Is Descartes' evil spirit finite or infinite?

Abstract

*University of Georgia, U.S.A. 1 Sophia, XVII, 3 (October, 1978), p. 33. Hereafter referred to as "DGES." 2 See Richard Kennington, "The Finitude of Descartes' Evil Genius," Journal of the History of Ideas, XXXI[ (1971), 441--446, who invokes the linguistic differences as partial evidence for his contention that Cartesian doubt was not intended to be universal. 3 Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Charles Adams and Paul Tannery (Paris, 18971913), VII, p. 21. Hereafter referred to as AT. 4 AT VII, pp. 40 & 45, respectively. s AT VII, pp. 22, 25 and 26, respectively. In reply to Kennington, Hiram Caton notes "A genlurn is mentioned in only one of the three passages Kennington cites: the others speak only of a 'deceiver'. It follows that the only strict textual evidence against the omnipotence of the demons must be drawn from that passage [i.e., from summe poteus in AT VII, 22] ." See "Kennington on Descartes' Evil Genius." Journal of the History of ideas, XXXIV (1973), 639. I agree with Kennington in identifying the deceiver with the evil spirit, and I assume that Elliot and Smith do so also. See "Reply to Caton," Ibid., 641.