著者

秋元 ひろと

出版者

日本イギリス哲学会

雑誌

イギリス哲学研究 (ISSN:03877450)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.12, pp.5-16, 1989-04-01 (Released:2018-05-25)

参考文献数

1

著者

秋元 ひろと AKIMOTO Hiroto

出版者

三重大学教育学部

雑誌

三重大学教育学部研究紀要. 自然科学・人文科学・社会科学・教育科学・教育実践 = BULLETIN OF THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION MIE UNIVERSITY. Natural Science,Humanities,Social Science,Education,Educational Practice (ISSN:18802419)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.69, pp.65-89, 2018-01-04

---

In this paper, I look into the scholastic background of Descartes's physics, and try to make it clear where his theory of causation stands when viewed in relation to the tradition of the scholastic theory of causation. In section 1, I give an outline of the scholastic theory of causation based on Disputationes Metaphysicae (1597), written by Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), a leading figure of the early modern Spanish scholasticism. In the middle ages, there were three rival views on the relationship between God and created things as efficient causes. They are occasionalism held by Islamic theologians, and concurrentism and conservationism held by scholastic Aristotelians. Occasionalism denies created thigs efficient causation and admits God as the only true cause. By contrast, both concurrentism and conservationism allow causation not only to God but also to created things. Conservationism differs from concurrentism in that the former does not hold, as the latter does, that God concurs with created things when they operate as efficient causes, and restricts the actions of God as an efficient cause to the creation of things and the conservation of the things created. In section 2, I give a brief account of Descartes's physics based mainly on Principia Philosophiae (1644), and take up the issue whether his theory of causation is to be interpreted as occasionalism, concurrentism, or conservationism. Scholastic Aristotelians made a distinction between God, which is the primary, universal cause, and created things, which are particular, secondary causes. Descartes also holds that God is the universal, primary cause. But it is the laws of nature and not created things that he regards as particular, secondary causes. Paying attention to this characterization of laws as particular, secondary causes, and its position between God and created things, I argue that Descartes, though retaining an element of cocurrentism or conservationism, advances toward occasionalism, which is going to be held by his followers such as Nicolas Malebranche.

著者

三浦 永光 中澤 信彦 桂木 隆夫 篠原 久 星野 彰男 真嶋 正己 秋元 ひろと 井上 琢智 中金 聡 加地 大介 岩井 淳 大澤 麦 岸本 広司 大久保 正健 天羽 康夫 星野 勉 川北 晃司 田中 秀夫

出版者

日本イギリス哲学会

雑誌

イギリス哲学研究 (ISSN:03877450)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.24, pp.66-103, 2001-03-20 (Released:2018-04-25)

著者

秋元 ひろと

出版者

日本哲学会

雑誌

哲学 (ISSN:03873358)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2011, no.62, pp.73-86_L5, 2011 (Released:2011-12-09)

参考文献数

7

---

In this paper, I take up Hume's theories of causation and morality, in particular, his accounts of belief and moral sentiment, and consider what his naturalism really amounts to.Hume treats causal reasoning and belief basically as a non-reflective reaction caused by custom. Hence he naturally attributes causal reasoning and belief not only to humans but also to animals. Causal reasoning and belief are mental operations, he thinks, which have their foundation in the nature shared by humans and animals.In so far as Hume explains the formation of moral sentiment in terms of sympathy viewed as a mechanism of contagion, his account of moral sentiment is on a par with his account of belief. However, Hume does not attribute moral sentiment to animals, because he does not suppose that animals are capable of reflective thinking, which he regards as essential for the formation of moral sentiment properly so called. Now the process of reflective thinking involved in the formation of moral sentiment can be seen as a process of self- and mutual-understanding of human nature. For example, we understand and mutually understand the fact that a certain degree of selfishness is inseparable from human nature, thereby correcting the sentiment of blame we naturally have toward those who oppose our self-interest. However, a process such as this has no definite end point. It is true that Hume tries to give a psychological explanation of moral phenomena and show that morality is an expression of human nature, but this is not all he does in his naturalism. He also has in his view the openended character of morality and the possibility of its transformation.

著者

秋元 ひろと AKIMOTO Hiroto

出版者

三重大学教育学部

雑誌

三重大学教育学部研究紀要, 自然科学・人文科学・社会科学・教育科学 (ISSN:18802419)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, pp.29-38, 2015-03-31

---

Hume describes his Treaties as an achievement that would bring about revolutionary changes in philosophy. In this paper, I focus on his theory of causation and show that it is an attempt to accomplish a revolution not only in epistemology but also in metaphysics. In opposition to the traditional conceptual setting, which locates the concept of causation in the domain of knowledge, Hume locates it in the domain of probability. In this sense, his theory of causation is a revolution in epistemology. Rejecting every existing account of causal power, Aristotelian, Scholastic, and Cartesian, all of which take causal power to reside in some objects or other, Hume maintains that it resides in the mind that, having observed the constant conjunction between two kinds of objects, passes from the idea of one object to its usual attendant. In this sense, his theory of causation is a revolution in metaphysics.

著者

秋元 ひろと

出版者

日本哲学会

雑誌

哲学 (ISSN:03873358)

巻号頁・発行日

no.62, pp.73-86, 2011-04

著者

秋元 ひろと

出版者

The Philosophical Association of Japan

雑誌

哲学 (ISSN:03873358)

巻号頁・発行日

no.38, pp.118-129, 1988

著者

小川 眞里子 片倉 望 山岡 悦郎 伊東 祐之 久間 泰賢 遠山 敦 秋元 ひろと 斎藤 明

出版者

三重大学

雑誌

基盤研究(C)

巻号頁・発行日

1999

---

本研究は平成11年度から13年度の3年間のプログラムによって、「物語としての思想-東西の思想を物語の観点から読み直す-」をテーマに総勢10名を超えるメンバーの参加をもって始められた。参加者の専門は西洋、日本、インド、中国の思想分野にわたり、比較思想的探求を行う際の共通の切り口として「物語」という切り口は面白いのではないかと考えた。たしかに、物語は文字をもつ以前から口承の形で受け継がれてきており、人間存在と切り離しがたく普遍的に存在する。それにもかかわらず従来の哲学からは「物語」への取り組みの糸口が見出しにくく分担者は苦闘を強いられた。そうした中で、東北大学の野家啓一氏を招き講演会を開き、その成果を文字に起こして研究分担者がきちんと共有できたことは、各自の研究を進める上で大きな助けとなった。とくに今回の講演で示された科学的実在と物語の関係は大変示唆的であった。また東洋思想の観点からお話をしていただいた田辺和子氏の「原始仏教聖典の中の物語」は、先に述べたごとく「物語」がいかに本質的に人間存在と結び合ってきたものであるかを納得させるものであった。こうした経緯をへて各自が報告の作成に取り掛かり、桑原は野家氏の中心的テーマであった歴史の反実在論から説き起こしそれとキリスト教徒の問題に切り込み、武村は物語と哲学との比較という非常に興味深いテーマに行き着ついた。その他各自がこのユニークな研究の端緒をいかに完結させるかが今後の課題である。