Besides the application of the word formal already noticed, viz. (1), in opposition to objective, to denote the object as it exists in nature; and (2) as a synonym for objective in contrast to material, to denote the idea so far as it is a representation, there is still another use of the term in the writings of Descartes and in the Cartesian literature. In this third application, formal is opposed to eminent, and refers to the relation of cause and effect. The contrast indicated by these terms in this relation is in regard to the manner in which a cause is said to contain its effect. A cause, as the sum of the perfection or reality of its effect, may contain this reality in either of two ways, and must in one of them. On the one hand, if the perfection of the effect be contained in the cause in the same mode in which it exists in the effect, or, if the cause be only possessed, in this respect, of equal perfection with the effect, the reality of the effect is said to be in the cause formally (formaliter, q. d. secundum eandem formam et rationem). Thus, the print of the foot has formally the quantity and figure of the foot, and is thus formally in its cause. In the same way, any absolute perfection is formally in God. On the other hand, if the effect be contained in the cause, not as it is in itself, or according to its intrinsic form, essence, or proper definition, but in a higher grade or mode of perfection (gradu, modo eminentiori), it is said to be in its cause eminently. In this sense the Divine intellect contains the human, since God knows, but without the imperfections incident to the exercise of our faculties of cognition, A cause containing eminently thus contains all the reality of the effect more perfectly than the effect itself. This distinction, borrowed from the schoolmen, has an important application, in the philosophy of Descartes, to the question of the proof of the existence of God through his idea.—Con. Med. III, p. 41, etc. Appendix, Def. IV, p. 230; Ax. IV, p. 233. Spinoza, Prin. Phil. Cart., P. I, vol. I, p. 16 (Paulus.). Clauberg. Exercit. VI, p. 613, §§ 5, 6 (Ed. 1691). Flender. Log., § 50. Chauvin, Lex. Rat., voc. Continere. De Vries (Anti-Cart.) Exercit. VI, § 4, pp. 55, 56 (Ed. 1695). ↩
Regius; see La Vie de M. Descartes, reduite en abrege (Baillet). Liv. VII, chap. VII —Tr. ↩
Instead of “local motion,” the French has “existence in any place.” ↩
In the French, “which alone has the power of perceiving, or of being conscious in any other way whatever.” ↩
“As what they represent of their object has more perfection.” —French ↩
After limits, “what of them we do conceive is much less confused. There is, besides, no speculation more calculated to aid in perfecting our understanding, and which is more important than this, inasmuch as the consideration of an object that has no limits to its perfections fills us with satisfaction and assurance.” —French ↩
In the French, “since extension constitutes the nature of body.” ↩
In the French, “because our perceptions arise from impressions made upon us from another source,” i.e., than ourselves. ↩
“To Essay to Comprehend the Infinite.” —French ↩
“We will not stop to consider the ends which God proposed to himself in the creation of the world, and we will entirely reject from our philosophy the search of final causes!” —French ↩
“Faculty of reasoning.” —French ↩
The last clause, beginning “bearing in mind,” is omitted in the French. ↩
Intelligence, understanding (intellectus), is the general name in Cartesian literature of the powers of cognition in contrast to those of will; and in this sense the term comprehends all the acts, whether of sense, memory, imagination, or of intellect proper. But intelligence has, besides its general, a special and restricted signification; and this especially when the qualifying epithet pure is joined with it. Pure intellection (intellectio pura) denotes not knowledge in general, but the knowledge, whether individual or general, of the mental phenomena, and generally of all those objects we are capable
