In the New Essays on Human Understanding, Leibniz argues chapter by chapter with John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, challenging his views about knowledge, personal identity, God, morality, mind and matter, nature versus nurture, logic and language, and a host of other topics. The work is a series of sharp, deep discussions by one great philosopher of the work of another. Leibniz's references to his contemporaries and his discussions of the ideas and institutions of the age make this a fascinating (...) and valuable document in the history of ideas. The work was originally written in French, and the version by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett, based on the only reliable French edition (published in 1962), first appeared in 1981 and has become the standard English translation. It has been thoroughly revised for this series and provided with a new and longer introduction, a chronology on Leibniz's life and career and a guide to further reading. (shrink)
An English translation of a draft essay by Leibniz from 1715, in which Leibniz argues for the conclusion: "if humanity endured long enough in its current state, a time would arrive when the same life of individuals would return, bit by bit, through the very same circumstances. I myself, for example, would be living in a city called Hannover located on the Leine river, occupied with the history of Brunswick, and writing letters to the same friends with the same meaning.".
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION T JLJe1bn1z was above all things a metaphysician. That does not mean that his head was in the clouds, or that the particular sciences ...
Offering an invaluable introduction to Leibniz's philosophy, this volume collects many of his most important texts, beginning with the Discourse on Metaphysics (1686), which marks the beginning of maturity in his ideas, and ending with the Monadology (1714), which was written in response to requests for a systematic, organized account of his overall philosophy. Also included in this volume are critical reactions to Leibniz's work by his contemporaries (Antoine Arnauld, Pierre Bayle, and Simon Foucher), together with Leibniz's responses. All the (...) texts are newly translated into English for this edition, and each is preceded by a summary explaining its background, structure, and content. (shrink)
1. A substance is a being that is capable of action. It is either •simple, meaning that it has no parts, or •composite, meaning that it is a collection of simple substances or monads. (Monas is a Greek word meaning ‘unity’ or ‘oneness’.) Any composite thing—any body—is a multiplicity, ·a many, but simple substances are unities, ·or ones·. There must be simple substances everywhere, because without simples there would be no composites—·without ones there could not be manies·. And simple substances (...) are lives, souls, minds—·where there is a simple substance there is life·—and the world’s being full of such substances means that the whole of nature is full of life. (shrink)
Beyond the world, i.e. beyond the collection of finite things, there is some one being who rules, not only as the soul is the ruler in me (or, to put it better, as the self is the ruler in my body), but also in a much higher way. For the one being who rules the universe doesn’t just •govern the world but also •builds or makes it. He is above the world and outside it, so to speak, and therefore he (...) is the ultimate reason for things. ·That follows because •he is the only extramundane thing, i.e. the only thing that exists out of the world; and •nothing in the world could be the ultimate reason for things. I now explain that second premise·. We can’t find in any individual thing, or even in the entire collection and series of things, a sufficient reason why they exist. Suppose that a book on the elements of geometry has always existed, each copy made from an earlier one, ·with no first copy·. We can.. (shrink)
Controversies are boiling these days among distinguished men over true and false ideas. This is an issue of great importance for recognizing truth—an issue on which Descartes himself is not altogether satisfactory. So I want to explain briefly what I think can be established about the distinctions and criteria that relate to ideas and knowledge. [Here and in..
1. A substance is a being that is capable of action. It is either •simple, meaning that it has no parts, or •composite, meaning that it is a collection of simple substances or monads. (Monas is a Greek word meaning ‘unity’ or ‘oneness’.) Any composite thing—any body—is a multiplicity, ·a many, but simple substances are unities, ·or ones·. There must be simple substances everywhere, because without simples there would be no composites—·without ones there could not be manies·. And simple substances (...) are lives, souls, minds—·where there is a simple substance there is life·—and the world’s being full of such substances means that the whole of nature is full of life. (shrink)
LEIBNIZ AND THE TWO SOPHIES is a critical edition of all of the philosophically important material from the correspondence between the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) and his two royal patronesses, Electress Sophie of Hanover (1630-1714), and her daughter, Queen Sophie Charlotte of Prussia (1668-1705). In this correspondence, Leibniz expounds in a very accessible way his views on topics such as the nature and operation of the mind, innate knowledge, the afterlife, ethics, and human nature. The correspondence also contains the (...) only known philosophical writings by Sophie and Sophie Charlotte, and thus provides a valuable insight into their views and concerns, as well as throwing light on their characters. The texts are accompanied by a substantial introductory essay which sets the context for the correspondence and analyzes its main philosophical themes. (shrink)
_Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays_ contains complete translations of the two essays that constitute the best introductions to Leibniz's complex thought: Discourse on Metaphysics of 1686 and Monadology of 1714. These are supplemented with two essays of special interest to the student of modern philosophy, On the Ultimate Origination of Things of 1697 and the Preface to his New Essays of 1703-1705.
Leibniz construit, teste et vérifie sans cesse la pertinence et la cohérence de sa philosophie en la rapportant aux conclusions des autres disciplines. Cette méthode heuristique nourrit son dialogue avec les sciences mathématiques et physiques; moins connus, les enjeux révélés par la réforme moderne de la médecine et de la chimie suscitent une interrogation sur la vie et la qualité. Ces sciences expérimentales s’avèrent en effet cruciales pour une philosophie de la nature qui cherche à concilier le mécanisme et le (...) finalisme à travers les concepts d’entéléchie et de monade. Elles obligent en outre à préciser la logique de l’expérience, la fonction de la raison, le statut des principes explicatifs . Enfin, elles exigent un fondement qui permette de rapporter les phénomènes organiques à leur véritable origine : la vie. Ce programme se réalise de façon systématique dans la controverse qu’entretiennent Leibniz er Stahl au sujet d’une philosophie de la nature capable de prendre acte des découvertes modernes de la médecine et de la chimie, tout en fondant ces connaissances sur une théorie générale de la substance et de la vie. (shrink)
Le Discours de métaphysique de 1686 offre, dans la densité de son texte, une synthèse de réflexions jusqu’alors dispersées. Par lui-même, il constitue un exposé d’ensemble – le premier en date et sans nul doute l’un des plus complets – où se trouve ramassée en formules singulièrement fortes une doctrine que reprendront bientôt d’innombrables opuscules et qui inspirera plus tard les grandes œuvres de la vieillesse : il en présente, sous une forme serrée, tous les thèmes essentiels.De 1686 à 1690, (...) il se prolonge par une série de lettres, quelquefois fort longues et toujours très riches, dont le but immédiat est de répondre à quelques objections d’Arnauld, mais dont le développement donne occasion à des reprises ou à des commentaires d’une importance majeure : rien n’éclaire de façon plus profonde l’ouvrage lui-même.On ne peut comprendre le Discours de métaphysique, dans toute sa richesse et sa plénitude, qu’à condition de ne pas le séparer de la Correspondance qui lui fait suite. (shrink)
