Unlike many of Descartes’s other followers, Pierre-Sylvain Re´gis resists the temptations of occasionalism. By marrying the ontology of mechanism with the causal structure of concurrentism, Re´gis arrives at a novel view that both acknowledges God’s role in natural events and preserves the causal powers of bodies. I set out Re´gis’s position, focusing on his arguments against occasionalism and his responses to Malebranche’s ‘no necessary connection’ and divine concursus arguments.

After an exposition of some key concepts in scholastic ontology, this paper examines four arguments presented by Francisco Suarez for the thesis, commonly held by Christian Aristotelians, that God's causal contribution to effects occurring in the ordinary course of nature goes beyond His merely conserving created substances along with their active and passive causal powers. The postulation of a further causal contribution, known as God's general concurrence (or general concourse), can be viewed as an attempt to accommodate an element of (...) truth present in occasionalist accounts of divine causality. (shrink)

Cette étude offre un panorama du scotisme des XVIe et XVIIe siècles et tente d’apprécier son influence sur la culture philosophique de l’âge classique. On analyse successivement son développement interne, au sein de la scolastique franciscaine, et son influence externe, à travers les emprunts d’arguments scotistes dans la tradition jésuite et leur présence récurrente dans les nouveaux systèmes philosophiques modernes. On s’est également efforcé de donner un maximum de références bibliographiques pour faciliter d’autres recherches.This study offers an general overview of (...) sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scotism and tries to give an account of its general influence on early-modern philosophical culture. It analyses successively its internal development within Franciscan scholasticism and its external influence, by showing the use of Scotistic arguments in the Jesuit tradition and their recurrent presence in some of the new early-modern philosophical systems. Special attention has been paid to provide an important selection of bibliographical references in order to allow further research. (shrink)

At ’Opus Oxoniense’ book I, d.2, q.1, John Duns Scotus gives an argument for the existence of God that is based on the distinction between essentially and accidentally ordered efficient causes. Historically, this argument has been rejected because the claim that accidentally ordered causes require essentially ordered causes to account for the perpetuation of forms is question-begging. I argue that the critics of Scotus’s argument have failed to consider the ontology of the theory substance, accident and causation with which Scotus (...) is operating, and that once this is taken into account the traditional critique fails. (shrink)

According to Scotus, an intelligible species with universal content, inherent in the mind, is a partial cause of an occurrent cognition whose immediate object is the self-same species. I attempt to explain how Scotus defends the possibility of this causal activity. Scotus claims, generally, that forms are causes, and that inherence makes no difference to the capacity of a form to cause an effect. He illustrates this by examining a case in which an accident is an instrument of a substance (...) in the production of a certain sort of effect. All that is required is that the accident is relevantly joined to the substance, whether or not it inheres in the substance. Since intelligible species are bearers of semantic content, it follows that non-inherent objects of thought can also be the bearers of such content. Such objects are included in the mind without inherence, and the boundary between the mind and external reality is to this extent broken down. (shrink)

The relationship between divine and created causality was widely discussed in medieval and early modern philosophy. Contemporary scholars of these discussions typically stake out three possible positions: occasionalism, concurrentism, and mere-conservationism. It is regularly claimed that virtually no medieval thinker adopted the final view which denies that God is an immediate active cause of creaturely actions. The main aim of this paper is to further understanding of the medieval causality debate, and particularly the mere-conservationist position, by analysing Peter John Olivi's (...) neglected defence of it. The paper also includes discussion of Thomas Aquinas's arguments for concurrentism and an analysis of whether Olivi's objections refute his position. (shrink)