What do you think?
Rate this book
Dialogues on Metaphysics
First published in 2002. This is Volume XI of seventeen in the Library of Philosophy series on Metaphysics. Written in 1923, this study of Malebranche’s philosophical system, translated from ‘Entretiens sur la Metaphysique’, dialogues on metaphysics and religion.
376 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1688
5 people are currently reading
239 people want to read
About the author
Nicolas Malebranche
280 books37 followersNicolas Malebranche was a French Oratorian and rationalist philosopher. In his works, he sought to synthesize the thought of St. Augustine and Descartes, in order to demonstrate the active role of God in every aspect of the world. Malebranche is best known for his doctrines of Vision in God and Occasionalism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 20, 2022
Malebranche writes with a clarity of expression in this work, a seventeenth-century rationalist account of metaphysics constrained by Catholic theological dogma. The author makes the content endurable by posing it within a Socratic-like dialogue between seasoned rationalist philosopher-theologians Theodore and Theotimus and initiate Arestis.
Reason is the mind of God; ideas exist in the mind of God, not in human minds, but God acts on human minds with those ideas; sensations are the effects of God occasioned by corporeal sensory inputs. The body does not cause sensations in the mind; rather, God acts on the mind to cause sensations coincidental to physical inputs to the body. God is at work in general laws by which two utterly separate domains of being, body and mind, inaccessible to each other, nonetheless have coincidental experiences. Never the twain shall meet: a metaphysically impenetrable wall separates the mind and the body. That our mind experiences pain at the moment our toe is stubbed is not because there is a connection between our mind and our toe but because God has eternally decreed, in the form of general law, that the stubbing of our toe is the coincidental occasion on which he acts, independently of the stubbing itself, to inflict pain upon our mind.
This is a sort of theological idealism, for which the physical world is not necessary, insofar as true ideas in the mind are the manifestation of God's substance. Truth is known in the mind, and since the mind is absolutely independent of corporeality in particular and physicality in general, there is no assurance or necessity that the physical world exists. We do know it exists, but not through metaphysics; we know it exists only because God revealed it so in the Bible.
Malebranche's view nowadays is little more than a curiosity, but it has its place in the history of Cartesian rationalism, and its quandaries hint at the formulations over which later idealists, like Kant and Hegel, will struggle. I do not know whether either of those two German philosophers read this French work, either in the original or in translation, but if not, I got enough of an impression that in Malebranche I was reading an earlier, less sophisticated attempt to solve problems later idealists tackled, I suspect these intractable problems were generally in the air on the Continent leading up to the idealist era of German philosophy.
The work was aptly titled: Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion. The earlier dialogues on metaphysics are where the philosophy lies; the dialogues on religion, by contrast, are more dogmatic and strictly theological and offer little in the way of philosophical rationalism.
Reason is the mind of God; ideas exist in the mind of God, not in human minds, but God acts on human minds with those ideas; sensations are the effects of God occasioned by corporeal sensory inputs. The body does not cause sensations in the mind; rather, God acts on the mind to cause sensations coincidental to physical inputs to the body. God is at work in general laws by which two utterly separate domains of being, body and mind, inaccessible to each other, nonetheless have coincidental experiences. Never the twain shall meet: a metaphysically impenetrable wall separates the mind and the body. That our mind experiences pain at the moment our toe is stubbed is not because there is a connection between our mind and our toe but because God has eternally decreed, in the form of general law, that the stubbing of our toe is the coincidental occasion on which he acts, independently of the stubbing itself, to inflict pain upon our mind.
This is a sort of theological idealism, for which the physical world is not necessary, insofar as true ideas in the mind are the manifestation of God's substance. Truth is known in the mind, and since the mind is absolutely independent of corporeality in particular and physicality in general, there is no assurance or necessity that the physical world exists. We do know it exists, but not through metaphysics; we know it exists only because God revealed it so in the Bible.
Malebranche's view nowadays is little more than a curiosity, but it has its place in the history of Cartesian rationalism, and its quandaries hint at the formulations over which later idealists, like Kant and Hegel, will struggle. I do not know whether either of those two German philosophers read this French work, either in the original or in translation, but if not, I got enough of an impression that in Malebranche I was reading an earlier, less sophisticated attempt to solve problems later idealists tackled, I suspect these intractable problems were generally in the air on the Continent leading up to the idealist era of German philosophy.
The work was aptly titled: Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion. The earlier dialogues on metaphysics are where the philosophy lies; the dialogues on religion, by contrast, are more dogmatic and strictly theological and offer little in the way of philosophical rationalism.
November 18, 2021
This 17th century work is a concise summary of the metaphysical views of the cartesian philosopher and theologician Nicolas Malebranche. In his work, he establishes a highly original and somewhat crazy-sounding theory that clearly opposes the Descartes' view of God as being free to will whatever, not being bound to the laws of logics and nature. On the other hand, he also opposes Newton's clockwork universe, maintining that creation is a continous process that is wholly dependent on God rather than the workings of natural laws.
For Malebranche, the only genuine direct cause for anything happening in the world, is the will of God. If ball 1 hits ball 2, the cause of ball 2 moving isn't ball 1, because the event was simply an occasion for God to will to move ball 2. When I stub my toe, that event is not the cause for the pain I fill, but merely an occasion for God to inflict the impression of pain unto my soul. The non-deterministic nature of causality is the reason why God can always will that there should be a miracle, something that goes against the general laws of nature that we are familiar with.
All of that begs the question, if every single thing that happens did so explicitly because of God's will, and since God is morally wholly good, why is there still evil in the world, such as natural disasters and moral evil? The answer has two parts: (1) God could've created a world that would be more "perfect" from our perspective, but he it would really be less simple and less fruitful in its principles, hence it would have the character of divine attributes to a lesser degree.
Page 103: "god created monsters to follow exactly the natural laws that he has established /.../ not because of their monstrouf effects /.../ but for the effects that are more worthy of his wisdom and his goodness."
What about moral evil? (2) Well, it is obvious by "inner sensation" that we are free, we are free agents in the world. So, here's the real interesting part. When I do evil, not only did I sin, but since everything is wholly and causally dependent on the explicit will of God, I have made God himself commit a sin!
The dialogues themselves are quite interesting, well written and full of little gems, but to me the above stated were the most interesting parts. Anyways, a nice quote:
"Theodore: /.../ I didn't think you would have forgotten today what you knew yesterday. But old opinions keep returning to the attack, driving us back from the ground we have won; we can't hold our positions unless we dig in and stay vigilant."
For Malebranche, the only genuine direct cause for anything happening in the world, is the will of God. If ball 1 hits ball 2, the cause of ball 2 moving isn't ball 1, because the event was simply an occasion for God to will to move ball 2. When I stub my toe, that event is not the cause for the pain I fill, but merely an occasion for God to inflict the impression of pain unto my soul. The non-deterministic nature of causality is the reason why God can always will that there should be a miracle, something that goes against the general laws of nature that we are familiar with.
All of that begs the question, if every single thing that happens did so explicitly because of God's will, and since God is morally wholly good, why is there still evil in the world, such as natural disasters and moral evil? The answer has two parts: (1) God could've created a world that would be more "perfect" from our perspective, but he it would really be less simple and less fruitful in its principles, hence it would have the character of divine attributes to a lesser degree.
Page 103: "god created monsters to follow exactly the natural laws that he has established /.../ not because of their monstrouf effects /.../ but for the effects that are more worthy of his wisdom and his goodness."
What about moral evil? (2) Well, it is obvious by "inner sensation" that we are free, we are free agents in the world. So, here's the real interesting part. When I do evil, not only did I sin, but since everything is wholly and causally dependent on the explicit will of God, I have made God himself commit a sin!
The dialogues themselves are quite interesting, well written and full of little gems, but to me the above stated were the most interesting parts. Anyways, a nice quote:
"Theodore: /.../ I didn't think you would have forgotten today what you knew yesterday. But old opinions keep returning to the attack, driving us back from the ground we have won; we can't hold our positions unless we dig in and stay vigilant."
May 28, 2011
Only reason to read this is for the scant stuff on occasionalism and the strange logic at times.
1: if you sin, you involve god in carrying out your sin, since he is the occasional cause (god moved your hand...;-))
2:From p. 177 "You are still not there. It is roughly six thousand years since the world was made and bees produced swarms. Supposing, then, that each of these swarms contains a thousand insects, the first bee had to be at least a thousand times larger than the second, and the second a thousand times larger than the third a thousand times larger than the fourth, decreasing continually down to the thousandth, at a ration of a thousand to one. That is clear on the hypothesis, since whatever contains is larger than what is contained. Conceive then, if you can, the wonderful delicacy that the bees of the year 1696 had while in the first bee".
Damn, Malebranche, you crazy.
1: if you sin, you involve god in carrying out your sin, since he is the occasional cause (god moved your hand...;-))
2:From p. 177 "You are still not there. It is roughly six thousand years since the world was made and bees produced swarms. Supposing, then, that each of these swarms contains a thousand insects, the first bee had to be at least a thousand times larger than the second, and the second a thousand times larger than the third a thousand times larger than the fourth, decreasing continually down to the thousandth, at a ration of a thousand to one. That is clear on the hypothesis, since whatever contains is larger than what is contained. Conceive then, if you can, the wonderful delicacy that the bees of the year 1696 had while in the first bee".
Damn, Malebranche, you crazy.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews