69

The point here is to question the radicality of the rejection of substantial forms in Descartes and his successors, notably Malebranche and Arnauld. After recalling the Cartesian motives of this rejection and the exception that is the human body as linked to the soul—an exception that makes it possible to distinguish the features of a “critical Aristotelianism” specific to Descartes—(§ 1), we study its Malebranchist radicalization beyond the limits fixed by Descartes himself (§ 2); for Arnauld, all that remains is to confuse “representative beings” and “substantial forms,” to return to Malebranche again by default (§ 3). Thus, far from being an obvious position shared by the Cartesians, the rejection of substantial forms is an internal issue within the Cartesian school.