A Diagnosis of Cartesian Atheism

IF 0.2 0 RELIGION
K. Sakamoto, Yoshiyuki Kato
{"title":"A Diagnosis of Cartesian Atheism","authors":"K. Sakamoto, Yoshiyuki Kato","doi":"10.1163/18712428-bja10054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The present paper analyzes Petrus van Maistricht’s (1630–1706) critique of Baruch Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise found in his Novitatum cartesianarum gangraena (1677). The paper shows, first, that Mastricht regarded Spinoza’s atheism as the inevitable outcome of the Cartesians’ denial of philosophy’s subordination to theology. Second, Mastricht, in refuting Spinoza, revised his earlier critique of Cartesianism. In his previous work, Mastricht had already pointed out the atheistic implications of Cartesianism, but in the Gangraena he could now clearly identify Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise as the atheistic consequence of Cartesianism. He was thus able to confirm his distinctive diagnosis of Cartesianism as a gangrene that would gradually worsen and eventually destroy the entire body of theology.","PeriodicalId":41958,"journal":{"name":"Church History and Religious Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Church History and Religious Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18712428-bja10054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present paper analyzes Petrus van Maistricht’s (1630–1706) critique of Baruch Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise found in his Novitatum cartesianarum gangraena (1677). The paper shows, first, that Mastricht regarded Spinoza’s atheism as the inevitable outcome of the Cartesians’ denial of philosophy’s subordination to theology. Second, Mastricht, in refuting Spinoza, revised his earlier critique of Cartesianism. In his previous work, Mastricht had already pointed out the atheistic implications of Cartesianism, but in the Gangraena he could now clearly identify Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise as the atheistic consequence of Cartesianism. He was thus able to confirm his distinctive diagnosis of Cartesianism as a gangrene that would gradually worsen and eventually destroy the entire body of theology.
笛卡尔无神论的诊断
本文分析了佩特鲁斯·范·迈斯特里希特(1630–1706)在其《新宪章》(1677)中对斯宾诺莎神学政治论的批判。文章首先指出,马斯特里奇特认为斯宾诺莎的无神论是笛卡尔否定哲学从属于神学的必然结果。其次,马斯特里奇特在反驳斯宾诺莎时,修正了他早期对笛卡尔主义的批判。在他之前的著作中,马斯特里奇特已经指出了笛卡尔主义的无神论含义,但在《Gangraena》中,他现在可以清楚地将斯宾诺莎的《神学政治论》认定为笛卡尔主义的无神论者后果。因此,他能够证实他对笛卡尔主义的独特诊断,认为它是一种坏疽,会逐渐恶化,最终摧毁整个神学体系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信