazjonalizm: wszystkie rzeczy widzimy w Bogu.
Kluczowe idee
- Okazjonalizm
- Widzenie w Bogu
Wpływ
Pod wpływem 2
Augustyn z Hippony
pod wpływem ✓
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”
Augustyn z Hippony › 354–430
Kartezjusz
pod wpływem ✓
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”
Kartezjusz › 1596–1650
Wpływ na 4
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
wpływ na ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz › 1646–1716
Mary Astell
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Mary Astell › 1666–1731
George Berkeley
wpływ na ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
George Berkeley › 1685–1753
David Hume
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
David Hume › 1711–1776
Krytyka
Wzajemna krytyka 1
Antoine Arnauld ⇄ wzajemnie
krytykuje
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Antoine Arnauld › 1612–1694
Krytyka ze strony 2
Damaris Masham
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Damaris Masham › 1659–1708
Immanuel Kant
krytyka ze strony
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Immanuel Kant › 1724–1804
Krytykuje 1
Zhu Xi
krytykuje
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Zhu Xi › 1130–1200
Dzieła
Źródła błędu w umyśle – widzimy wszystkie rzeczy w Bogu.
Stanowisko
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.
Życie i kontekst
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.
Dalsze główne dzieła
- The Search after Truth (1674)
- Treatise on Nature and Grace (1680)
- Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion (1688)
Stan na listopad 2026 · Źródła · Ulepsz tę stronę · Jak powstaje Agora