Switch to: References

Citations of:

Descartes, Suarez and the Theory of Distinctions

In R. E. Auxier & L. E. Hahn (eds.), The Philosophy of Marjorie Grene. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. pp. 417--445 (2002)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Spinoza on Activity in Sense Perception.Valtteri Viljanen - 2014 - In José Filipe Silva & Mikko Yrjönsuuri (eds.), Active Perception in the History of Philosophy: From Plato to Modern Philosophy. Cham [Switzerland]: Springer. pp. 241-254.
    There can be little disagreement about whether ideas of sense perception are, for Spinoza, to be classed as passions or actions—the former is obviously the correct answer. All this, however, does not mean that sense perception would be, for Spinoza, completely passive. In this essay I argue argues that there is in the Ethics an elaborate—and to my knowledge previously unacknowledged—line of reasoning according to which sense perception of finite things never fails to contain a definite active component. This argument (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Hume’s Argument for the Ontological Independence of Simple Properties.Jani Hakkarainen - 2011 - Metaphysica 12 (2):197-212.
    In this paper, I will reconstruct Hume's argument for the ontological (in the sense of rigid existential) independence of simple properties in A Treatise of Human Nature , Book 1 (1739). According to my reconstruction, the main premises of the argument are the real distinctness of every perception of a simple property, Hume's Separability Principle and his Conceivability Principle. In my view, Hume grounds the real distinctness of every perception of a simple property in his atomistic theory of sense perception (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A Third Type of Distinction in the Treatise.Jani Hakkarainen - 2012 - Hume Studies 38 (1):55-78.
    In this paper, I resolve a potential contradiction between two of Hume's central tenets: that complex perceptions consist of simple perceptions and that distinct things are separable. The former implies that a complex perception is not separable from its constituent simple perceptions, as a change in its constituents destroys its identity. The latter entails that the complex perception is separable from these simple perceptions, since it is distinct from them. This is a contradiction. I resolve it by appealing to a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations