Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Malebranche on General Volitions: Putting Criticisms of the General Content Interpretation to Rest
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Malebranche on General Volitions: Putting Criticisms of the General Content Interpretation to Rest
Do you wish to request the book?
Malebranche on General Volitions: Putting Criticisms of the General Content Interpretation to Rest
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Malebranche on General Volitions: Putting Criticisms of the General Content Interpretation to Rest
2023
Overview
Malebranche claims that God always, or nearly always, acts by general volitions. However, two possible interpretations of this claim have led to competing understandings of Malebranche's occasionalism. The General Content interpretation (GC) holds that God forms as few volitions as possible, and that aside from a limited number of particular volitions, God's normal mode of action consists simply in willing the general laws themselves. The Particular Content interpretation (PC) affirms that God forms a distinct volition for each event or state of affairs, but that those volitions count as general when they are issued \"in accordance with\" some general law. This essay examines five lines of evidence that purport to reveal Malebranche's commitment to PC and explains why they all fail. As a result, GC emerges unscathed as a consistent and viable interpretation, and, at the same time, much of the case for PC is undermined.
Publisher
Johns Hopkins University Press
Subject
