ne of the leading problems for Cartesian dualism is to provide an account of the union of mind and body. This problem is often construed to be one of explaining how thinking things and extended things can causally interact. That is, it needs to be explained how thoughts in the mind can produce motions in the body and how motions in the body can produce sensations, appetites, and emotions in the mind. The conclusion often drawn, as it was by three (...) of Descartes's illustrious successors, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Leibniz, is that mind and body cannot causally interact.' I mention this problem of the interaction between thinking things and extended things only to distinguish it from the problem concerning the union of mind and body which I wish to discuss. Some commentators, such as Daisie Radner, maintain that the.. (shrink)

My aim is to arrive at a better understanding of the distinction between direct realism and representationalism by offering a critical analysis of Steven Nadler.

In the first part of this paper I explore the relations among distinctness, separability, number, and non-identity. I argue that Descartes believes plurality in things themselves arises from distinction, so that things distinct in any of the three ways are not identical. The only exception concerns universals which, considered in things themselves, are identical to particulars. I also argue that to be distinct is to be separable. Things distinct by reason are separable only in thought by means of ideas not (...) clear and distinct. In the second part I argue that the notion of separability in Descartes’s account of real distinction between mind and body is subject to five different interpretations. I claim that the heart of Cartesian dualism concerns the separability of the attributes thought and extension. It does not require that mind and body are separable in the sense that each can exist without the other existing. (shrink)

This is a collection of Paul Hoffman's wide-ranging essays on Descartes composed over the past twenty-five years. The essays in Part I include his celebrated "The Unity of Descartes' Man," in which he argues that Descartes accepts the Aristotelian view that soul and body are related as form to matter and that the human being is a substance; a series of subsequent essays elaborating on this interpretation and defending it against objections; and an essay on Descartes' theory of distinction. In (...) the essays in Part II he argues that Descartes retains the Aristotelian theory of causation according to which an agent's action is the same as the passion it brings about, and explains the significance of this doctrine for understanding Descartes' dualism and physics. In the essays in Part III he argues that Descartes accepts the Aristotelian theory of cognition according to which perception is possible because things that exist in the world are also capable of a different way of existing in the soul, and he shows how this theory figures in Descartes' account of misrepresentation and in the controversy over whether Descartes is a direct realist or a representationalist. The essays in Part IV examine Descartes' theory of the passions of the soul: their definition; their effect on our happiness, virtue, and freedom; and methods of controlling them. (shrink)

Descartes retains the Aristotelian doctrine that when an agent acts on a patient, the action of the agent is one and the same as the passion in the patient. However, unlike his Aristotelian predecessors who located the agent's action in the patient, Descartes locates the agent's action in the agent. I examine briefly his motives for modifying, but not abandoning this doctrine. My central claim is that his use of this doctrine implies that he thinks there are modes straddling mind (...) and body, but that such straddling modes do not conflict with his dualism, understood properly. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: Descartes's Hylomorphism The Interaction Between Mind and Body Notes References and Further Reading.

Robert M. Adams behauptet, daß Leibniz' zwei Konzeptionen der Körper als bloße Phänomene und als Aggregate von Substanzen konsistent und somit Bestandteile einer einzigen Theorie der Phänomene seien. Dagegen möchte ich hier zeigen, daß Adams' Strategie, Körper als intentionale Objekte der Perzeption zu verstehen - als objektive Realität von Ideen im kartesischen Sinn - nicht vereinbar damit ist, sie als Aggregate von Substanzen aufzufassen. Mit Adams stimme ich insofern überein, als Aggregate von Monaden sich nur im Geist als Einheit finden, (...) ich bestreite jedoch, daß nur im Geist die Aggregate dann auch sind. (shrink)

This paper concerns Hume’s treatment of the distinction of reason in the Treatise, I.i.7. Many scholars have claimed that there is a tension between his account of the distinction of reason and his commitment to his so-called separability principle. I explain why Hume’s account of the distinction of reason is fully consistent with the principle, and show how other discussions, both critical of and sympathetic to Hume, fail to appreciate the radicalness of his position. I evaluate Hume’s bold position and (...) compare it to earlier positions (Aquinas) and current positions (Donald Davidson). (shrink)

This chapter is a brief discussion of Thomas Aquinas’s views on spiritual change. Much of the chapter is spent clarifying the interpretive positions staked out by Myles Burnyeat and Sheldon Cohen. The chapter argues that although there is nominal agreement between Burnyeat and Cohen on these matters due to Burnyeat’s broad definition of “physical,” there is substantive disagreement as to whether the reception of sensible forms is a wholly corporeal event. And where there is substantive agreement—namely, in the contention that (...) changes in or of the body are wholly corporeal—both Burnyeat and Cohen are mistaken. The chapter contends that, according to Aquinas, the sensible reception of sensible forms ‘is partly material and corporeal because it takes place in the body, but it is partly immaterial and incorporeal because it is not a natural change but rather a spiritual change.’. (shrink)

British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 15, 2007, pp. 561-567. (Author Posting. (c) Taylor & Francis, 2007. It is posted here by permission of Taylor & Francis for personal use, not for redistribution.).

Aquinas maintains that when we succumb to temptation our actions are wholly voluntary. When we give up a good in the face of a threat our actions are partly involuntary, but they are more voluntary than involuntary. I argue that when we succumb to temptation our actions can also be partly involuntary. I also defend my intuition that in some mixed cases our action is more involuntary than voluntary, and I show how Aquinas’s psychological theory can explain this. Finally, I (...) explain why it matters that actions fully in accordance with our reasonsresponsive choices might not be fully voluntary. (shrink)

The essays in this collection are all studies in the history of modern philosophy. Together they provide a cross-section of current efforts to reconstruct ...

This chapter contains sections titled: Efficient and Final Causation Descartes' Account of Mental Causation References.

Can absolute freedom of will be defended by arguing that apparent cases of diminished freedom when we act out of passion are cases of weakness of will? Rogers Albritton thought so. What is intriguing about Albritton's view is that he thought when we act from desire we are making choices, yet our desires are not functioning as reasons for those choices. So our desires must be influencing our choices in some other unspecified way that does not diminish our freedom. I (...) challenge the coherence of this position. My strategy is to examine the views of leading theorists of the will – Descartes, Aquinas and Reid – to argue that the only clear way in which passions can influence our choices so that we can accurately be described as weak-willed and yet nevertheless free is that our passions influence our choices by providing reasons for them. (shrink)

John Carriero has argued that for Spinoza there is no final causality in the Aristotelian sense and that the striving of things is merely to be understood in terms of metaphysical inertia. This paper makes a case against this claim. First it is argued that Spinoza’s notion of striving does in principle meet Thomas Aquinas’ criterion for final causation. Second it is shown that Carriero’s denial of final causation in Spinoza leads to a deflationary interpretation of Spinoza’s notions of the (...) good and striving of things, which is at odds with many passages of Spinoza’s Ethics. One can only do justice to these passages if one assumes that Spinoza did accept final causation in the traditional sense. John Carriero argumentierte, dass Spinoza keine finale Kausalität im aristotelischen Sinne vertrete, sondern das Streben von Dingen als Ausdruck einer Art metaphysischen Trägheit verstehe. Dagegen, so wird hier ausgeführt, sprechen zwei Gründe: Erstens genügt Spinozas Charakterisierung des Strebens von Dingen prinzipiell Thomas von Aquins Definition finaler Verursachung. Zweitens führt Carrieros Zurückweisung finaler Verursachung zu einer deflationären Lesart von Spinozas Begriffen des Guten und des Strebens von Dingen, die mit vielen Passagen aus Spinozas Ethik unvereinbar sind. Diesen Passagen kann nur Rechnung getragen werden, wenn man annimmt, dass Spinoza finale Verursachung im traditionellen Sinn akzeptierte. (shrink)

Gary Watson raises at least three objections to my interpretation of Albritton. [1] First, he says that I intimate, he thinks, that Albritton overlooks the distinction between the input side and output side of will, whereas Albritton clearly is thinking of strength and weakness of will on the input side. I didn't mean to intimate that Albritton overlooks the distinction, but I can see how my remarks might easily be read that way. In any case, it is certainly true that (...) I couldn't figure out how Albritton understood weakness of will and I am grateful to Watson for pointing out þ which now that he has pointed it out seems perfectly obvious þ that Albritton does think of weakness of will as pertaining to the input side. This is significant because it reveals that Albritton's views about the relation of weakness of will to freedom of will are in direct opposition to Descartes's. (shrink)