Descartes et Arnauld Les quatriemes objections Andre Sarrazin
Descartes and Arnauld: the Fourth Objections by Andre Sarrazin (2015)
C Riquier, PH 401, Metaphysics
January 6, 2015
André Sarrazin,
Descartes and Arnauld: The fourth objections
The Meditations of Prima Philosophia, in quibus Dei existentia et animae humanae immortalitas demonstrantur usually known as Meditations were completed in the first half of 1640, and Descartes, concerned about the reception that would be given to his work, circulated a manuscript through Father Mersenne, to be able to attach the objections that would be made to him and the answers he would have provided. In fact, the first edition completed on August 28, 1641 has only six series of objections and answers. The history of successive editions reveals additions and limits, so during the publication of the French translation of 1647, the fifth objections (those of Gassendi) are placed after the sixth, while the seventh are absent. These variations are, for the study of the fourth objections, unimportant. However, it should be noted that their author, Father Arnauld, also knew the text of the first, which Descartes, via Mersenne, had communicated to him. They are due to J. de Kater, a Dutch Catholic priest, and are based on the positions defended by Suarez and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Descartes responds in particular to the problem posed by the proposal to consider God as a cause of himself, because any cause can be considered as a limitation. The second objections are probably due to Mersenne himself and the third are from Hobbes. The two did not strongly attract Descartes' attention. It is only with those of Arnauld that he "then thinks he can present everything to the doctors of Sorbonne" (MM, p 15), after introducing in his text some changes relating to theology. The current editions, respecting the chronological order, first present the text of the objections and then that of the answers. We have the possibility, probably more didactic, to analyze separately each of the objections and the corresponding answer(s), even if in conclusion it means drawing a common thread of the whole and highlighting the coherence of the thinking of the two interlocutors. Arnauld himself ordered his objections according to his role as a philosopher or theologian, it is this presentation that we will keep.