Elementy prawa Thomasa Hobbesa a jego zarzuty trzecie do Medytacji Kartezjusza W niniejszym artykule staram się przedstawić oś sporu pomiędzy Hobbesem i Descartesem na gruncie Medytacji, oraz jego najważniejsze momenty. Skupiam się przede wszystkim na analizie najważniejszych postawionych przez Hobbesa zarzutów i rekonstrukcji wybranych jego poglądów, które wówczas można było odnaleźć jedynie w The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic. Dzieło to było jego pierwszą większą i spójną próbą wypowiedzi na zagadnienia teoriopoznawcze i społeczne; staram się bronić tezy, że zrozumienie (...) treści Zarzutów wymaga znajomości owego dzieła. Dojrzała forma dzieła świadczy o tym, że Anglik już wówczas miał swoje poglądy przemyślane i mógł czuć się dość pewnie formułując z ich perspektywy uwagi krytyczne względem filozofii Descartes’a, której jak się wydaje mógł on niejedno zawdzięczać. (shrink)

The article defines the problem of the nature of ideas in Descartes’s philosophy according to the ontology of substances. First, it illuminates Descartes’s relation to antecedent theories of ideas (as platonic forms or as corporal images) and demonstrates that, in opposition to them, Descartes conceives ideas as modes of thinking substance. Then, it develops two possible explanations of his theory. The first one understands an idea as a complex consisting of perception and its necessary internal object, which enables the representation (...) of external objects. The second one understands it as an act with intrinsic representative structure. By using Arnauld’s analysis of Descartes’s texts, it demonstrates that in accordance with the second model, an idea is a singular mode of thinking substance, which should at the same time be understood as an act of mind and as a representation of objects. (shrink)

L’imagination joue un rôle crucial et pourtant équivoque dans la théorie des passions de Descartes ainsi que dans celle de Hobbes. En dépit de sa réduction de l’imagination au corps, Descartes explique l’affectivité de l’âme comme le résultat complexe de l’interdépendance de la pensée et de l’imagination. Hobbes, d’un autre côté, réfute tout dualisme entre passions corporelles et volonté ; toutefois, il décrit les passions de l’esprit comme causées par une imagination « mentale » qui regarde au possible et à (...) l’avenir. Cette contribution étudie les ramifications d’une telle « pensée imaginative » dans les anthropologies morales de Descartes et de Hobbes. (shrink)

In the scholium to proposition 49 of Part 2 of the Ethics, Spinoza addresses a number of prejudices that tend to obscure the essentially judgmental nature of ideas. One warning is issued against those who do not distinguish accurately between ideas and images, and, for this exact reason, fail to see that every idea, insofar as it is an idea, always involves an affirmation that something is the case. This paper shows that in order to properly understand Spinoza's remarks in (...) this passage, we must redirect attention to Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, and more particularly to the objections raised against them by Hobbes. Specifically, I argue for the identification of Hobbes and other likeminded “imagists” as Spinoza's main targets, and not, as is often assumed, Descartes himself or Cartesians in general. My identification not only resolves interpretative confusion surrounding this passage, but it also confirms Spinoza's commitment to a key rationalist assumption: the existence of a mind that can grasp or exhibit natures by clear and distinct perceptions. While both adequate and inadequate ideas are necessitated beliefs or judgments in which we assent to something, virtue consists in being propelled by the intellect. (shrink)

Many critics, Descartes himself included, have seen Hobbes as uncharitable or even incoherent in his Objections to the Meditations on First Philosophy. I argue that when understood within the wider context of his views of the late 1630s and early 1640s, Hobbes's Objections are coherent and reflect his goal of providing an epistemology consistent with a mechanical philosophy. I demonstrate the importance of this epistemology for understanding his Fourth Objection concerning the nature of the wax and contend that Hobbes's brief (...) claims in that Objection are best understood as a summary of the mechanism for scientific knowledge found in his broader work. Far from displaying his confusion, Hobbes's Fourth Objection in fact pinpoints a key weakness of Descartes's faculty psychology: its unintelligibility within a mechanical philosophy. (shrink)

This paper examines the pressures leading two very different Early Modern philosophers, Descartes and Locke, to invoke two ways in which thought is directed at objects. According to both philosophers, I argue, the same idea can simultaneously count as “of” two different objects—in two different senses of the phrase ‘idea of’. One kind of intentional directedness is invoked in answering the question What is it to think that thus-and-so? The other kind is invoked in answering the question What accounts for (...) the success of our proper methods of inquiry? For Descartes as well as Locke, the two kinds of “ofness” come apart as a result of strong rationalist commitments. However, I will suggest that even if we reject such commitments, we go wrong if we assume that a single kind of intentional directedness suffices to address both questions. (shrink)