Editing Nicolas Malebranche (section)

==Legacy==

Aside, perhaps, from [[John Norris (philosopher)|John Norris]] (who, in any case, drew at least as much from Malebranche's own sources, primarily Saint Augustine, as he did from Malebranche himself), there are few if any philosophers who can be considered faithful followers of Malebranche in all matters. He was, however, held in widespread high regard within his own lifetime and for some time afterwards, and the influence of certain of his ideas can be discerned in the works of several important figures.

[[Pierre Bayle]] regarded Malebranche as "one of the greatest philosophers of this age" (though, admittedly, not as ''the'' greatest, as is often reported).<ref>See Bayle's ''[[Dictionnaire Historique et Critique|Historical and Critical Dictionary]]'', article on "[[Epicurus]]", note S.</ref> In note H to his "[[Zeno of Elea]]" article, Bayle discussed Malebranche's views on material substance with particular approval. Occasionalism and the vision in God seem to make the real existence of material substance redundant. Not only is it unable to be directly perceived, but it cannot actually affect us or anything else in any way at all. Descartes had also maintained that matter was not directly perceivable, but he had argued that the veracity of God could support a proof of its certain existence. Malebranche, however, weakened Descartes' argument, concluding that, from a philosophical point of view, its existence could only be shown to be probable. Bayle pushed even further down this same path, thereby laying much of the ground work for the [[immaterialism]] of [[George Berkeley]]. Berkeley, influenced both by Bayle and directly by Malebranche himself, simply took the final step to a full denial of the existence of material substance. ([[Arthur Collier]], who was also influenced directly by Malebranche, and by Norris, made the same move at around the same time as Berkeley did, but, it would appear, entirely independently of him.) Berkeley, admittedly, did reject the theory of vision in God. "It is evident", he insisted, "that the things I perceive are my own ideas."<ref>''[[Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous]]'', second dialogue.</ref> But he was influenced by Malebranche's occasionalism, even though he excluded the activity of created minds from its domain. In addition, Berkeley agreed with Malebranche, against [[René Descartes|Descartes]], that we could not achieve a clear idea of the mind itself. [[John Locke]] had also argued for this, but he had made no distinction between minds and bodies on this point, whereas both Berkeley and Malebranche maintained (each in his own way) that we could have ideas of bodies but not of minds.

[[Gottfried Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] (who met Malebranche in Paris in about 1675 and corresponded with him thereafter) also rejected the vision in God, and his theory of [[pre-established harmony]] was designed as a new alternative to occasionalism as well as to the more traditional theory of efficient causal interaction. However, in his own [[theodicy]], even if it was somewhat more elaborate than Malebranche's, he did at least agree with Malebranche's fundamental contention that the simplicity of God's ways had to be given as much regard as the world's perfection.

[[David Hume]] supported and drew upon Malebranche's negative arguments to show that no genuine causal connections could be conceived between distinct mundane entities. However, when it came to finding a positive replacement for such causal connections, he turned inwards to the workings of the human mind, instead of turning upwards to God. With regard to this second half of Malebranche's occasionalism, Hume wrote:

:We are got into fairy land, long ere we have reached the last steps of our theory. ...Our line is too short to fathom such immense abysses.<ref>''[[An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding]]'', section 7, part 1.</ref>

Hume's [[empiricist]] [[epistemology]] led him to distrust Malebranche's confidence in discovering abstruse [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] truths through an intellectual union with God. Likewise, Locke felt that Malebranche's metaphysical speculations lacked a proper foundation, and, though ingenious, were ultimately unintelligible. In a somewhat similar manner, [[Arthur Schopenhauer]] regarded the theory of vision in God as "explaining something unknown by something even more unknown."<ref>''Parerga and Paralipomena'', Vol. I, "Sketch of a History of the Doctrine of the Ideal and the Real"</ref>

Locke withheld his "An Examination of P[ère] Malebranche's Opinion Of Seeing All Things In God" from publication, "because he looked upon it to be an opinion that would not spread but was like to die of itself, or at least to do no great harm."<ref>"Advertisement To The Reader" of Locke's ''Posthumous Works''.</ref> Much as Locke predicted, Malebranche's reputation outside France (where he always enjoyed high esteem) did begin to diminish during the 18th century, and remained low thereafter. However, over the last three or four decades, Malebranche's work has drawn renewed and ever-increasing interest. Several of his works have been translated into English for the first time, as scholars have been reassessing his ideas. Many{{who|date=September 2013}} have begun to argue that the originality and unity of his philosophical system merits him a place alongside such figures as Descartes, [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], and Leibniz.