Cette thèse propose une étude du débat entre Descartes et Pierre Bourdin par la reconstruction historique des évènements et par une analyse des concepts qui ressortent de la controverse. Née autour de questions concernant la dioptrique et soulevée par la publication du Discours et des Essais (1637), et en particulier après la soutenance par Charles Potier de trois thèses contre la Dioptrique en 1640, la controverse passe à la fin de 1641 sur le plan métaphysique avec la rédaction par Bourdin d’une Dissertatio qui sera incluse dans la deuxième édition des Méditations (1642) avec l’Épitre au Père Dinet. L’intervention du Père Dinet, précisément, sera décisive pour la résolution de la dispute, qui coïncide avec la publication des Principia Philosophiæ (1644), dont des copies destinées aux jésuites seront distribuées à Paris par Bourdin. Le premier chapitre est consacré aux thèmes de la critique de la Dioptrique à partir du contexte scientifique de Bourdin, en incluant les thèses de certains de ses élèves et trois manuscrits. Dans le deuxième, j’identifie par l’analyse des Objectiones et Responsiones VII un développement essentiel de la critique de Bourdin. De la méthode du doute, où les commentateurs voient généralement l’essentiel de la critique de Bourdin, dépend selon lui la faiblesse de la théorie de la distinction entre l’âme et le corps. Dans le troisième chapitre, par l’analyse de l’Épitre au Père Dinet, je reconstruis la fin de la controverse et les dynamiques qui la lient à la publication des Principia. La transcription d’une Optique, présente dans un des trois manuscrits, conclut la thèse. / This study looks at the controversy between Descartes and Pierre Bourdin, providing a historical reconstruction and analysing the concepts in their debate. The dispute arose after the publication of Discours and Essais (1637) and, particularly, when Charles Potier defended three theses against the Dioptric in 1640. The dispute evolved from the scientific to the metaphysic plane with Bourdin’s redaction of a Dissertatio, which was included in the second edition of Meditations (1642) as the Seventh Set of Objections with Replies and, together with the Letter to Father Dinet, form an Appendix to Meditations. Dinet’s intervention made possible a reconciliation between Descartes and Bourdin, which coincided with the publication of Principia (1644). The first chapter is dedicated to the themes of the critic to the optic starting from Bourdin’s scientific context, using the theses of the students of the Jesuit College and the contents of three manuscripts. In the second chapter, with the analysis of Objections VII, Bourdin’s critic, which is usually considered to have its focus on the method and, precisely, on doubt, undergoes a crucial development concerning the Cartesian demonstration of real distinction. Bourdin identifies the weakness of the theory of real distinction based on the doubt. This chapter also scrutinizes a lecture of Descartes’ answer that underlines points of tension between Meditations and Answers. The third chapter, analysing Letter to Father Dinet, reconstructs the end of controversy and the dynamic that links it to the publication of Principia. A transcription of an Optic from one of three manuscripts concludes the dissertation.

A presente dissertação investiga o argumento da distinção real entre corpo e alma presente nas Meditações Metafísicas. O objetivo central é explicar o motivo pelo qual, nesta obra, a separabilidade entre corpo e alma é posta como condição suficiente para esse tipo de distinção. Para isso, percorre, ao longo das Meditações, os conceitos de alma, de corpo e de percepção clara e distinta. Faz uma análise do argumento da distinção real entre corpo e alma exposto na Sexta Meditação e, em seguida, se utiliza das discussões de Descartes com Caterus e Arnauld presente nas Objeções e Respostas visando a esclarecer pontos do argumento que ainda permanecem obscuros. Mostra, com o estudo das Meditações associado às Objeções e Respostas, que a distinção real é aquela que se dá entre substâncias e que ser substância é ser separável. Assim, sendo o reconhecimento da separabilidade de duas coisas o reconhecimento de que essas coisas são substâncias – e, portanto, de que são realmente distintas – explica, com isso, o motivo pelo qual a separabilidade é condição suficiente para a distinção real entre corpo e alma e conclui que ela lhe é, também, uma condição necessária. / This dissertation investigates the argument of the real distinction between body and soul presented on the Meditations on First Philosophy. The main goal is to explain the reason why the separability between body and soul is considered sufficient condition for this sort of distinction. In order to reach its goal, along the Meditations, it takes the path through the concepts of soul, body and the clear and distinct perception. It analyses the argument of the real distinction between body and soul presented on the Sixth Meditation and afterwards it makes use of Descartes’ discussions with Caterus and Arnauld, presented on Objections and Replies, seeking to clarify points of the argument that yet remain obscure. Studying the Meditations associated with the Objections and Replies, this dissertation shows that the real distinction is the one that happens between substances and that being a substance is being separable. Thus, being the recognition of the separability of two things the recognition of that those things are substances – and, hence, that they are really distinct – it explains the reason why the separability is sufficient condition for the real distinction between body and soul. It concludes that the separability is also a necessary condition to that sort of distinction.

A presente dissertação investiga o argumento da distinção real entre corpo e alma presente nas Meditações Metafísicas. O objetivo central é explicar o motivo pelo qual, nesta obra, a separabilidade entre corpo e alma é posta como condição suficiente para esse tipo de distinção. Para isso, percorre, ao longo das Meditações, os conceitos de alma, de corpo e de percepção clara e distinta. Faz uma análise do argumento da distinção real entre corpo e alma exposto na Sexta Meditação e, em seguida, se utiliza das discussões de Descartes com Caterus e Arnauld presente nas Objeções e Respostas visando a esclarecer pontos do argumento que ainda permanecem obscuros. Mostra, com o estudo das Meditações associado às Objeções e Respostas, que a distinção real é aquela que se dá entre substâncias e que ser substância é ser separável. Assim, sendo o reconhecimento da separabilidade de duas coisas o reconhecimento de que essas coisas são substâncias – e, portanto, de que são realmente distintas – explica, com isso, o motivo pelo qual a separabilidade é condição suficiente para a distinção real entre corpo e alma e conclui que ela lhe é, também, uma condição necessária. / This dissertation investigates the argument of the real distinction between body and soul presented on the Meditations on First Philosophy. The main goal is to explain the reason why the separability between body and soul is considered sufficient condition for this sort of distinction. In order to reach its goal, along the Meditations, it takes the path through the concepts of soul, body and the clear and distinct perception. It analyses the argument of the real distinction between body and soul presented on the Sixth Meditation and afterwards it makes use of Descartes’ discussions with Caterus and Arnauld, presented on Objections and Replies, seeking to clarify points of the argument that yet remain obscure. Studying the Meditations associated with the Objections and Replies, this dissertation shows that the real distinction is the one that happens between substances and that being a substance is being separable. Thus, being the recognition of the separability of two things the recognition of that those things are substances – and, hence, that they are really distinct – it explains the reason why the separability is sufficient condition for the real distinction between body and soul. It concludes that the separability is also a necessary condition to that sort of distinction.

A presente dissertação investiga o argumento da distinção real entre corpo e alma presente nas Meditações Metafísicas. O objetivo central é explicar o motivo pelo qual, nesta obra, a separabilidade entre corpo e alma é posta como condição suficiente para esse tipo de distinção. Para isso, percorre, ao longo das Meditações, os conceitos de alma, de corpo e de percepção clara e distinta. Faz uma análise do argumento da distinção real entre corpo e alma exposto na Sexta Meditação e, em seguida, se utiliza das discussões de Descartes com Caterus e Arnauld presente nas Objeções e Respostas visando a esclarecer pontos do argumento que ainda permanecem obscuros. Mostra, com o estudo das Meditações associado às Objeções e Respostas, que a distinção real é aquela que se dá entre substâncias e que ser substância é ser separável. Assim, sendo o reconhecimento da separabilidade de duas coisas o reconhecimento de que essas coisas são substâncias – e, portanto, de que são realmente distintas – explica, com isso, o motivo pelo qual a separabilidade é condição suficiente para a distinção real entre corpo e alma e conclui que ela lhe é, também, uma condição necessária. / This dissertation investigates the argument of the real distinction between body and soul presented on the Meditations on First Philosophy. The main goal is to explain the reason why the separability between body and soul is considered sufficient condition for this sort of distinction. In order to reach its goal, along the Meditations, it takes the path through the concepts of soul, body and the clear and distinct perception. It analyses the argument of the real distinction between body and soul presented on the Sixth Meditation and afterwards it makes use of Descartes’ discussions with Caterus and Arnauld, presented on Objections and Replies, seeking to clarify points of the argument that yet remain obscure. Studying the Meditations associated with the Objections and Replies, this dissertation shows that the real distinction is the one that happens between substances and that being a substance is being separable. Thus, being the recognition of the separability of two things the recognition of that those things are substances – and, hence, that they are really distinct – it explains the reason why the separability is sufficient condition for the real distinction between body and soul. It concludes that the separability is also a necessary condition to that sort of distinction.

Hervé de Nédellec o.p. joua un rôle de premier plan dans la défense du patrimoine doctrinal de Thomas d’Aquin contre les effets des condamnations de la fin du XIIIe siècle et du début du XIVe siècle. Il a néanmoins défendu une position sur la distinction entre l’être et l’essence divergeant sensiblement de la distinction thomasienne, alors que cet élément se présente comme central à la pensée de l’illustre dominicain. Cette étude vérifie cette divergence et en rend compte, considérant le contexte historique et le rôle assumé par Hervé dans la défense de la pensée de son confrère. Allen (1958) caractérise la perspective hervéenne par son essentialisme et son approche sémantique, ainsi que par le rejet de la distinction réelle (Gilles de Rome et Thomas d’Aquin) et de la distinction intentionnelle (Henri de Gand). Il évoque par ailleurs l’influence de Godefroid de Fontaines, de Siger de Brabant et d’Averroès au regard de la distinction entre l’être et l’essence selon le mode de signifier retenue par Hervé. Ces observations se voient ici confirmées par l’exposé et la comparaison des principes ontologiques assumés par les différentes positions. Il est par le fait même rendu manifeste que Siger de Brabant, Godefroid de Fontaines, Hervé de Nédellec et encore Dietrich de Freiberg, tenants de la distinction sémantique, rejettent les positions adverses en raison de mêmes éléments qu’ils critiquent de celles-ci. La communauté doctrinale entre la distinction selon le mode de signifier et la théorie modiste ainsi que leur source commune dans le Commentaire à la Métaphysique d’Averroès sont par ailleurs mises au jour. Les modistes distinguent le signifié principal et les propriétés concernant (circa) le signifié principal. Dans la perspective sémantique, l’essence, l’étant et l’être sont conçus comme des propriétés concernant le signifié principal à la manière des propriétés circa de la grammaire spéculative. À l’instar des propriétés circa, « essence », « étant » et « être » diffèrent non parce qu’ils signifient différentes déterminations, mais au sens où ils signifient une même chose de différentes façons. L’analyse des objections soulevées par les tenants de la distinction sémantique et des éléments constitutifs de leur position fournit des outils nouveaux pour apprécier la distinction entre l’être et l’essence chez Thomas d’Aquin. Celle-ci se révèle procéder d’un cadre théorique inconciliable avec celui adopté par Hervé de Nédellec. Nous faisons ici valoir que cette liberté doctrinale d’Hervé de Nédellec s’explique par cela que la distinction entre l’être et l’essence n’était pas constitutive du fonds thomasien concerné par les ordonnances d’enseignement dominicaines de la fin du XIIIe siècle et du début du XIVe siècle, notamment puisqu’elle n’a pas été ciblée par les condamnations doctrinales ecclésiales ni par le correctoire de Guillaume de la Mare. / Hervaeus Natalis o.p. played a leading role in defending the doctrinal heritage of Thomas Aquinas against the effects of the condemnations of the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries. Nevertheless, he would have supported a position on the distinction between being and essence which is irreconcilable with the Thomasian distinction, even though this element is central to the thought of the illustrious Dominican. The present study verifies this discrepancy and give an account of it, considering the historical context and the role assumed by Hervaeus in the defence of the thought of his confrere. Allen (1958) characterizes the Hervean perspective by its essentialism and its semantic approach, as well as by the rejection of the real distinction (Giles of Rome and Aquinas) and the intentional distinction (Henri of Ghent). He also evokes the influence of Godfrey of Fontaines, Siger of Brabant and Averroes with regard to the distinction between being (esse) and essence according to the mode of signifying adopted by Hervaeus. These claims are here confirmed by the exposition and comparison of the ontological principles assumed by the different stances. By the same token, it is made clear that Siger of Brabant, Godefroid of Fontaines, Hervaeus Natalis and also Dietrich of Freiberg, the proponents of the semantic distinction, reject the opposing positions on the basis of the same elements that they criticize in them. The doctrinal community between the distinction according to the mode of signifying and the Modist theory, as well as their common source in the Commentary on the Metaphysics of Averroes are also brought to light. The Modists distinguish between the object signified and the properties concerning (circa) the object signified. In the semantic perspective, essence, ens and esse are conceived as properties concerning the object signified in the manner of the circa properties of speculative grammar. Like the circa properties, “essence”, “ens” and “esse” do not differ because they signify different determinations, but they differ in the sense that they signify the same thing in different ways. The analysis of the objections raised by the proponents of the semantic distinction and of the constitutive elements of their position provides new tools for appreciating the distinction between being (esse) and essence in Aquinas. It proves to proceed from a theoretical framework that is irreconcilable with that adopted by Hervaeus. We argue here that this doctrinal freedom of Hervaeus is explained by the fact that the distinction between being (esse) and essence was not constitutive of the Thomasian fund concerned by the Dominican teaching ordinances of the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries, especially since it was not targeted by the ecclesial doctrinal condemnations nor by the correctory of William de la Mare.