This article considers complications for the principle in Descartes that effects are similar to their causes that are connected to his own denial that terms apply "univocally" to God and the creatures He produces. Descartes suggested that there remains an "analogical" relation in virtue of which our mind can be said to be similar to God's. However, this suggestion is undermined by the implication of his doctrine of the creation of the eternal truths that God's will differs entirely from our (...) own. The disappearance of analogy is even more evident in Spinoza and Regis. Both linked Descartes's doctrine to the principle that an effect differs from its cause with respect to what it receives from that cause, and both argued from that principle to the conclusion that we differ from God in both essence and existence. (shrink)

Les considérations physiologiques sont étrangères, en tant que telles, au projet de l'Ethique, et sans doute, à l'ensemble des préoccupations philosophiques de Spinoza. Au début de Ia seconde partie de l'Ethique, Spinoza précise clairement: “j'expliquerai seulement ce qui peut nous conduire comme par la main à la connaissance de l’ Arne humaine et de sa béatitude suprême”. Pourtant, le livre ne laisse pas de contenir une révision intéressante du modèle mécaniste que Descartes appliquait à l'explication du corps humain; il contient (...) surtout une hypothèse sur Ia structure organique, qui, nous le croyons, a joué un rôle de modèle pour un certain type de théorie de l'être vivant. Ce type de conception se trouve d'abord dans l'iatromécanisme de Boerhaave et de ses disciples au XVIIIe siècle, mais les séquelles en sont identifiables jusque dans Ia philosophie biologique contemporaine. (shrink)

In this article the author shows that Spinoza may be considered a forerunner of modejrn logical reconstructivistic interpretation methods. Thus in interpreting Descartes he remains faithful to the Cartesian doctrines, but he tries to improve the argumentation. Some examples are given: in the famous difficulty of the Cartesian circle Spinoza shows that it is not necessary to prove God's existence here, for it is sufficient to have an adequate concept of God in order to overcome doubt. Further he shows that (...) in the third proof of God's existence Descartes made use of some doubtful axioms. Spinoza indicates that Descartes did not need them and that it is possible to prove God's existence in this third way without the doubtful axioms. In the same way Spinoza made improvements in Descartes' physics. (shrink)