11/10 : Delphine Bellis (Paul Valéry Montpellier, RdS), Gassendi on mathematics 29/11 : Domenico Collacciani (Sorbonne, RdS), Méthode et langage, une lecture du chapitre VII du TTP de Spinoza 7/12 : réunion du groupe Mathesis Ohad Nachtomy (IEA, Bar Ilan), What does infinity have to do with life? 13/12 : Ange Pottin (ENS, RdS), Descartes’ ambiguous mathematism 20/12 : Mariafranca Spallanzani (Bologne), “Conscience », « perception intime », « sentiment intérieur”, « sentiment de soi”. Modèles philosophiques et scientifiques de la conscience à l’âge des Lumières. 10/01 : Lucie Fabry (ENS, RdS), présentation de son édition du Matérialisme rationnel de Bachelard 17/01 : Marleen Rozemond (Toronto), L' »Achille » chez Cudworth
07/02 : Vincent Leroux (ENS/Paris VII), Leibniz et le jeu
21/02 : Sophie Roux (ENS), La philosophie mécanique 04/04 : Stefan Hessbrügen (Moscou), Changes in Early Modern Concepts of Life 11/04 : Stefan Hessbrügen (Moscou), Arriaga’s Conception of Vita Physica, its Sources and its Reception
18/04: Andrea Costa (CNRS Centre Jean Pépin), Sur l’ecdotique des textes scientifiques de l’âge moderne
23/05: Louis Pijaudier-Cabot (ENS), Espaces imaginaires et mondes possibles. De la scolastique jésuite à Leibniz
04/04, 12h30-14h30, dans le cadre du séminaire Mathesis : « Life in God and Life in Nature: Scholastic Perspectives »
ENS, salle Pasteur, 45 rue d’Ulm, Pavillon Pasteur, 1er étage
In the early modern period, the concept of life can be applied to both immaterial substances and material ones. Life is both a natural and a ‘supernatural’ phenomenon. God is alive, but so are plants. In this presentation I will explore the consequences drawn from this insight in Spanish scholasticism at the turn from the 16th to the 17th century. I will argue that we need to broaden the scope of sources we deem to be relevant for an understanding of the concept of life. Looking at Thomist commentaries to Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae we will find that they contain substantial discussions of the concept of life that are relevant also for a philosophical perspective on the topic. The same applies to Suárez’s Disputationes Metaphysicae: it was Suárez who first pondered the possibility that a unified concept of life may be out of reach for us, if we want to apply it to God as well as to his creatures.
10/04, 13h30-15h30 : « Life in God: Zuñiga and Arriaga »
Bibliothèque de l’UFR de philosophie, Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1 rue Victor Cousin, escalier E, 2e étage, salle F042
In this presentation I will discuss the only publication of the Jesuit theologian Francisco de Zuñiga (1570-1614), a commentary on the trinitarian questions of Aquinas’s Summa. It is certainly true that the connection between problems of the Trinity and the concept of life in the early modern period is far from obvious. But I will nevertheless claim that it exists. In fact, it seems that Zuñiga’s text may have prompted his younger colleague Arriaga to come to the conclusion that we must take the concept of life to be equivocal, because the life of God and processes of life in nature are simply too heterogeneous to be subsumed under a unified conception of life. It will become clear that a crucial obstacle to developing such a unified conception is the existence of the Holy Spirit. The life of this person of the trinity is completely incommensurable with the life of plants, as it was conceived by early modern scholastics.
11/04, 12h30-14h30, dans le cadre du séminaire Mathesis : « Life in Nature: Suárez, Iuxtaposition and Intussumption»
ENS, salle Pasteur, 45 rue d’Ulm, Pavillon Pasteur, 1er étage
The status of plants as living beings is precarious in the early 17th century. My presentation will discuss arguments of the Protestant physician and philosopher Nicolaus Taurellus for the thesis that plants are not alive, because they are not distinguishable from certain inanimate bodies like fire. These arguments are refuted in Suárez’s Commentary on De Anima, published posthumously in 1621. But Suárez’s own position is ultimately unconvincing. This prompted a search for a new mark of life distinguishing living substances from those which are not alive. The Jesuit Rodrigo de Arriaga developed a proposal to distinguish living bodies from others through their mode of assimilating new matter. The resulting dichotomy of iuxtaposition and intussumption proved to be very influential up to the 19th century, although its exact meaning remains somewhat obscure. The presentation will uncover the prehistory of the dichotomy and show that Arriaga’s Jesuit precursors were markedly more sceptical whether it provides a clear criterion for the distinction of animate and inanimate substances.
12/04, 14h-16h : « Life in God and Life in Nature: Clauberg and Spinoza »
The presentation will first analyse the reception of Spanish Jesuit thought in the textbooks of Burgersdijk and Heereboord. This will allow us to understand better the anti-Aristotelian turn in understanding life that we find in Clauberg and Spinoza. After reconstructing their critique, I will argue that Spinoza’s conception of life in his Cogitata Metaphysica can be best understood as a creative adaptation of ideas that Clauberg developed seven years earlier in his De cognitione dei et nostri exercitationes. Spinoza’s definition of life as ‘the force through which things persevere in their being’ can be read as an attempt to resolve fundamental inconsistencies in Clauberg’s account. This insight may lead to a fresh understanding of Spinoza’s views of life in general and with regard to the life of God in particular.
et la preuve a priori dans le thomisme du XVIIe siècle
Présentation par Charles Ehret (Paris 1/Ac. de Versailles). Interventions de Vincent Carraud (Sorbonne Université),
Jacob Schmutz (Sorbonne Université),
Emanuela Scribano (Venise Ca’ Foscari).
Réponses d’Igor Agostini (Lecce).
Modérateur : Jean-Pascal Anfray.
Prochaine séance : samedi 16 mars, de 9 h 30 à 13 h 00, ENS, 45 rue d’Ulm, salle Dussane: autour de l’ouvrage de Philippe Hamou : Dans la chambre obscure de l’esprit. Locke et l’invention du Mind (Ithaque, 2018). Présentation par Benoît Gide (Paris 1). Interventions de Jean-Pascal Anfray (ENS), Claire Etchegaray (Paris-Nanterre), Laurent Jaffro (Paris 1/IUF). Réponses de Philippe Hamou (Paris-Nanterre). Modératrice : Martine Pécharman.