In Pierre-Francois Moreau & Mogens Laerke (eds.), Spinoza et Leibniz (forthcoming)
|Abstract||That Leibniz finds the philosophy of Spinoza horrifyingly wrong is obvious to anyone who reads Leibniz’s work; that Leibniz finds Spinozism so seductive that his own system is in danger of collapsing into it is less obvious but, I believe, equally true. The difference here is not so much between an exoteric and an esoteric philosophy suggested by Russell2 but between a thorough-going rationalism on the part of Spinoza and Leibniz’s “mitigated rationalism” – mitigated by the exigencies of his orthodox Christianity. In other words, it is Leibniz’s traditional view of the nature of God and his creatures that leads him to abhor Spinoza’s vision, while his own commitment to a number of principles and ideas pushes him to rationalism. And if Kant is right that the mind naturally desires a system, then Leibniz ought to see the Spinozistic consequences of many of his philosophical principles. Of course, there is nothing new in saying that the God of Spinoza and the God of Leibniz are fundamentally different, but I believe that if we focus on Leibniz’s critique of Spinoza’s account of the nature of God and a constellation of related concepts, we can come to a deeper understanding of the thought of both philosophers|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
P. -F. Moreau (1988). Les Enjeux de la Publication En France des Papiers de Leibniz Sur Spinoza. Revue de Métaphysique Et de Morale 93 (2):215 - 222.
Mogens Laerke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv Fuer Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58 - 84.
Mogens Lærke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58-84.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1976). Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays. University of Notre Dame Press.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1972). Leibniz. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Books.
Michael V. Griffin (2012). Leibniz, God and Necessity. Cambridge University Press.
Ursula Goldenbaum (2007). Why Shouldn't Leibniz Have Studied Spinoza? The Leibniz Review 17:107-138.
David Werther (1996). Leibniz and the Possibility of God's Existence. Religious Studies 32 (1):37 - 48.
Yitzhak Melamed (forthcoming). “Spinoza, Tschirnhaus Et Leibniz: Qu’Est Un Monde?“. In Raphaële Andrault Pierre-François Moreau (ed.), Spinoza et Leibniz. Ecole Normale Superieure Editions.
Ursula Goldenbaum (unknown). Why Shouldn't Leibniz Have Studied Spinoza?: The Rise of the Claim of Continuity in Leibniz' Philosophy Out of the Ideological Rejection of Spinoza's Impact on Leibniz. :107-138.
Ohad Nachtomy (2011). A Tale of Two Thinkers, One Meeting, and Three Degrees of Infinity: Leibniz and Spinoza (1675–8). British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (5):935-961.
Nicholas Okrent (2000). Leibniz on Substance and God in “That a Most Perfect Being Is Possible”. Philosophy and Theology 12 (1):79-93.
David Werther (1995). Leibniz on Cartesian Omnipotence and Contingency. Religious Studies 31 (1):23 - 36.
Mark A. Kulstad (2008). Newton, Spinoza, Stoics and Others. The Leibniz Review 18:81-121.
Ian Leask (2012). Unholy Force: Toland's Leibnizian 'Consummation' of Spinozism. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (3):499-537.
Added to index2010-12-05
Total downloads55 ( #21,887 of 722,708 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,343 of 722,708 )
How can I increase my downloads?