The very first line of Spinoza’s magnum opus, the Ethics, states the following surprising definition: By cause of itself I understand that whose essence involves existence, or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing [Per causam sui intelligo id, cujus essentia involvit existentiam, sive id, cujus natura non potest concipi, nisi existens]. As we shall shortly see, for many of Spinoza’s contemporaries and predecessors the very notion of causa sui was utterly absurd, akin to a Baron Munchausen attempting (...) to lift himself above a river by pulling his hair up. How can a thing cause itself into existence, if before the causal activity, the cause did not exist at all? Indeed, in one of his earliest works, Spinoza himself claimed: “No thing, considered in itself, has in itself a cause enabling it to destroy itself (if it exists), or to make itself [te konnen maaken] (if it does not exist)” (KV II 26|I/110/14-16). Moreover, in other early works, Spinoza refers to God as an “uncreated thing” (TIE §97) or “uncreated substance” (CM II 1|I/237/20), and not as a cause-of-itself as in the Ethics. What made Spinoza desert the common, traditional, view of God as the uncaused first cause, or uncreated substance, and adopt instead the apparently chimerical notion of God as causa sui? A very likely explanation for this development suggests that Spinoza’s rationalism, his commitment to the principle that everything must have a reason both for its existence and for its non-existence – a commitment stated clearly both in the Ethics (see, for example, E1p8s2 and E1p11d2), and in Spinoza’s other writings (see, for example, Ep. 34 (IV/179/29)) – made him realize that the notion of an uncreated, or uncaused, thing is of no use for him: if everything must have a cause, then the first cause, or the most fundamental being, must be a cause-of-itself. All this is well and good, but we should not let Spinoza off the hook so easily, for the immediate question which arises now is whether Spinoza is not simply cheating his readers. Does Spinoza have a reason – i.e., argument – that could convince us that causa sui is indeed a more adequate characterization of God and not merely an opportunistic and ad hoc façade for the good old uncaused cause? While there are many important questions surrounding Spinoza’s notion of causa sui, it is the last question which will be the focus of this short chapter. In the first part of this chapter, we study, briefly, Descartes’ engagement with the notion of causa sui. In the second part, I show that Spinoza understood the causation of causa sui as efficient, and not formal, causation. The third and final part will attempt to locate precisely the alleged problem with the notion of causa sui, and consider how could Spinoza defend the intelligibility of this notion. Regrettably, limitations of space will force us to leave the examination of Spinoza’s closely related notion of being-conceived. (shrink)

What I would like to study is the presence of Cartesian manner of thinking in the Ricoeurian comprehension of subjectivity. I focus particularly on what is not saying expressis verbis in his argumentation. I do not say that the Ricoeurian conception of dialectical subject which is expressed as “oneself as another” places itself as continuation of the tradition of absolutization of cogito. By no means. Ricoeur’s investigation that pertains to subjectivity aims at elaborating its new formulation. Philosophy of Descartes might (...) be interpret in various ways not only as the synonym of “egology”. In my paper I indicate two formulas of ego which are included in Cartesian Meditations (ego cogito, ergo sum and ego sum, ego existo) that give rise to the different interpretations of ego. I analyse the Ricoeurian stance that relates to the consequences of introducing by Descartes the very formula ego sum, ego existo. In the second part I concentrate on issue on what sense rereading Meditations could be helpful in entering into discussion with structuralist critique of the subject. Also I get an approach to the theoretical framework of Ricoeurian argumentation which is established according to defend the subject. -/- W artykule staram się pokazać obecność elementów Kartezjańskiego sposobu rozumowania w Ricoeurowskim deklaratywnie „antykartezjańskim” ujęciu subiektywności. Nie twierdzę, że Ricoeur w proponowanej przez siebie koncepcji podmiotu dialektycznego wyrażonego jako "ten-który-jest-sobą-jak-i-innym" sytuuje sie po stronie tradycji absolutyzującej cogito. Moim celem jest przesledzenie tych momentów Ricoeurowskiej argumentacji prowadzonej na rzecz wypracowania nowej formuły podmiotowości, w których obecny jest (najczęściej implicite) wątek Kartezjański. W samej filozofii Kartezjusza obecna jest droga, która nie prowadzi do egologii. By pokazać dwie różne perspektywy odczytania Kartezjańskiego cogito, przywołuję dwie formuły: ego cogito ergo sum oraz ego sum, ego existo, by następnie poddac je analizie. W pierwszej cześci artykułu skupiam się na ukazaniu konsekwencji płynących z wykorzystania formuły ego sum, ego existo w dyskusji dotyczącej subiektywności. W drugiej cześci staram się dowieść, na jakiej drodze możliwe jest wykorzystanie Kartezjańskiej koncepcji podmiotu w konfrontacji ze strukturalistyczną krytyką podmiotu. (shrink)

This article aims to present the Coimbra Commentaries as a critical source of the Cartesian Meditations. The Cursus Conimbricensis played an important role in shaping the philosophical pedagogy of the seventeenth century, and many modern scholars were formed through the pages of these volumes. Although we do not know for sure whether the Coimbra Commentaries were used as textbooks in La Flèche, there are solid reasons for believing that, when Descartes refers to the possibility of divine deception in the first (...) meditation, he is using some examples taken from the Commentary on Physics written by Manuel de Góis. (shrink)

In this paper, I address the controversy between Henry More and René Descartes on the indefinite extension of the world. I provide a new reading of Descartes’ famous final answer of 15 April 1649. I read the entire debate in the terms of a disagreement concerning the epistemological status of the necessity of our judgement about the extension of the universe. Accordingly, the disagreement on the infinity of the world constitutes a case of a more general disagreement on the nature (...) of the necessity of the theorems of Cartesian Physics. In particular, as concerns Descartes’ last reply, I argue that his assertion that a finite world is contradictory should be interpreted as a reply to More’s claim that the thesis of the infinity of the world, in so far as it cannot be grounded on the identity between matter and extension, does not express a logical necessity. Descartes’ assertion of the logical impossibility of a finite world, far from being, as it has always been read, a concession he made under the pressure of More’s objections, expresses the more radical element of the entire debate about the extension of the universe. (shrink)

Review of Marion, J.-L.. Questions cartésiennes III: Descartes sous le masque du cartésianisme. Paris: PUF.

Review of Marion, J.-L.. Questions cartésiennes III: Descartes sous le masque du cartésianisme. Paris: PUF.

To read the relationship between potestas divina and potestas humana in a simple ontological hierarchy would lead to not understanding the multiple meanings that they entail on the theological, metaphysical, anthropological, ethical, juridical and political levels, and which are instead present in the works of F. Suárez. With an epistemological focus, the article analyzes suárezian speculative and theoretical choices in arguing the human condition and in constantly relating it to cooperation with God. In Suárez there is the full appreciation of (...) the human faculties of creature, who desires and loves, and who has received from the Divine Legislator the source of the most profound freedom, that is the potestas humana. At the same time, there is an enhancement of every entity, finite or infinite; the only adequate analogy is that of intrinsic attribution. For potestas divina, God is Dominus; for potestas humana, vir and foemina are dominus and domina, capable of governing himself/herself, of living righteously in the community, of welcoming and sharing the charity that is of God. (shrink)