Skip to main content

Is Descartes’ Theological Voluntarism Compatible with His Philosophy?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science

Abstract

In 1922, Alexandre Koyré writes that Descartes’ doctrine of theological voluntarism – according to which God creates and controls logic and normativity – is incompatible with every bit of his philosophy. We agree and explain how voluntarism undermines the major arguments (including the cogito) in the Meditations by making them logically or normatively circular. Thus clear and distinct ideas are not useful as premises in an argument for God’s existence except on the assumption that God exists and has already made them “true.” However, Koyré also claims that Descartes protected his system from disaster by abandoning voluntarism toward the end of his life. We argue that this is not correct, as an exhaustive look at the texts shows Descartes affirming voluntarism unambiguously from 1630 right to the end of his life. We point out the flaws in other attempts to save Descartes from himself and some theological and philosophical reasons which may have led Descartes to hold the doctrine. We claim that, while voluntarism will have to be ignored in an overall understanding of Descartes’ thought, it has genuine philosophical significance because a “voluntarist demon” represents the most formidable skeptical threat possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the logical circle undercuts the traditional one. For on voluntarism God must “first” make circularity a flaw in argumentation. The fact that the traditional circle is an objection depends on the assumption that God exists.

  2. 2.

    Of course, the problems are compounded when one notes that some of the same arguments appear in the Principles, so parts of that work are also beset by the circularities.

References

  • Descartes R (1964–1976) = abbreviated ‘AT’

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes R ([1985] 1991) = abbreviated ‘CSM’

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J (1994) Descartes’s theory of modality. The Philosophical Review 103:639–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broughton J, Carriero J (2008) A Companion to Descartes. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cottingham J (1993) A Descartes dictionary. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottingham J (2008) The role of God in Descartes’s philosophy. In Broughton 2008, pp. 288–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curley EM (1984) Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. The Philosophical Review 93:569–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Descartes R (1964–1976). Œuvres de Descartes. 12 Vols. Adam C, Tannery P (eds). Vrin–C.N.R.S, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes R ([1985] 1991) The philosophical writings of Descartes. 3 Vols. Translated by Cottingham J, Stoothoff R, Murdoch D [for Vol. 3, also Kenny A). The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt H (1977) Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. The Philosophical Review 86:36–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparri G (2007) La création des vérités éternelles dan la postérité de Descartes. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 132:323–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassendi P (1658–1964) Opera Omnia. 6 Vols. Anisson L & Devenet JB, Lyon [reprint: Friedrich Fromman Verlag, Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt].

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger S (1995) Descartes: an intellectual biography. Clarendon Press. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartz GA, Lewtas, PK (2014) Descartes’ metaphysical scepticism. Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 58:79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huet PD (2003 [1689, 1694]). Against Cartesian Philosophy. Censura Philosophiae Cartesianae. Translated by Lennon TM. Humanity Books, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowski Z (2000) Cartesian theodicy: Descartes’ quest for certitude. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1922) Essai sur l’idée de dieu et les preuves de son existence chez Descartes. Éditions Ernest Leroux, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz GW (1985 [1710]) Theodicy. Open Court, LaSalle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon TM (2008) The plain truth: Descartes, Huet, and skepticism. Brill, Leiden.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ockham W (1957) Philosophical writings. Boehner P (ed). Nelson, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osler M (1994) Divine will and the mechanical philosophy. The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Regis PS (1691) Réponse au livre qui a pour titre P. Danielis Huetii […] Censura philosophiae cartesianae, servant d’éclaircissement à toutes les parties de la philosophie, surtout à la métaphysique. Par Pierre–Sylvain Regis. Jean Cusson, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We warmly thank readers of earlier drafts of this paper, including Rick Groshong, Mogens Laerke, Cody Baith, Maddie Collins, and audiences at two American Philosophical Association meetings and at Syracuse University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn A. Hartz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hartz, G.A., Lewtas, P.K. (2018). Is Descartes’ Theological Voluntarism Compatible with His Philosophy?. In: Pisano, R., Agassi, J., Drozdova, D. (eds) Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61710-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61712-1

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics