{"title":"斐洛的第二种情况:休谟对话录中的马勒布兰奇与一般法则神正论","authors":"Todd Ryan","doi":"10.1353/hms.2020.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In Part XI of the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Philo enumerates \"four circumstances\" which he claims are the principal sources of pain and suffering in human life. In this paper, I focus on Philo's second circumstance in which he develops a critique of what I call the 'general laws theodicy.' This theodicy, according to which natural evils arise as a result of God's government of the universe by simple and general laws of nature, is most closely associated with Nicolas Malebranche. However, I argue that Philo's criticisms badly misfire against Malebranche's version of the theodicy. I then show how the general laws theodicy was radically reinterpreted by a succession of British philosophers—among them Berkeley, Hutcheson and Butler—and that it is against this reconceived version of the theodicy that Philo's objections are aimed.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"145 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Philo's Second Circumstance: Malebranche and the General Laws Theodicy in Hume's Dialogues\",\"authors\":\"Todd Ryan\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/hms.2020.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In Part XI of the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Philo enumerates \\\"four circumstances\\\" which he claims are the principal sources of pain and suffering in human life. In this paper, I focus on Philo's second circumstance in which he develops a critique of what I call the 'general laws theodicy.' This theodicy, according to which natural evils arise as a result of God's government of the universe by simple and general laws of nature, is most closely associated with Nicolas Malebranche. However, I argue that Philo's criticisms badly misfire against Malebranche's version of the theodicy. I then show how the general laws theodicy was radically reinterpreted by a succession of British philosophers—among them Berkeley, Hutcheson and Butler—and that it is against this reconceived version of the theodicy that Philo's objections are aimed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hume Studies\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"145 - 166\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hume Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2020.0005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hume Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2020.0005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Philo's Second Circumstance: Malebranche and the General Laws Theodicy in Hume's Dialogues
Abstract:In Part XI of the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Philo enumerates "four circumstances" which he claims are the principal sources of pain and suffering in human life. In this paper, I focus on Philo's second circumstance in which he develops a critique of what I call the 'general laws theodicy.' This theodicy, according to which natural evils arise as a result of God's government of the universe by simple and general laws of nature, is most closely associated with Nicolas Malebranche. However, I argue that Philo's criticisms badly misfire against Malebranche's version of the theodicy. I then show how the general laws theodicy was radically reinterpreted by a succession of British philosophers—among them Berkeley, Hutcheson and Butler—and that it is against this reconceived version of the theodicy that Philo's objections are aimed.