Nicolas Malebranche

A philosopher and theologian, priest of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri; b. at Paris,

6 Aug., 1638; d. 13 Oct 1715. He was the youngest child of Nicolas

Malebranche, secretary to Louis XIII; being slightly deformed in person and of a

weak constitution, he received his early education from a domestic tutor, until he

was old enough to enter the course of philosophy at the Collège de La Marche,

whence he passed to the Sorbonne for the study of theology. On the completion

of his studies, declining a canonry at Notre-Dame, he joined the Paris house of

the Oratory, 1660. There he was first engaged on ecclesiastical history, but

neither his talents nor his taste lay in this directlon, and on the recommendation

of Richard Simon he turned to the study of Scripture, only to find this study

equally uncongenial. A chance reading of Descartes' "Traité de l'homme ou de la

formation du foetus" determined his future career, and he became an

enthusiastic Cartesian. He published "Recherche de la Vérité" in 1674, and his

subsequent works represent developments or special aspects of the same

doctrine.

Sensation and imagination he maintains are produced not by the objects but by

God and are intended to serve man's practical needs only, and not to reveal the

nature of things, the essence of matter; being extension and its only real

property motion. The real nature of the external world must be found in ideas.

Now in accordance with Descartes' divorce of mind and matter, matter cannot act

on mind; and mind cannot produce its own ideas, for they are spiritual beings

whose creation requires a greater power even than the creation of things material.

Therefore we see all things in God. God Himself, he argues, sees all things in

His own perfections, and He is so closely united to the soul by His Presence

that He may be said to be the place of spirits, as space is the place of bodies.

And so the rnind may see in God all the works of God, supposing God willing to

reveal them. That God should so will seems more in accord with His economy in

nature, where He works by the most direct as simple methods. But the strongest

proof of all, Malebranche finds in the idea we have of the Infinite; for it must be

prior to the idea of the finite, and all particular ideas are participations of that

general idea of the Infinite, just as God derives not His Being from creatures but

all creatures have their subsistence from Him. Thus of all the things that come

under our knowledge, we know none but God in Himself without the mediation of

any idea bodies and their properties are seen in God and by their ideas. As for

our own soul, he adds, it is known only by consciousness, that is, by our

sensations, so that, though we know the existence of our soul better than the

existence of our body or of the things about us, we have not so perfect a

knowledge of the nature of the soul. As for the souls of other men, we know

them, onIy by conjucture (Recherche, bk. III, pt. ii, cc. 1-8). It is obvious that

Malebranche's occasionalism not only makes our certainty of the external world

depend upon God's revelation; it suggests the objection that there is no purpose

in a material universe which is out of all contact with human thought and volition.

What is peculiar, however, to his system is its Ontologism, and its

consequences; for God is made not only the immediate cause of our sensations,

but also the "place of our ideas", and moreover our first idea is of the infinite.

From this it would appear to follow that we see God's Essence, though

Malebranche protested explicitly against this consequence. And, if, as

Malebranche maintains, the essence of mind consists only in thought, as the

essence of matter consists only in extension, there is at least a suggestion of

the Pantheism which he so vigorously repudiated.

With regard to free-will also, the desire of Malebranche to emphasize the union of

the soul with its Creator exposed him to many objections. The soul, he says,

has the capacity of withholding its consent to a particular object, so that the

intellect may recognize the lower as the higher good. But volition, according to

him, being an effect of God's action on the soul, it was objected that God was

thus the author of sin. To this Malebranche answered that sin was due to an

intermission of activity, therefore sin is nothing and though God does all He is not

the author of sin. This account of evil Malebranche utilizes to maintain a sort of

Optimism in his account of creation. Finite creation as such would be unworthy

of God; it is made a worthy object of God's will by the Incarnation; and as for the

evil that is in creation, it is due to particular wills, and it does actually enhance

the real good.

Antoine Arnauld was the first to attack Malebranche's system, and he was

supported by Bossuet who styled the system "pulchra, nova, falsa". Naturally a

chief topic of discussion was the question of grace, though the Jansenist and the

Oratorian both claimed the authority of St. Augustine. The discusslon gradually

became very bitter, and ended not altogether to the credit of Malebranche's

orthodoxy, for it was Malebranche who had been on his defence, and his work

had been censured at Rome. Among other opponents of Malebranche there

Pierre Silvain Regis and Dom François Lamy, who attacked his explanation of

pleasure and of good. His answer in "Traité de glamour de Dieu" was well

received in Rome and had the further good fortune of reconciling him with

Bossuet. His "Entretiens d'un philosophe chrétien et d'un philosophe chinois sur

l'existence de Dieu", in which he accused the Chinese of Atheism, drew from the

Jesuits, Fr. Tournemine and Fr. Hardouin, a counter charge of Spinozism and

Atheism against his own system. There can be little question of the novelty and

dangerous character of his publications. But his own loyalty, his zeal, and piety

are still less questionable. He led a simple and austere life, giving himself but

little rest from his studies, and finding his chief relaxation in the company of little

children. He was of an affable disposition, always ready go converse with the

numerous visitors who called to see him. And during his life time his reputation

as a thinker and writer was remarkably high. The following are his principal

works: — "Recherche de la Vérité" (1674): two English versions "Conversations

chrétiennes" 1677); "Traité de la nature et de la grâce" (1680); "Méditations

chrétiennes et métaphysiques" (1677); "Traité de morale" (1684); "Entretiens sur

la métaphysique et sur la religion" (1687); "Traité de l'amour de Dieu" (1698);

"Réponses" (to Arnauld), published together, 1709, etc., two editions of his

works by Jules Simon, 2nd (1871) not complete.

BOUILLIER, Hist. de la Philos. Cartesienne; BLAMPIGNON, Etude sur Malebranche d'apres des

documents manuscrit's, suivie d'une correspondance inedite (Paris, 1862); OLLE-LAPRUNE, La

Philosophie de Malebranche (1870); JOLY, Molebranche in Grands Philosophes series (Paris,

1901); GAONACH, La theorie des grands dans la phitosophie de Malebranche (Brest, 1908); CAIRD,

Essays on Literature und Philosophy (New York, 1892).

James Bridge

Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX

Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor

Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org