SearchMy library
← Table of contents
Man a Machine

LA METTRIE’S RELATION TO HIS PREDECESSORS AND TO HIS SUCCESSORS.

Gertrude Carman Bussey translation

I. The Historical Relation of La Mettrie to René Descartes (1596–1650).

IIa. The Likeness of La Mettrie to the English Materialists, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Toland (1670–1721).

The influence of Descartes upon La Mettrie cannot be questioned but it is more difficult to estimate the influence upon him of materialistic philosophers. Hobbes published “The Leviathan” in 1651 and “De Corpore” in 1655. Thus he wrote about a century before La Mettrie, and since the eighteenth century was one in which the influence of England upon France was very great, it is easy to suppose that La Mettrie had read Hobbes. If so, he must have gained many ideas from him. The extent of this influence is, however, unknown, for La Mettrie rarely if ever quotes from Hobbes, or attributes any of his doctrines to Hobbes.

La Mettrie’s system may be regarded as the application of a system like that of Hobbes to the special problem of the relation of soul and body in man; for if there is nothing in the universe but matter and motion, it inevitably follows that man is merely a very complicated machine.

There is great similarity also between the doctrine of La Mettrie and that of Toland. It is interesting to note the points of resemblance and of difference. Toland’s “Letters to Serena,” which contain much of his philosophical teaching, were published in 1704. There is a possibility therefore that La Mettrie read them and gained some suggestions from them.

It must be admitted, in truth, that La Mettrie and Toland have different interests and different points of view. Toland is concerned to discover the essential nature of matter, while La Mettrie’s problem is to find the specific relation of body and mind. On this relation, he builds his whole system.

b. The Relation of La Mettrie to an English Sensationalist: John Locke (1632–1704).

IIIa. The Likeness, probable but unacknowledged, to La Mettrie, of the French Sensationalists, Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715–1780) and Claude Adrien Helvetius (1715–1771).

Condillac’s “Traité des sensations” was published about ten years after La Mettrie’s “L’histoire naturelle de l’âme,” and therefore it is probable that Condillac had read this work, and gained some ideas from it. Yet Condillac never mentions La Mettrie’s name nor cites his doctrines. This omission may be accounted for by the fact that the works of La Mettrie had been so condemned that later philosophers wished to conceal the similarity of their doctrines to his. Whether the sensationalists were influenced by his teachings or not, there is such a profound likeness in their teachings, that La Mettrie may well be regarded as one of the first French sensationalists as well as one of the leading French materialists of the time.

b. The Likeness to La Mettrie of the French Materialist, Baron Paul Heinrich Dietrich von Holbach (1723–1789).

As Condillac and Helvetius emphasize the sensationalism taught by La Mettrie, so Holbach’s book is a reiteration and elaboration of the materialism set forth in La Mettrie’s works. The teaching of Holbach is so like that of La Mettrie, that the similarity can hardly be a coincidence.

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · “L’histoire naturelle de l’âme,” chapters XI, VIII. ↑Note 2 · “Man a Machine,” p. 142. Cf. La Mettrie’s commentary on Descartes’s teaching in “Abrégé des systèmes philosophiques,” Œuvres, Tome 2. ↑Note 3 · “Abrégé des systèmes, Descartes,” p. 6, Œuvres Philosophiques, Tome 2. ↑Note 4 · “Man a Machine,” page 89. Cf. “L’histoire naturelle de l’âme” (or “Traité de l’âme”), Œuvres, 1746, p. 229. ↑Note 5 · Descartes, “Principles,” Part II, Prop. 4. ↑Note 6 · “Man a Machine,” pp. 122–126. ↑Note 7 · Ibid., p. 142. ↑Note 8 · Hobbes, “Leviathan,” Part III, Chap. 34; Part I, Chap. XII, Open Court Edition, p. 169. ↑Note 9 · “L’histoire naturelle de l’âme,” Chapters III, V, and VI. ↑Note 10 · “Leviathan,” Part I, Chap. I. Cf. “Concerning Body,” Part IV, Chap. XXV, 2. ↑Note 11 · “Man a Machine,” pp. 90–91. ↑Note 12 · “Leviathan,” Part I, Chap. VI, Molesworth Ed., p. 40. Cf. “Man a Machine,” p. 90. ↑Note 13 · Ibid., Part I, Chap. IV. Cf. “Man a Machine,” p. 103. ↑Note 14 · Ibid., Part I, Chap. XII. ↑Note 15 · “Letters to Serena,” V, p. 168. ↑Note 16 · Ibid., p. 196. ↑Note 17 · Ibid., p. 203. ↑Note 18 · Ibid., p. 199. ↑Note 19 · “L’histoire naturelle de l’âme,” Chap. V, p. 94. ↑Note 20 · “Man a Machine,” p. 139. ↑Note 21 · “Man a Machine,” p. 140. ↑Note 22 · “Letters to Serena,” V, p. 227. ↑Note 23 · Ibid., V, p. 234. ↑Note 24 · John Locke, “Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” Book I, Book II, Chap. I. ↑Note 25 · Locke, “Essay,” Book II, Chap. 8. ↑Note 26 · Ibid., Book II, Chap. 23. ↑Note 27 · Ibid., Book IV, Chap. 10. For La Mettrie’s summary of Locke, cf. his “Abrégé des systèmes,” Œuvres, Tome 2. ↑Note 28 · F. A. Lange, “History of Materialism,” Vol. II, Chap. II. ↑Note 29 · “Traité des sensations,” Part I. ↑Note 30 · “Traité des animaux,” Chap. I, p. 454. ↑Note 31 · “Traité des animaux,” Chap. VI, p. 577 ff. ↑Note 32 · “Treatise on Man,” Sect. II, Chap. I, p. 96. ↑Note 33 · Ibid., Sect. II, Chap. II, p. 108. ↑Note 34 · “Essays on the Mind,” Essay II, Chap. I, p. 35. ↑Note 35 · “Treatise on Man,” Chap. XII, p. 161. ↑Note 36 · Ibid., Chap. IX, p. 146; Chap. VII, p. 129. ↑Note 37 · “Système de la nature,” Vol. I, Chap. I, p. 6. ↑Note 38 · “Système de la nature,” Vol. I, Chap. VI, p. 94. ↑Note 39 · Ibid., Vol. II, Chap. XVI, p. 451, and Chap. XXVI, p. 485. Cf. “Man a Machine,” pp. 125–126. ↑Note 40 · The most direct source of La Mettrie’s work, if the physiological aspect of his system is set aside, is found in the philosophy of DescartesNote 41 · It should be noted that La Mettrie did justice to Descartes, and realized how much all philosophers owed to him. He insisted moreover that DNote 42 · In the first place, both Hobbes and La Mettrie are thoroughgoing materialists. They both believe that body is the only reality, and that anyNote 43 · Hobbes differs from La Mettrie in holding that we can be sure that God exists as the cause of this world.14 However even though he thinks thNote 44 · The point most emphasized in Toland’s teaching15 is that motion is an attribute of matter. He argues for this belief on the ground that mattNote 45 · Another point of contrast between Toland and La Mettrie is in their doctrines of God. Toland believes that God, “a pure spirit or immaterialNote 46 · Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” was published in 1690, and La Mettrie, like most cultured Frenchmen of the Enlightenment, wasNote 47 · Condillac and La Mettrie agree that experience is the source of all knowledge. As Lange suggests,28 La Mettrie’s development of reason from Note 48 · Both La Mettrie and Condillac believe that there is no gulf between man and the lower animals; but this leads to a point of disagreement betNote 49 · Like La Mettrie and Condillac, Helvetius teaches that all the faculties of the mind can be reduced to sensation.32 Unlike La Mettrie, he speNote 50 · La Mettrie and Helvetius resemble each other in ethical doctrine. Both make pleasure and pain the ruling motives of man’s conduct. They claiNote 51 · La Mettrie regards experience as the only teacher. Holbach dwells on this same idea, and insists that experience is our only source of knowlNote 52 · Holbach’s atheistic theology is more extreme than his predecessor’s, for La Mettrie admits that God may exist, while Holbach vigorously oppo
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.
ChatGPTPerplexityGrok

Reading settings