Leibniz, Misc

Si bien es cierto que Leibniz se sintió atraído por la filosofía de Spinoza, sin embargo no podía aceptarla, pues pronto fue consciente de las implicaciones y consecuencias de dicho sistema; los peligros para la teología que suponían las tesis spinozistas, que fundan la moral en la naturaleza humana. El racionalismo de Leibniz se vio moderado por las exigencias de su cristianismo ortodoxo, e ideó su propio proyecto filosófico como una alternativa al de Spinoza, que representaba el ataque más radical (...) a la metafísica clásica. (shrink)

The paper is motivated by the desire to identify exactly what Leibniz has contributed to Deleuze and Whitehead’s particular version of vitalism. This reading of Leibniz is compared with those of Badiou. The paper compares each of these philosopher’s interpretations of the fundamental principles that ground Leibnizian monadology, with the intention of highlighting the implications of these readings for political theory. In particular, Badiou’s notion of a schema of torsion is examined and distinguished from Deleuze’s notions of actualization and realization.

In his rich and engaging essay, Professor Garber asks most centrally, “…what was the relation between Leibniz’s metaphysical project as set out in the so-called ‘Monadologie’ and the more theological project in the Essais de Théodicée?” His answer is, in short, that there isn’t much of a relationship between these two great works. Furthermore, he takes this result to be evidence of Leibniz’s not being a systematic philosopher in the spirit of Descartes or Spinoza. In these brief comments, I revisit (...) Garber’s two central questions in turn and offer some moderating resistance to both of his conclusions. (shrink)

Leibniz thinks that every created substance is causally active, and yet causally independent of every other: none can cause changes in any but itself. This is not controversial. But Leibniz also thinks that every created substance is existentially independent of every other: it is metaphysically possible for any to exist with or without any other. This is controversial. I argue that, given a mainstream reading of Leibniz’s essentialism, if one accepts the former, uncontroversial interpretation concerning causal independence, then one ought (...) also to accept the latter, controversial one concerning existential independence. This is a new way to defend the ‘existential independence’ interpretation. Moreover, this defense provides a new approach for defending the broadly ‘non-logical’ interpretive camp in the longstanding debate over Leibniz’s views on incompossibility, against perhaps the strongest objection leveled by advocates of the opposing broadly ‘logical’ interpretation. (shrink)

Esta obra de María Rosa Antognazza es, como su nombre indica, una breve, si no, brevísima introducción al pensamiento del Autor de Leipzig. A lo largo de unas ciento quince páginas, la filósofa italiana nos guía por el, aparentemente, enrevesado autor. Para quienes no estén familiarizados con la serie A Very Short Introducción, esta es una propuesta de Oxford para no especialistas. De hecho, serán los legos quienes mayor provecho encuentren en esta lectura.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnizia (1646–1716) on usein kutsuttu universaalineroksi. Luonnehdinta on varsin osuva ottaen huomioon Leibnizin intressien laajuuden, hänen luovan panoksensa monille eri aloille ja metafyysis-kulttuurisen vision, joka kajasti kaikkien hänen hankkeidensa, niin teoreettisten kuin käytännöllistenkin, taustalla. Leibniz tunnetaan nykyään ennen kaikkea filosofina ja matemaatikkona, mutta ei juurikaan siitä, että hän toimi suuren osan elämästään kahden eri kirjaston hoitajana: Hannoverin herttuallisen kirjaston ja edelleen maineikkaan, Wolfenbüttelissä sijaitsevan Herzog August Bibliothekin. Tämä katsausartikkeli esittelee Leibnizin kirjastouraa ja hänen kirjastonhoitoa koskevia näkemyksiään, jotka eivät (...) omana aikanaan olleet aivan tavanomaisia. Leibnizin universaalikäsityksen mukaan kirjasto ei nimittäin ole kirjoilla täytetty tila vaan heijastus koko inhimillisen tiedon tilasta. Artikkelissa luodaan katsaus aiheesta kirjoitettuun kansainväliseen tutkimuskirjallisuuteen ja Leibnizin kirjastonhoitoa käsitteleviin muistoihin. (shrink)

This volume offers the first-ever complete English translation of Leibniz’s Dissertatio De Arte Combinatoria together with a critical edition of the original Latin text on fa...

This paper addresses some issues of Leibniz’s metaphysics to show the relationship between religion, God, and the conception of eternal truths, and with that to reveal that Leibniz’s philosophy is a coherent and intertwined whole. His idea of religion is set out briefly, then his metaphysics is analyzed, in particular creation and what are the eternal truths. The paper ends with a commentary on some quotations from the New essays that make evident that these truths require the existence of God. (...) // Se abordan algunas cuestiones de la metafísica leibniziana para mostrar el vínculo entre la religión, Dios y la concepción de las verdades eternas, y con ello poner de manifiesto que la filosofía de Leibniz es un todo engarzado y coherente. Se expone sucintamente su idea de religión, se analiza su metafísica, en particular la creación y lo que son las verdades eternas, y finalmente se comentan algunas citas de los Nuevos ensayos que evidencian que dichas verdades exigen la existencia de Dios. (shrink)

Entre 1676 y 1680 Leibniz intentó conseguir un puesto remunerado en la Académie des sciencesque quedó vacante tras el fallecimiento de Roberval en 1675. Al mismo tiempo, Leibniz ofrece en cartas a Huygens varios métodos, recetas e invenciones que podrían ser de utilidad para la academia parisina: entre ellos encontramos el analysis situs, una discusión sobre el método de Becher para encontrar oro, la receta del fósforo, el método inverso de tangentes, la cuadratura aritmética y su propia red epistolar. La (...) hipótesis de este trabajo defiende que estas discusiones fueron presentadas a Huygens con la finalidad de conseguir el puesto remunerado en la Académie, lo cual no ha sido lo suficientemente tenido en cuenta en la literatura científica. (shrink)

Este artículo contribuye a aclarar el concepto leibniziano de _razón_ a partir del análisis de su proyecto de fundación de una sociedad o academia de las ciencias en Alemania. Los escritos de Leibniz sobre esta temática nos muestran un plan teórico y práctico puesto conscientemente al servicio de la conformación y constitución racional de lo real, mediante la institución de un organismo para el bienestar general y el progreso técnico en beneficio de la sociedad. En la particular concepción ilustrada que (...) subyace a su proyecto de fundación de academias Leibniz pone en juego elementos fundamentales de su pensamiento, como la defensa de que la racionalidad sólo es posible para el ser humano en tanto que el individuo y las comunidades participan de los principios universales de la racionalidad desde una determinada perspectiva. (shrink)

La presente contribución tiene por objeto examinar y describir la génesis y la elaboración de los Nuevos Ensayos sobre el entendimiento humano de Leibniz ). El interés de este estudio recae no sólo en transparentar la articulación histórica y teórica en que tienen lugar las etapas que preceden la redacción misma de los Nuevos Ensayos de Leibniz -equivalente a un período de casi diez años y que coincide con el punto de arranque de la maduración definitiva de su filosofía-, sino (...) también en atenuar la connotación estrictamente epistemológica que suele atribuírsele a dicha obra, subrayando las motivaciones metafísicas y teológicas que lo impulsaron a redactarla en respuesta al Ensayo sobre el entendimiento humano de Locke. Palabras clave: Dios, Leibniz, Locke, Nuevos Ensayos, Materialismo, Metafísica, Substancia, Teología. (shrink)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was a universal genius, making original contributions to law, mathematics, philosophy, politics, languages, and many areas of science, including what we would now call physics, biology, chemistry, and geology. By profession he was a court counselor, librarian, and historian, and thus much of his intellectual activity had to be fit around his professional duties. Leibniz’s fame and reputation among his contemporaries rested largely on his innovations in the field of mathematics, in particular his discovery of the (...) calculus in 1675. Another of his enduring mathematical contributions was his invention of binary arithmetic, though the significance of this was not recognized until the 20th century. These days, a good proportion of scholarly interest in Leibniz is focused on his philosophy. Among his signature philosophical doctrines are the pre-established harmony, the theory of monads, and the claim that ours is the best of all possible worlds, which forms the central plank of his theodicy. For Leibniz, philosophy was not the discovery of deep truths of interest only to other philosophers, but a practical discipline with the means to increase happiness and well-being. Philosophical truths, he believed, revealed the beauty and rational order of the universe, and the justice and wisdom of its creator, and accordingly could inspire contentment and peace of mind. Leibniz’s other intellectual projects were likewise geared toward the improvement of the human condition. He lobbied tirelessly for the establishment of scientific societies, devised measures to improve public health, and was actively engaged in projects to unite the churches and so end the religious strife that marred the Europe of his day. He was also engaged in politics for much of his career, and often took on a diplomatic role, sometimes officially and other times not. In the political sphere, Leibniz did not wield true power but was a man with influence, obtained in no small part by his cultivation of relationships with leaders and sovereigns both inside and outside Germany. The sheer range of Leibniz’s interests, projects, and activities can make him a difficult figure to study, and the vast quantity of his writings only compounds the problem (around fifty thousand of his writings survive). Nevertheless, even a sampling of Leibniz’s work is enough to get a sense of his vision, originality, and intellectual depth, and good secondary literature will only enhance this. The items in this bibliography were chosen with this in mind. (shrink)

Leibniz was probably the last universal scholar in modern times who made original and innovative achievements in all the essential fields of knowledge of his time: as a reform-oriented lawyer, a multilateral thinking diplomat, as a mathematician of infinitesimal calculus, as the inventor of a calculating machine and in the mining of horizontal wind power, as an organizer of science and as one of the first historians who strived for source-critical methodical objectivity. However, this baroque diversity can only be understood (...) from the center of a monadological philosophy, which wants to establish the unity of scientific worldview and metaphysical concept of the world. It is distorted in the classical reception because only Leibniz the Theodicy was known. The topicality of Leibniz today consists in re-exposing the original basic idea of unity in diversity and asking how it can be made fruitful for philosophical and political thought in the 21st century. This book is a translation of the original German 1st edition Leibniz und die Folgen by Jörg Zimmer, published by J.B. Metzler, imprint of Springer-Verlag GmbH, part of Springer Nature in 2018. The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence. A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content, so that the book will read stylistically differently from a conventional translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support the authors. (shrink)

Volume 28, Issue 1, January 2020, Page 204-207.

Encountering Leibniz for the first time can be a dizzying experience. Unlike many early modern thinkers, Leibniz did not produce a treatise, which outlines his philosophical system step by step. Rather, each of Leibniz’s texts provides a kaleidoscopic view of the whole, a complex mixture of elements, some in the foreground, some receding into the background, present but not altogether in focus. Furthermore, Leibniz produced philosophical work over 6 decades, and the extent to which his views changed over that time (...) is an ongoing subject of scholarly disagreement. The perpetual challenge for readers and teachers of Leibniz is, then, where to start: which fragment of the whole provides a viable entry point into Leibniz’s philosophy? Leibniz’s Key Philosophical Writings engages this challenge, providing an introduction to Leibniz’s thought, not by focusing on particular themes, doctrines, or threads running through his entire corpus, but by engaging complete texts in all their complexity. (shrink)

The Discourse on Metaphysics is one of Leibniz's fundamental works. Written around January 1686, it is the most accomplished systematic expression of Leibniz's philosophy in the 1680s, the period in which Leibniz's philosophy reached maturity. Leibniz's goal in the Discourse is to give a metaphysics for Christianity; that is, to provide the answers that he believes Christians should give to the basic metaphysical questions. Why does the world exist? What is the world like? What kinds of things exist? And what (...) is the place of human beings in the world? To this purpose Leibniz discusses some of the most traditional topics of metaphysics, such as the nature of God, the purpose of God in creating the world, the nature of substance, the possibility of miracles, the nature of our knowledge, free will, and the justice behind salvation and damnation. This volume provides a new translation of the Discourse, complete with a critical introduction and a comprehensive philosophical commentary. (shrink)

The Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky considered himself a Leibnizian of sorts. He accepted parts of Leibniz’s doctrine of monads, although he preferred to call them ‘substantival agents’ and rejected the thesis that they have neither doors nor windows. In Lossky’s own doctrine, monads have existed since the beginning of time, they are immortal, and can evolve or devolve depending on the goodness or badness of their behavior. Such evolution requires the possibility for monads to reincarnate into the bodies of (...) creatures of a higher level on the scala perfectionis. According to this theory, a monad can evolve by being progressively reincarnated multiple times through a sort of process of metamorphosis from the level of the most elementary particles all the way up to the level of human beings or even higher. Lossky argues that the works of Leibniz contain scattered elements of such a systematic doctrine of reincarnation. He attempts to reconstitute this doctrine in an article that appeared both in Russian and German in 1931. The Russian version, ‘Ученiе Лейбница о перевоплощенiи какъ метаморфозѣ’, was published in the Сборникъ Русскаго института въ Прагѣ, vol. 2, 1931, pp. 77–88. The German version appeared under the title ‘Leibniz’ Lehre von der Reinkarnation als Metamorphose,’ in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 40, n. 2, 1931, pp. 214–226. The content of the Russian and German versions is roughly the same, except for the omission, in the German version, of a mention of David Hume in the second sentence and of one paragraph and a half at the end of the article. The following is a translation of this article. I translated the text from the Russian version, which was in all appearances written first, but I also took the German version into account. The original pagination is added in angle brackets. Angle brackets are used wherever the additions are mine. — Frédéric Tremblay. (shrink)

A postprint-version of the review is available in PhilPapers.

This is a work of literary history in which the author reconstructs the epistolary network of a German philologist and philosopher named Gottfried Leibniz and his extended coterie of far-flung correspondents who exchanged information and insights, by way of letters, about the emergent study of historical linguistics, as a means of retracing the origins of the various peoples of Europe. This book contributes to our understanding of the so-called international Republic of Letters in the early-modern period of Europe and the (...) near East. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Die Jahre 1668-1672 in Mainz, im Dienst des Mainzer Erzbischofs Johann Philipp von Schonborn, markieren die erste langere Station im Leben des in Leipzig geborenen Universalgelehrten Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) nach dem Abschluss seiner universitaren Studien mit der juristischen Promotion im Alter von gerade 20 Jahren. Diese Zeit war angefullt mit einer Vielzahl von juristischen, politischen, philosophischen, theologischen und anderen Projekten und Uberlegungen. Leibniz hat spater selbst mehrfach auf diese Phase als besonders pragend fur seine weiteren Studien Bezug genommen. Der (...) Aufsatzband fragt nach den von Impulsen, die von der Mainzer Zeit fur weitere Entwicklungen im Werk dieses grossen Gelehrten ausgingen. Seine Aktivitaten und Studien, Kontakte und Plane werden dabei jeweils in ihrer Verortung im lokalen, uberregionalen und europaischen Rahmen untersucht, in ihrem Einfluss auf die Entwicklung des Leibniz'schen Denkens eingeordnet und in ihren Auswirkungen auf sein spateres Werk und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte gewurdigt. (shrink)

Leibniz’s philosophy enjoyed a Russian fandom that endured from the eighteenth century to the death of the last exiled Russian philosophers in the twentieth century. There was, to begin with, Leibniz’s direct impact on Peter the Great and on the scientific development of Saint Petersburg. Then there was, still in the eighteenth century, Mikhail Lomonosov, who was sent to study with Christian Wolff in Marburg, and who came back to Saint Petersburg with a watered-down Leibnizian worldview, which he applied to (...) the study of chemistry and physics. Another eighteenth century philosopher, Alexander Radishchev, who studied in Leipzig, displayed acquiescence with a number of key elements from Leibniz’s philosophy. Russian Lebnizianism as a continuous philosophical movement was considerably reinvigorated in the 1870s when the Leibnizian German philosopher Gustav Teichmüller took a position at the University of Dorpat (nowadays Tartu, Estonia), which was then located within the Russian Empire. Teichmüller influenced a number of Russian philosophers into adopting a “Teichmüllerian” version of Leibnizianism. Among these philosophers were Evgeny Bobrov and Alexei Kozlov. In Saint Petersburg, Kozlov influenced his own son, Askoldov, and the latter’s friend — Nikolai Lossky. In the meanwhile, in Moscow Lev Lopatin, Nikolai Bugaev, and Petr Astafiev developed their own Leibnizianism in seemingly relative independence from Teichmüller’s influence and presumably, in some cases, under the partial influence of Vladimir Solovyov. Despite this relative independence, however, the fact remains that there was in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Russia a network of more or less loosely interconnected Leibnizian philosophers who read each other and wrote about each other, who exchanged ideas, and who constituted a movement that we might characterize as “Russian Leibnizianism” or “Russian Neo-Leibnizianism.” In this chapter, I tell the story of the intellectual lineage of Russian Leibnizianism. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)