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

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Hume Studies Pub Date : 2022-05-07 DOI:10.1353/hms.2020.0005
Todd Ryan
{"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:在《自然宗教对话录》第十一篇中,菲洛列举了“四种情况”,他认为这是人类生活中痛苦和苦难的主要来源。在本文中,我将重点关注斐洛的第二种情况,在这种情况下,他对我所说的“一般规律神正论”进行了批判。这种神正论认为,自然的邪恶是上帝通过简单而普遍的自然法则管理宇宙的结果,这种神正论与尼古拉斯·马勒布兰奇(Nicolas Malebranche)的关系最为密切。然而,我认为斐洛的批评与马勒布兰奇的神正论大相径庭。然后,我展示了一般规律的神正论是如何被一系列英国哲学家——其中包括伯克利、哈奇森和巴特勒——从根本上重新诠释的,而斐洛的反对正是针对这种重新定义的神正论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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