Leibniz: Metaphysics

Adams presents an in-depth interpretation of three important parts of Leibniz's metaphysics, thoroughly grounded in the texts as well as in philosophical analysis and critique. The three areas discussed are the metaphysical part of Leibniz's philosophy of logic, his essentially theological treatment of the central issues of ontology, and his theory of substance. Adams' work helps make sense of one of the great classic systems of modern philosophy.

Recent influential interpreters have argued that the philosophy of body that prevails in Leibniz's writings from the 1680' s to about 1704 is both more Aristotelian and less idealistic than the ' monadology' of his last years. It is argued here that the Aristotelian terminology of matter and form which is undoubtedly prominent in the work of Leibniz's ' middle years' was understood by him in a sense that is consistent with the monadology. The monadology is foreshadowed, moreover, in important (...) arguments against the Cartesian thesis that extension is the essence of corporeal substance. Leibniz can be seen as a sort of realist in physics, in contrast with occasionalists. But what is important in that contrast is not so much the reality of matter, as the reality of form, which Leibniz interpreted in terms of the active powers of soul-like substances. (shrink)

Este ensayo busca evaluar la optimista afirmación de Leibniz según la cual el nuestro es el “mejor de los mundos posibles”. para ello, se intenta leerla a la luz del contexto original del cual se extrae dicha frase, es decir, adentrarse aunque sea brevemente en el sistema que Leibniz formuló para rastrear los motivos que lo llevaron a expresarse de ese modo. en suma, se intenta comprender no solo el sentido de dicha frase, sino (en contra de voltaire quizá) al (...) propio Leibniz, o en todo caso, a su optimismo. Con eso en mente, primero se plantea la tesis leibniziana de la multiplicidad de mundos posibles (§1), para preguntarse luego por qué, de entre ellos, nuestro mundo habría de ser el mejor, lo cual conduce a examinar el principio de razón suficiente (§2). Al hacerlo aparece inevitablemente el tema de dios, lo cual motiva a su vez la pregunta de por qué dios eligió crear este mundo en particular en vez de otro (§3). Finalmente se vincula la armonía preestablecida con el optimismo. (shrink)

L'inédite que nous offrons ici, c'est un écrit de Leibniz où il fait mention des affirmations et problèmes qu'il a eu présent dans sa théorie de la continuité. Il est donc un inventaire détaillé des fonts leibniziennes avec rapport au continu. Nonobstant, plus que fermer les discussions autour de ce qu'on a coutume d'appeller les que Leibniz a reçu, cette édition peut ouvrir nouvelles lignes de recherche, à cause de la nature, quelque fois surprenant, des fonts cités.

In this work I critically examine three basic characteristics of the Leibnizian metaphysical system, and study and evaluate their interconnections. In chapter I I discuss Leibniz's version of representation, especially as it refers to the connection between the real and the phenomenal levels of his system. In chapter II I examine Leibniz's principle of continuity. Additionally, continuity as a general feature of every level of Leibniz's metaphysics is critically appraised. The position adopted is that the problem of the composition of (...) the continuum played a central role in the development of Leibniz's non-spatial and non-temporal monadic metaphysics. In chapter III the machinery developed in chapter I and II is used to give a new interpretation of Leibniz's metaphysics of space and time. More specifically, the notion of indirect representation is used and appropriate models are constructed which clarify the nature of the correspondence between the real and the phenomenal levels in the case of the relations of "spatially between" and "temporally between", as well as in the cases of spatial and temporal density. Finally, Leibniz's solution to the problem of the composition of the continuum is discussed. I argue that such a solution is not entirely satisfactory and propose a non-anachronistic alternative which is compatible with Leibniz's metaphysics of substance. (shrink)

Leibniz’s Confessio philosophi (1672–1673) appears to provide an anti-necessitarian solution to the problem of the author of sin. I will give here a brief reading of what appear to be two solutions to the problem of the author of sin in the Confessio. The first solution appears to commit Leibniz’s spokesman (the Philosopher) to necessitarianism. The Theologian (Leibniz’s interlocutor) objects to this necessitarianism, prompting the Philosopher to offer a modified version that appears to exorcise this doctrine. As it turns out, (...) Leibniz holds that these two solutions are in fact the same. I will thus conclude by reconciling these solutions, arguing for giving priority to the more radical first solution. I will argue for this by looking at the connections between the Confessio philosophi and some of Leibniz’s other works in its genre around its time. It will be argued that Leibniz does not find the necessitarianism, which references to per se contingencies are supposed to solve, to be problematic in 1673. (shrink)

Leibniz is recognized as having promoted a dispositional theory of innate metaphysical ideas. We get our concept of substance, for example, by thinking about what we are immediately aware of in ourselves. The same is true of other metaphysical concepts, such as being, unity, activity, etc. It is the purpose of this study to work out the details of his theory, so far as this is possible. ;Leibniz argues that we cannot be aware of ourselves, that is, reflect, without thinking (...) of ourselves in certain ways, for in reflection we recognize immediately that certain things are true of us. He does not claim that what we come to know as the metaphysical concepts arise full-blown as soon as we are conscious, but rather that we arrive at them through a process of articulating what is implicit in every act of self-awareness. In this process we make use of whatever tools of analysis are available also from logic and the sciences. He argues that the process of articulating the metaphysical concepts demands their subjection to an empirical test: our concepts are valid only if we can find an object of experience to which they apply. For the metaphysical concepts this demand is answered mainly in reflection, for there is no reality known to us more intimately than ourselves. ;Chapters are organized as follows: An analysis of what I call Leibniz's transcendental argument, to the effect that we could not be aware of ourselves unless we were substances. This leads to a discussion of what he calls the primitive truths of fact , the originary objects of self-awareness. Leibniz's theory in historical perspective. I try to show that he wanted to reconcile the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions on self-awareness. I examine the lists of metaphysical concepts he claims are derived from reflection, and seek clues as to his position from the expressions he uses in the passages which contain them. The relation between reason and reflection: how they arise together in the human mind as it emerges into consciousness from its prior conditions. I discuss his concepts of expression, perception, sensation, and thought. I examine each of the basic metaphysical concepts: unity, identity, duration, being and existence, activity, and substance, to see what each owes to reflection. I also discuss his claim that all thought uses characters, his concept of similarity, and his use of analogy in metaphysics. (shrink)

Dans cet ouvrage, Marc Parmentier entreprend une étude des Nouveaux essais dont l’originalité est à la fois de ne pas adopter le seul point de vue leibnizien et de tenir compte de la diversité des objets philosophiques abordés dans ce monumental ouvrage. La thèse centrale qui guide l’auteur dans cette entreprise est la suivante : les Nouveaux essais ne doivent pas être lus comme un simple dialogue philosophique, mais plutôt comme une « intrigue philosophique ». Elle permet de faire droit (...) au c.. (shrink)

How to reconcile monadic simplicity with the successive plurality of the monadic states ? The doctrine of continued creation seems to entail the existence of independent temporal parts and thus lead to the thesis that the world contains only transitory things. I try to show how Leibniz has the resources to get out of this quandary. The analysis of the concept of extension shows that a plurality of states does not constitute a divisible aggregate. Then I examine the Leibnizian interpretation (...) of continued creation, by com- paring it to the scholastic and Cartesian Background. From thence I conclude that Leibniz’s final thesis is that monads are wholly present at each moment of their duration. (shrink)

This paper examines the problem of the basis of time’s asymmetry. I hold the view that there is an objective temporal asymmetry in Leibniz’s philosophy of time. I closely examine various asymmetrical phenomena, which can be candidates as an explanation of time’s asymmetry: (1) causation; (2) the flow of time; (3) the modal difference between past and present; (4) counterfactual dependence; and, finally (5) the asymmetry of the world’s progress and its direction and (6) of the progress of rational creatures. (...) I conclude that time’s asymmetry involves an irreducibly pragmatic aspect: the asymmetry of agency itself on which all other asymmetrical phenomena rely. (shrink)

This article bears on the topic of the temporal persistence of particulars in Leibniz's philosophy. It is focused on an analysis of some passages from definitional notes from the early 1680's where Leibniz sets out his main metaphysical theses. The paper contends that Leibniz analysed the identity of substances within a broadly Aristotelian framework, i. e. in terms of enduring metaphysical items (which are identical and wholly present at each moment of the particular's existence). It thus opposes an explanation in (...) terms of an atemporal substantial form, or law, causally unifying instantaneous states. Moreover it will be shown that (i) while Leibniz had some important insights into the possibility of what recent philosophers labelled a "perdurantist" account of persistence, (ii) he nevertheless had strong reasons given other theses of his system to reject an ontology of aggregates made of temporal parts in favour of a traditional, "endurantist" conception. (shrink)

This paper employs the revised conception of Leibniz emerging from recent research to reassess critically the ‘radical spiritual revolution’ which, according to Alexandre Koyré’s landmark book, From the closed world to the infinite universe was precipitated in the seventeenth century by the revolutions in physics, astronomy, and cosmology. While conceding that the cosmological revolution necessitated a reassessment of the place of value-concepts within cosmology, it argues that this reassessment did not entail a spiritual revolution of the kind assumed by Koyré, (...) in which ‘value-concepts, such as perfection, harmony, meaning and aim’ were shed from the conception of the structure of the universe altogether. On the contrary, thanks to his pioneering intuition of the distinction between physical and metaphysical levels of explanation, Leibniz saw with great clarity that a scientific explanation of the universe which rejected the ‘closed world’ typical of Aristotelian cosmology did not necessarily require the abandonment of key metaphysical doctrines underlying the Aristotelian conception of the universe. Indeed the canon of value-concepts mentioned by Koyré—meaning, aim, perfection and harmony—reads like a list of the most important concepts underlying the Leibnizian conception of the metaphysical structure of the universe. Moreover, Leibniz’s universe, far from being a universe without God—because, as Clarke insinuated, it does not need intervention from God—is a universe which in its deepest ontological fabric is interwoven with the presence of God.Author Keywords: Leibniz; Koyré; Clarke; Universe; Cosmology; Harmony. (shrink)

This paper aims to show that a proper understanding of what Leibniz meant by “hypercategorematic infinite” sheds light on some fundamental aspects of his conceptions of God and of the relationship between God and created simple substances or monads. After revisiting Leibniz’s distinction between (i) syncategorematic infinite, (ii) categorematic infinite, and (iii) actual infinite, I examine his claim that the hypercategorematic infinite is “God himself” in conjunction with other key statements about God. I then discuss the issue of whether the (...) hypercategorematic infinite is a “whole”, comparing the four kinds of infinite outlined by Leibniz in 1706 with the three degrees of infinity outlined in 1676. In the last section, I discuss the relationship between the hypercategorematic infinite and created simple substances. I conclude that, for Leibniz, only a being beyond all determinations but eminently embracing all determinations can enjoy the pure positivity of what is truly infinite while constituting the ontological grounding of all things. (shrink)

This paper explores the development of Leibniz’s metaphysics of the Incarnation in the context of his philosophy. In particular it asks to what extent Leibniz’s repeated endorsement of the traditional analogy between the union in humankind of soul (mind) and body, and the union in Christ of divine and human natures, could be accommodated by his more general metaphysical doctrines. Such an investigation highlights some of the deepest commitments in Leibniz’s theory of substance as well as detect in it some (...) unresolved tensions. The paper comes to the conclusion that puzzling points of Leibniz’s metaphysics of the Incarnation, rather than being problems specific to his theology, uncover tensions in his theory of substance as such – tensions converging on the vexed question of whether there can or cannot be genuine corporeal substances in Leibniz’s mature philosophy. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that, in Leibniz’s mature metaphysics, primary matter is not a positive constituent which must be added to the form in order to have a substance. Primary matter is merely a way to express the negation of some further perfection. It does not have a positive ontological status and merely indicates the limitation or imperfection of a substance. To be sure, Leibniz is less than explicit on this point, and in many texts he writes as if (...) primary matter were a positive constituent of a substance. It seems to me, however, that the view most in keeping with the thrust of his mature philosophical system is that captured by a striking remark of 1695: “Materia rerum est nihilum: id est limitatio [The matter of things is nothing: that is, limitation].” This becomes especially apparent in texts showing that Leibniz’s conception of primary matter corresponds to his conception of creaturely limitation. I start by discussing the notion of primary matter in the scholastic tradition. I then show that although Leibniz places the scholastic terminology of primary matter at a crucial juncture of his metaphysics, he thinks of primary matter in a way which significantly deviates from earlier scholastic views. I conclude that despite his adoption of distinctive terminology of Aristotelian scholasticism, instead of holding a broadly Aristotelian concept of primary matter as the ultimate subject of inherence, Leibniz thinks of primary matter according to a Neoplatonic blue-print in which matter is non-being, privation, mere absence of perfection. (shrink)

The category of metaphysical evil introduced by Leibniz appears to cast a sinister shadow over the goodness of creation. It seems to imply that creatures, simply in virtue of not being gods, are to some degree intrinsically and inescapably evil. After briefly unpacking this difficulty and outlining a recent attempt to deal with it, this paper returns to the texts to propose a novel and multilayered understanding of Leibniz’s category of metaphysical evil by reading it against the backdrop of the (...) traditional typologies of evil with which he was unquestionably familiar. It comes to the conclusion that metaphysical evil plays two key roles for Leibniz. First, it captures what Aquinas and especially Suarez meant by ‘natural evil’. Contrary to the common assumption that it is Leibniz’s category of physical evil that holds the place of natural evil, the paper shows that Leibniz’s physical evil corresponds to Augustine’s category of evil of punishment for sin whereas natural evil – intended as a kind of evil which is not related to moral responsibility -- is subsumed under metaphysical evil. Secondly, the category of metaphysical evil covers also the notion of original creaturely imperfection. In classifying creaturely limitation as a kind of evil Leibniz breaks from the Augustinian-Thomist-Scholastic tradition and its distinction between negatio and privatio. On the other hand, notwithstanding this important break, Leibniz’s notion of metaphysical evil is intended to account for something which is firmly within the broadly Augustinian-Scholastic tradition, namely the ascription to all creatures of a limitation that stems from their being created ex nihilo. Finally, the paper returns a verdict of non-guilty to the charge that Leibniz’s metaphysical evil implies that creatures qua creatures are to some extent necessarily intrinsically evil. More generally, in typical Leibnizian fashion, the notion of metaphysical evil will appear to be a complex mix of indebtedness to tradition and bending of received doctrines into something significantly different. (shrink)

Over the past decades a number of scholars have identified Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld as one of the most decisive early influences on Leibniz. In particular, the impressive similarity between their conceptions of universal harmony has been stressed. Since the issue of relations is at the heart of both Bisterfeld and Leibniz’s doctrines of universal harmony, the extent of the similarity between their doctrines will depend, however, on Bisterfeld and Leibniz’s respective theories of relations, and especially on their ontologies of relations. (...) This paper attempts to determine in more detail whether Bisterfeld’s ontology of relations contains at least the germ of the defining features of the ontology of relations later developed by Leibniz. It comes to the conclusion that, although Bisterfeld’s theory of relations is not as fully developed and explicit as that of Leibniz, it does contain all the key “ingredients” of it. (shrink)

Over the past decades a number of scholars have identified Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld as one of the most decisive early influences on Leibniz. In particular, the impressive similarity between their conceptions of universal harmony has been stressed. Since the issue of relations is at the heart of both Bisterfeld and Leibniz’s doctrines of universal harmony, the extent of the similarity between their doctrines will depend, however, on Bisterfeld and Leibniz’s respective theories of relations, and especially on their ontologies of relations. (...) This paper attempts to determine in more detail whether Bisterfeld’s ontology of relations contains at least the germ of the defining features of the ontology of relations later developed by Leibniz. It comes to the conclusion that, although Bisterfeld’s theory of relations is not as fully developed and explicit as that of Leibniz, it does contain all the key “ingredients” of it. (shrink)

This paper approaches the question of Levinas' relation to philosophy by situating his understanding of transcendence next to that of Leibniz. After offering some preliminary examples, I detail the structure of transcendence in the philosophies of Leibniz and Levinas, focusing on Leibniz's Principles of Nature and Grace and Levinas’ Essence and Disinterestedness. From here, I return to the question of whether Levinas’ thinking can be regarded as moving beyond philosophy as such. I conclude with some thoughts on what it would (...) take for a thinking of transcendence to genuinely move past the maneuvers so characteristic of philosophical thinking. (shrink)

The causal theory, by J. Locke.--Phenomenalism, by G. Berkeley.--Skepticism, by D. Hume.--Traditional rationalism, by G. W. Leibniz.--Critical rationalism, by I. Kant.--Empiricism, by C. I. Lewis.--The quest for certainty, by R. Descartes.--Knowing and believing, by H. A. Prichard.--The right to be sure, by A. J. Ayer.