ABSTRACT
The crucial issue is whether N. Malebranche's conception of necessary connection requires a cause to be sufficient in itself to bring about an effect. Malebranche, given his occasionalism, obviously would deny that the created substances possess any real causal powers. According to Walter Ott, commentators such as Steven Nadler and Nicholas Jolley have erred in thinking that Malebranche is conflating the two types of necessity in the 'no necessary connection' (NNC) argument. Malebranche, as the arch occasionalist, naturally would want to resist such powers in creatures, but remember that occasionalism is the conclusion he needs to establish, and this is why he is presenting NNC in the first place. That is, were Malebranche to assume occasionalism in order to support premise, this would be a blatant case of circular reasoning. The textual evidence and its natural reading strongly suggest that Malebranche had omnipotence, rather than intentionality or omniscience, in mind when contemplating necessary connections.
