坚持(他的)Esse:加桑迪和斯宾诺莎反对笛卡尔

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY
Samuel Le Gendre
{"title":"坚持(他的)Esse:加桑迪和斯宾诺莎反对笛卡尔","authors":"Samuel Le Gendre","doi":"10.1163/24055069-08040007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution focuses on the issue of creatures’ conservation in being. The aim is as follows: to demonstrate that the Cartesian position is significantly different from the positions adopted by Gassendi and then by Spinoza. Indeed, both, in contrast to Descartes, adopt a principle of metaphysical inertia, which parallels their principle of physical inertia. If Gassendi can conceive of this principle of metaphysical inertia, it is because he really distinguishes between creation and conservation. If Spinoza, who owes it to his reading of the 5th Objections and Replies, can conceive of his principle, it is because he distinguishes between ideal essence and actual essence.","PeriodicalId":37173,"journal":{"name":"Erudition and the Republic of Letters","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perseverare in (suo) Esse: Gassendi and Spinoza against Descartes\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Le Gendre\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24055069-08040007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This contribution focuses on the issue of creatures’ conservation in being. The aim is as follows: to demonstrate that the Cartesian position is significantly different from the positions adopted by Gassendi and then by Spinoza. Indeed, both, in contrast to Descartes, adopt a principle of metaphysical inertia, which parallels their principle of physical inertia. If Gassendi can conceive of this principle of metaphysical inertia, it is because he really distinguishes between creation and conservation. If Spinoza, who owes it to his reading of the 5th Objections and Replies, can conceive of his principle, it is because he distinguishes between ideal essence and actual essence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37173,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Erudition and the Republic of Letters\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Erudition and the Republic of Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/24055069-08040007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Erudition and the Republic of Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24055069-08040007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇论文的重点是生物在存在中的保存问题。其目的如下:证明笛卡尔的立场与加森迪(Gassendi)和斯宾诺莎(Spinoza)所采取的立场大相径庭。事实上,与笛卡尔相反,他们都采用了形而上学的惰性原则,这与他们的物理惰性原则相似。如果说加森迪能够设想出这种形而上学的惯性原理,那是因为他真正区分了创造与守恒。如果斯宾诺莎(因为他读了《第 5 次反对和答复》)能够想到他的原则,那是因为他区分了理想本质和现实本质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perseverare in (suo) Esse: Gassendi and Spinoza against Descartes
This contribution focuses on the issue of creatures’ conservation in being. The aim is as follows: to demonstrate that the Cartesian position is significantly different from the positions adopted by Gassendi and then by Spinoza. Indeed, both, in contrast to Descartes, adopt a principle of metaphysical inertia, which parallels their principle of physical inertia. If Gassendi can conceive of this principle of metaphysical inertia, it is because he really distinguishes between creation and conservation. If Spinoza, who owes it to his reading of the 5th Objections and Replies, can conceive of his principle, it is because he distinguishes between ideal essence and actual essence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Erudition and the Republic of Letters
Erudition and the Republic of Letters Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
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