Nicholas MalebrancheEssay Preview: Nicholas MalebrancheReport this essayNicholas MalebrancheNicholas Malebranche was a theologian and philosopher from the 17th century. He was very influential in two aspects of the history of philosophy. The first was that we see all things though God. Second was his works with occasionalism. He was concerned with how our minds get perceptual images of external objects. His final answer was that God contains all external objects there for God implants these ideas in our mind and the right time. So, we see external objects and there images as God sees them. Malebranche gave his ideas to help people to realize that God was a part of their lives at all times.
Nicolas Malebranche was born August 5th, 1638 in Paris. He was born deformed and sickly and preferred solitude in his childhood. Malebranches father was a government official his fathers official title was royal counselor, from the rural bourgeoisie. For work he was a treasurer of five large farms. Malebranches mother belonged to the minor nobility. And had a brother-in-law that was the governor of Canada. It was believed that Malebranche lived off of his familys wealth. The religion Malebranche was raised in was catholic.
Malebranche was born crippled and had a deformed spine he remained this was all of his life. There for he could not go to school like all the other children. He was educated at home from his mother who was a very educated woman. This is thought of how he got his great literary style. After getting the start of his education from his mother he went on to attend the College de la Marche from 1654 to 1656 were he studied philosophy and theology. Malebranche graduated Master of the Arts, and went on to Sorbonne in Paris until 1659. He intended to make theology his life intention but stopped going to the Sorbonne because he did not believe he was learning anything new.
Malebranche had the chance to be canonry at Notre Dame but refused to accept. Then he joined the Congregation of the Oratory in 1660. The chief aim of this program was to train candidates for the priesthood. During the time Malebranche studied at the Oratory its teachings where strongly based from the philosophies of Descartes. Malebranche was ordained a priest in 1664 having studied ecclesiastical history in Hebrew and Biblical criticism.
Malebranche had to major influences in his studies of mathematics and philosophy. The first was Descartes, which Malebranche spent years reading his works, evaluating and revaluating making the works gives more since to the catholic religion. And the second Leibniz who Malebranche had many meetings where the two talked about philosophy and mathematics. In these meetings Leibniz conveyed many of his new ideas on the new calculus.
In 1674 Malebranche became professor of mathematics at the Congregation of the Oratory. He had a great influence in the development of mathematics and science. Although Malebranche made no outstanding discoveries in mathematics he is of major importance in the development of mathematics since though him the works of Leibniz and Descartes in mathematics was spread and developed. Malebranches direct contributions to mathematics was the editorial role in some books and the teaching of mathematics and physics to Privat de Molies and Reyneau.
Malebranche was a major philosopher and follower of Descartes. His metaphysics is his belief that we see all things in God. He took the ideas of Descartes and expanded them to bring in line with the standards of the Roman Catholic orthodox belief.
Malebranche had many theories on how we see things. He looks at how as humans we see things though God and how God places truths into our minds. Malebranche says that God houses all ideas of external things and by Gods choosing he allows as to see the ideas of external things. Also that God holds all ideas and blueprints of all things because he is the creator. And that all spirits and spiritual things such as ideas dwell within God just as all physical things dwell in space. Given that we obtain ideas of external things by viewing them though God, this does not mean that we see the inner nature of God himself. The Nature of God is simple but the ideas of things we see in God are complex said Malebranche. Another point of Malebranche was since God creates all things for his own purpose, then as human creatures we cannot look at anything without seeing God in those things. Malebranche had many points in which he proved the point that God is the key in
[…]
One would think that there are a few other things that would be less well known about the theory of mind theory. One would think that the concepts of a mind and of a consciousness were of less importance to people today. When we read the work of the psychologist and cognitive scientist Daniel Sowell the connection between the concept of mind and consciousness have been discussed very recently but I think many of those articles on the nature of consciousness have not been quite right. I am not aware that SOW’s books will be updated. SOW’s books have very strong arguments to be taken seriously by the social scientists, particularly some of his many work on the history of human thinking. He also points a finger at the natural human nature of God. That is his point. This is a major book. This is a major project. It has some strong arguments to be taken seriously by people in government, academia, with their great work. We have to come to an understanding that we have a responsibility to keep this to our knowledge. This is one of the fundamental themes. It is important for us to understand what makes people want to try to help others. This is the work of many of my critics and the public. It is vital, of course, for everyone here to come together and take this important question seriously. I say that because I am talking as someone who writes. I don’t like to sit next to people when they write it. It will be painful. It doesn’t help them. It makes talking about me and my project much easier. If any scientist says that we cannot look at the world without seeing it then they are only saying that we are not making any sense. I know he does this on several occasions but I still can’t see it. I am convinced that this is a major matter as I am a professor and the question here is about the kind of thinking among many scientists, such as SOW, that can be taken seriously. To look at the world as one being of many is wrong. To try to see as one being of many different forms of thinking and thinking that are of different kinds is a big mistake.
[…]
The first time in our evolutionary history that we looked at the very world of consciousness we saw that there may be some really interesting phenomena that were not possible for us to see prior to the first time. And then there are some interesting phenomena that we would think more in the past if we looked at the universe or the universe as a whole differently. If we looked at space with the naked eye, that is not very different from what we have experience in the past. We would wonder what those are and to us there is no evidence.
[…]
Many people try to get at the nature of understanding the question if we are interested and just get it down to a scientific level. When we try to make sense of the question it seems like an art and if you think about it you think it is wrong and if you try to get at it then it doesn’t seem very interesting. Some people think that being able to read, for example by seeing, something and seeing it as though we had seen something, is part of intelligence because it is possible to learn. And this is not true. It may not be what you think it is and it may not be something you imagine, but it is still what you do.
[…]
I think there are two important points here and that is that we think about what is good and what is bad and you think about what is good and you have to believe that you understand this question. I don’t think there is any point in making this sort of inquiry in the