Machiavelli e la lezione di Lucrezio

Machiavelli’s knowledge of Lucretius’ text had been proven thanks to a very relevant discovery by Sergio Bertelli, who in 1961 published an article in which he recognized Machiavelli’s handwriting in the Vatican codex Rossianus 884. This paper analyses the possible repercussions of De rerum natura with respect to the political potential that Lucretius’ thought could had transmitted to Machiavelli, in view of his return to the vita activa. In particular, the notes posted by Machiavelli in the marginalia of the Lucretius’ text he transcribed, prove his reflection on the “clinamen theory”. In the various profiles of the world generated by the vital trigger that the clinamen causes, lies a possibility for us of having a libera mens: the possibility of intercepting and correcting, by our own virtue, the twists and turns of Fate, opposes the individual liberty to the whims of Fortuna, but also to the idea of an ineffable Divine Providence with its mysterious and intractable designs.

Considering Divine Providence in Mullā Ṣadrā Šīrāzī (d. 1045/1636): The Problem of Evil, Theodicy, and the Divine Eros

Despite the extensive work on the Safavid thinker Mullā Ṣadrā Šīrāzī (d. 1045/1636) nowadays in metropolitan academia, certain areas of philosophical and theological concern remain understudied, if studied at all – and even then, there is little attempt to consider his work in the light of philosophical analysis. We know of a venerable philosophical tradition of analysing the question of providence as a means for examining questions of creation (ex nihilo or otherwise), the problem of evil, determinism and free will, and the larger question of theodicy (and whether this world that we inhabit is indeed the ‘best of all possible worlds’). I propose to examine these questions through an analysis of a section of the theology in al-Asfār al-arbaʿa (The Four Journeys) of Mullā Ṣadrā (mawqif VIII of safar III) and juxtapose it with passages from his other works, all the while contextualising it within the longer Neoplatonic tradition of providence and evil. The section of the Asfār plays a pivotal role in outlining a wider theory of divine providence: following the analysis of the Avicennian proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Being and her attributes, and before the culmination on the emanative scheme of creation (or the incipience of the cosmos – ḥudūṯ al-ʿālam), Mullā Ṣadrā discusses the question of divine providence where one can clearly discern the influence of previous thinkers on him, namely Avicenna (d. 428/1037, al-Šifāʾ and Risālat al-ʿišq) al-Ġazālī (d. 505/ 1111, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn), and Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240, al-Futūḥāt al-makkīya). The section can be divided into four discussions: defining providence as well as the nature of good and evil, accounting for the ‘presence’ of evil in the cosmos, the ‘best of all possible worlds’, and erotic motion of the cosmos as well as the erotic attraction of humans for one another and back to their Origin. What emerges, however, is an account of providence that is subservient to Mullā Ṣadrā’s wider ontological commitment to the primary reality of being, its modulation and essential motion – the tripartite doctrines of aṣālat al-wuǧūd, taškīk al-wuǧūd and al-ḥaraka al-ǧawharīya – and fits within his overall approach to the procession of the cosmos from the One as a divine theophany and its reversion back to the One through theosis. Thus, an analysis of providence and evil demonstrates that underlying significance of Mullā Ṣadrā’s metaphysical commitments to a modulated monism.

« Le mal ne s’enracine pas dans l’instauration ». La question du mal dans le shiʿisme ismaélien

As is the case with other Shiʿi traditions, Ismailism developed a dualistic worldview ruled by the opposition between good and evil, light and darkness. However, it is a rather moderate form of dualism, as the principle of evil is not coexistent with the Creator or has not been created by Him. Evil only appears at a lower level of the cosmic hierarchy. This doctrine has been elaborated in four different ways in the history of Ismailism. We first meet a gnostic thesis where evil is the result of a rebellion in the intelligible world; second, there is a Neoplatonic thesis where evil and imperfection are caused by the process of emanation itself; and third, we distinguish a philosophical thesis where the generation of evil by “second intention” belongs to the rule of divine providence. Finally, Ṭayyibī authors in the 12th century made a synthesis of the three positions. L’ismaélisme, à l’instar d’autres courants shiʿites, prône une vision dualiste du monde marquée par l’opposition éternelle entre le bien et le mal, la lumière et les ténèbres. Cependant, il s’agit d’un dualisme mitigé, où le mal n’est ni coexistant avec le Créateur, ni instauré par Lui, mais apparaît à un degré inférieur de la hiérarchie cosmique. Cette thèse a été développée de quatre manières différentes au cours de l’histoire doctrinale de l’ismaélisme. Nous distinguons successivement une thèse gnostique où le mal est le résultat d’une révolte dans le monde intelligible, une thèse néoplatonicienne où le mal et l’imperfection sont générés par le processus de l’émanation, et une thèse philosophique où le mal est causé par « seconde intention » par la Providence divine. Une synthèse de ces trois thèses a été élaborée dans le Ṭayyibisme à partir du 12e siècle.

El Quijote y el estoicismo

¿Alcanzó al Quijote el resurgimiento del estoicismo, tan influyente en la cultura de su tiempo? El artículo rastrea la presencia de muchas de sus principales ideas en la novela: la bipartición entre espíritu y cuerpo y, consiguientemente, la división entre individuos espirituales y terrenales; las cualidades del espíritu: inalterabilidad de ánimo (constantia), paciencia, virtud, libertad; las pasiones y afectos terrenales: cólera, esperanza y miedo; la consideración expresa de la divina providencia; la autonomía de la moral; la visión de la adversidad como benéfica. La conclusión es que, al menos en la creación de sus personajes, Cervantes parece utilizar el ideal humano estoico como paradigma de altura moral. To what extent was Don Quixote influenced by the resurgence of Stoicism, which was so influential in the culture of that time? This article traces the presence of many of the principal ideas of Stoicism in the work: the separation between body and spirit and consequently the differentiation between spiritual and earthly individuals; the qualities of the spirit: the inalterability of mood (constantia), patience, virtue, freedom; the earthly passions and emotions: ire, hope and fear; divine providence, autonomy of morals; the idea of adversity as positive. One can conclude that when presenting his characters, Cervantes, at least, uses the Stoic human ideal as a model of high moral ground.

Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus on the Problem of Evil: Insights from their Commentaries on the Book of Job

This article broadly considers the commentaries on Job of Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great as offering a helpful theological alternative to some modern philosophical approaches to the ‘problem of evil’. We seek to show that whereas some modern philosophers understand evil as a problem for the very existence of God, whether and how God can coexist with evil was never a question that evil seriously raised in the minds of Aquinas and Albert. In fact, although the suffering of the just in particular led our medieval Dominicans to wonder about divine providence and our ability to know God in this life, they understood the reality of evil as compelling evidence for the existence of God.

4. Contests of intellectual authority

‘Contests of intellectual authority’ examines the clash of ideas and ideologies that shaped America in the years leading up to the Civil War through the end of the nineteenth century. It opens with two historical events of 1859 that altered the course of American thought: John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry and the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. The moral challenges raised by race-based slavery and evolutionary theory shaped American notions of freedom, divine providence, and human responsibility. While the Civil War ultimately resolved a political and legal dispute, it did not resolve larger intellectual, religious, and moral ones. These contests of moral authority and the range of human responses to human problems are on full display in late nineteenth-century American life.

Polemics on Concepts of Evil and Divine Providence in Jewish Medieval Philosophy: Cases of Gersonides and Crescas

This paper is devoted to the analysis and to the comparison of concepts on theodicy and on the nature of evil that was developed by two medieval Jewish philosophers. They are Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides or Ralbag, 1288-1344) and Hasdai Crescas (1340-1410/12). The sources of the analysis are the third chapter of the fourth book of the “Wars of the Lord” (1329) by Gersonides and the second chapter of the second book of the “Light of the Lord” (1410) by Crescas. Both philosophers assert that evil essentially cannot come from God. The causes of evil are the sinfulness of human beings, or the celestial bodies, or the breaking of the connection between human and God. The problem of evil and injustice in this world are closely related for Gersonides and Crescas to other problems, such as divine knowledge of future events, free will, reasons for reward and punishment. Gersonides and Crescas differ considerably on these issues. Gersonides demonstrates that God is not an essential source of evil. He proceeded to build on this statement with the fallacy of the opinion that divine providence extends to individuals. After all, said Gersonides, retribution would make God a source of evil. And in this case, righteous men would always be rewarded, and sinners would always be punished for their sins. But obviously this is not the case. Crescas, in contrast to Gersonides, claims that God knows individuals. This does not prevent him from agreeing with Ralbagh that God is not the source of evil. According to Crescas, any punishment or suffering (even for the righteous) always leads to good. It is obvious therefore that Crescas adheres to a more traditional position, trying, inter alia, to bring his thoughts as close as possible to the ideas expressed in the Torah. Gersonides adheres to a position close to the ideas of Maimonides. Gersonides, in the author’s opinion, created a philosophical concept that is more consistent in comparison with Crescas’ conception, however more distant from the Jewish teaching.

Randomness and Providence in Christian Thought

The problem of randomness and providence is not new. Rather, there is a long history of sophisticated thought in response to this problem, which can be called upon to address the problem in its modern scientific variant. After an overview of Christian belief, I consider the concept of divine providence, concentrating on relevant pieces of Christian scripture and passages from the Church Fathers. Next, I cover, in historical fashion, how Christians have grappled with the question of randomness in relation to God’s providence. Finally, I propose my own way of thinking about randomness and providence.