Leibniz: Philosophy of Action

La notion de mondes possibles chez Leibniz est souvent considérée comme un précurseur des théories contemporaines de la sémantique des mondes possibles. Or, cet article vise à montrer que cette lecture de Leibniz est fondamentalement erronée. Leibniz n'a jamais utilisé la notion de mondes possibles pour établir des conditions de vérité pour des phrases modales, mais le rôle de cette notion est strictement théologique, dans le sens où Leibniz l'emploie uniquement pour rendre compte du choix de Dieu dans la création. (...) Dans un premier temps, nous présentons une critique des tentatives d'interpréter les phrases modales chez Leibniz en termes de monde possibles. Dans un deuxième temps, nous nous proposons de montrer que les mondes possibles fonctionnent comme des raisons du choix divin, et que cette thèse est liée à la conception leibnizienne de la nature de la liberté. (shrink)

As far as treatments of causation are concerned, the pre-Kantian 18th century German context has long been dismissed as a period of uniform and unrepentant Leibnizian dogmatism. While there is no question that discussions of issues relating to causation in this period inevitably took Leibniz as their point of departure, it is certainly not the case that the resulting positions were in most cases dogmatically, or in some cases even recognizably, Leibnizian. Instead, German theorists explored a range of positions regarding (...) the nature of causal powers, the appropriate systems to explain the observed agreement between the states of substances, and the ground of free actions, or so I will argue in this chapter. Focusing on these three issues, I will here sketch the development of the debates relating to causation and trace the evolution of positions among the philosophers within the so-called Leibnizian-Wolffian philosophy as well as among its many opponents. (shrink)

Leibniz seeks to establish the tenability of faith and reason in his moral philosophy through a tripod of thought, consisting of 1) fundamental human goodness; 2) human error in judgment; and 3) that God is just. A difficulty arises concerning how God can justly punish human beings if they always will what is Good. By considering akrasia, which occurs when error is committed despite its clear nonconformity with the Good, and examining the Leibnizian concept of “judgment,” Leibniz’s tripod can be (...) upheld. (shrink)

Artikkelissaan ”The Balance of Reason” Marcelo Dascal on osoittanut, että metafora syiden punnitsemisesta järjen vaa’assa on yleinen Leibnizin kirjoituksissa ja sitä on pidettävä hänen yleisenä järkeilyn metodinaan tilanteissa, joissa ei voida suorittaa täydellistä loogista analyysiä. Keskustelen tässä esitelmässä tuosta metaforasta ja ehdotan Jaakko Hintikan ja Simo Knuuttilan aiempien esityksien pohjalle rakentaen, että käsityksissään ihmisen praktisesta rationaalisuudesta Leibniz sovelsi myös toista melko tuntemattomaksi jäänyttä heuristista päätöksentekomallia, joka liittyy hänen työhönsä luonnonfilosofiassa ja mielenfilosofiassa, ja jota hän sovelsi tapauksissa joissa päätökseen vaikuttavat arvot (...) ovat toisiaan täydentäviä. Tämä moniarvoisuuden huomioon ottava malli edustaa uudenlaista ja modernia ajattelua moraalifilosofian historiassa. (shrink)

G. W. Leibnizin mielenfilosofiassa ymmärrykselle on jatkuvasti läsnä erilaisia taipumuksia erilaisiin päämääriin. Nämä taipumukset tai syyt toimia jollakin tavoin saattavat perustua selviin ja tarkkoihin havaintoihin ja olla tiedostettuja ennakkotahtomuksia. Näiden lisäksi mielessämme on epälukuinen määrä epäselviin havaintoihin perustuvia tiedostamattomia ja hetkittäisiä passioita, oikkuja tai hurahduksia. Kun henkilö ryhtyy harkitsemaan toimintaansa, nämä erilaiset taipumukset ja ennakkotahtomukset alkavat ottaa mittaa toisistaan. Prosessin tuloksena on lopullinen tahtomus tai riittävä syy. Kun ymmärrys on muodostanut suosituksen, tahto seuraa Leibnizin mukaan sitä ja toteuttaa ao. toiminnan. (...) -/- Ideaalitapauksessa ymmärryksen suositus on optimi näistä eri suuntiin johtavista syistä. Tavallisesti kyseessä on kuitenkin kompromissi, joka johtuu epäselvien havaintojen häiritsevästä vaikutuksesta harkintaan. Mitä paremmin ymmärrys toimii ja mitä tarkempia havainnot ovat, sen parempi on ymmärryksen toimintasuositus ja sita vahvemmalla ovat selvän ja tarkan joukkue epäselvän joukkuetta vastaan. Kuvaan esitelmässäni ylläolevan tilanteen ja tarkastelen tapoja, jolla agentti voi vaikuttaa toimintaansa. Vertailen myös pikaisesti Hobbesin ja Leibnizin näkemyksiä riittävästä syystä. (shrink)

J'entreprends de défendre la conception leibnizienne de la liberté de la volonté selon laquelle on peut être libre sans que l'on n'ait le pouvoir causal de choisir autrement que l'on ne fait. La liberté d'indifférence en revanche est irrecevable et sort d'une analyse erronée de ce que c'est un pouvoir de décider hic et nunc. Un tel pouvoir est indiscernable d'avec la décision même. Par conséquent un recours à la liberté d'indifférence préconisé entre autres par Duns Scotus est à la (...) fois superflu et aporétique. (shrink)

I have three main objectives in this essay. First, in chapter 2, I shall put forward and justify what I call worldlessness, by which I mean the following: All truths (as well as falsehoods) are wholly independent of any circumstances, not only time and place but also possible worlds. It follows from this view that whatever is actually true must be taken as true with respect to every possible world, which means that all truths are (in a sense) necessary. However, (...) the account I shall propound is different from what is known in the trade as necessitarianism, i.e. the view that there is only one possible world, viz. the actual one, for the doctrine of the worldlessness of truth values, despite its commitment to the necessity of truths and falsehoods, is quite compatible with the idea of there being other possible worlds. Another important issue in chapter 2, explored in particular in section 2.12, is the claim that there is no real change in the world. Secondly, in chapter 3 I consider the eminent traditional argument for determinism, deriving from Aristotle, namely, logical determinism, i.e. determinism justified by an appeal to the logical principle of bivalence (that all proper statements, including those concerning the future, are either true or false). In this connection I try to show that, (i), the formulation of the conclusion of this argument as "Whatever will happen will happen of necessity" is implausible, at least from the modern point of view, (ii), the formulation as "Whatever will happen will happen inevitably" is more to the point, and (iii), on the basis of the worldless and timeless aspect advocated in chapter 2, this latter formulation is quite harmless, essentially amounting to the trivial statement, "Whatever will happen will happen". Thirdly, in chapter 4 I study theological determinism, or determinism that arises from God's supposed providential control over everything that happens. In this connection, I shall survey some historical accounts of the relation between human free will and determinism (not only theological but also causal determinism); the philosophers the views of whom I shall attend to include Chrysippus, St. Augustine, Boethius and Aquinas. I shall in particular consider G.W. Leibniz' theodicean aspirations, viz. his solution to the problem of evil and, especially, his compatibilist attempts to reconcile human free will with the strictly deterministic flow of actual events. I think it is important to try to explicate Leibniz' ingenious account of these matters, since it seems that it has not been fully appreciated in the literature, not even by contemporary Leibniz scholars (such as B. Mates, R.C. Sleigh, C. Wilson, R.M. Adams and D. Rutherford). In providing the Leibnizian compatibilist solution of the problem of determinism and freedom in chapter 4, I shall utilize the approach of chapter 2. (shrink)

In seiner traditionellen Auffassung besagt der Superessentialismus, daß alle Eigenschaften einer Person dieser Person wesentlich sind, und daß jedes Individuum genau einer möglichen Welt zugeordnet ist. Dies impliziert, daß eine Person alle Eigenschaften haben muß, die ihr vollständiger Begriff angibt, andernfalls kann diese Person nicht existieren. Diese Lehre ist eine offensichtliche Bedrohung für den Leibnizschen Freiheitsbegriff, der erfordert, daß Handlungen sowohl kontingent als auch ein Produkt von Einsicht sein müssen. Ich behandle zwei Interpretationen der Kontingenz und behaupte, daß nur eine (...) dieser Interpretationen sowohl mit Freiheit als auch mit Superessentialismus in Einklang zu bringen ist. Weiter behaupte ich, daß eine auf erwägender Einsicht beruhende Handlung, die für Freiheit notwendig ist, Betrachtungen von Handlungsabläufen beinhaltet, die dieser Person wirklich möglich sind. Dies bringt mich zu dem Schluß, daß Superessentialismus unvereinbar ist mit dem Leibnizschen Freiheitsbegriff, daß Personen eine Mehr-Welten-Identität besitzen, und daß der vollständige Begriff eines Individuums sowohl aktuale als auch nur mögliche Eigenschaften beinhaltet. (shrink)

In the Nova dilucidano Kant defines freedom as libertas spontaneitatis. Free acting is always determined acting. It differs from necessary acting by the fact that the determinating reasons are inherent in the acting subject. These reasons must not only be spontaneous but also rational ones. By this, Kant agrees in the main with the Leibnizian and Wolf fian conception of freedom. At the same time Kant refuses expressly the conception of freedom of Crusius. According to Crusius, free acting can not (...) be determined acting, because freedom is defined as unconditioned causality. This conception of freedom Kant postulates in the Critic of pure reason. The proof of the possibility of freedom given by Kant there differs however entirely from the proofs of freedom given by Crusius. According to Kant, it is not impossible to think freedom, because one and the same acting, one and the same phenomenon can be thought at the same time caused by laws of nature and by unconditioned causality, that is freedom, without any contradiction. This central argument of Kant's has an equivalent in the late Leibnizian theory of substance — not in the theory of freedom. Unconditioned causality as the causality of the vis activa primitiva and laws of nature as conditioned causality do not exclude each other at the same time in one and the same acting or phenomenon. Consequently already Leibniz postulates the Kantian thesis that the relation between unconditioned and conditioned causality is not a really disjunctive one. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that the hoary theological doctrine of divine concurrence poses no deep threat to Leibniz’s views on theodicy and creaturely activity even as those views have been traditionally understood. The first three sections examine respectively Leibniz’s views on creation, conservation and concurrence, with an eye towards showing their sys­tematic compatibility with Leibniz’s theodicy and metaphysics. The fourth section takes up remaining worries arising from the bridging principle that conservation is a continued or continuous creation, and argues (...) that they can be allayed once two readings of the prin­ciple are distinguished. What emerges from the discussion as a whole is, I hope, a clearer picture of Leibniz’s views on the nature of monadic causation, his understanding of the relationship between divine and creaturely activity, and his position with respect to later medieval and early modern debates over secondary causation. (shrink)

My dissertation is a study of Leibniz' theory of individual substances and several concomitant problems. These are the problems of substantial identity , contingency with respect to the existence and properties of individual substances, and how those individual substances which are also persons can be said to be free. ;In the first chapter, I begin with an overview of Leibniz' life, and of the historical and philosophical climate within which Leibniz thought and wrote. I then set the stage for subsequent (...) chapters by discussing how Leibniz approaches his investigation of the nature of individual substances through a family of closely interconnected sub-theories; especially the containment theory of truth, and the theory of complete concepts. ;In the second chapter, I consider the case for reading Leibniz as committed to the doctrine known as "super-essentialism," according to which every property of an individual substance is essential to it. I defend the superessentialist reading against some recent criticisms; the first by Jan Cover and John Hawthorne, and the second by Robert Sleigh, Jr. In the process, I distinguish between several varieties of essentialism, and identify the sense in which Leibniz may properly be said to be a superessentialist. ;In the third chapter, I take up the problem of how propositions about individual substances can be contingent if Leibniz is, as is argued in the previous chapter, a superessentialist. Leibniz has several different, and apparently conflicting, theories of contingency, but saw these theories as grounded in a common base, viz., divine freedom. I argue that this grounding leads Leibniz' account of contingency into an apparently vicious circularity. ;In the fourth chapter, I continue to pursue the topic of freedom, now with respect to both divine and human actions. An asymmetry emerges in Leibniz' accounts of divine and human freedom. Leibniz attempts to provide an ultimate ground for freedom in reason. I argue that the attempt cannot succeed unless the asymmetry between human and divine freedom can be eradicated. I conclude that Leibniz' account of freedom cannot be reconciled with his commitment to superessentialism. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to explain and discuss Leibniz’s main objections to the Molinist-Suárezian voluntarist (libertarian) conception of freedom, i.e., the conception involving the supposition of “freedom of indifference” of the will to make contrary choices in exactly the same circumstances. Leibniz’s main objections to the voluntarist conception are the following: (i) it violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason; (ii) it is based on a mistaken picture of the nature of the will.

Chapter 20 of book II of John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, titled ‘Of Modes of Pleasure and Pain’ is the most extensive discussion of emotions available in Locke’s corpus. Likewise, Nouveaux essais sur l’entedement humain, II, xx, together with the following chapter xxi remains the chief source of Leibniz’s views of emotions. They offer a very interesting and captivating discussion of moral philosophy and good life. The chapter provides also a great platform to study Leibniz’s argumentative techniques and (...) the differences between the philosophers in general. Locke strives to explain the emotions with a single, unifying notion of uneasiness while Leibniz’s view of the mind is much more complex and he finds more unique ways of explaining different emotions. My paper focuses on Leibniz’s critique of Lockean uneasiness as an explanans for emotions. He views uneasiness as a unavoidable part of all our mental states and therefore it is not sufficient to explain passions or moral wrong-doing of men. I will discuss such passions as love, joy, sorrow, hope, fear, despair, anger, envy and shame and consider Locke’s possible response to Leibniz’s critique. (shrink)

Dieses Werk stellt das Denken zweier Geistesgrößen, Leibnizens und Fichtes sich gegenüber und vergleicht es. Fichte sieht in Leibniz einen Vorläufer und erwähnt ihn mit liebevoller Bewunderung. Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre von 1801/02 wird Leibnizens „Monadologie“ aufgreifen und Leibnizens Gedanken einer prästabilierten Harmonie. Beide Philosophen verstehen sich als Freiheitsapostel, wobei bei Leibniz Gott eine genaue Notion jedes Individuums hat, die Freiheit ein mentaler Akt ist, bei Fichte jedes Individuum ein je bestimmtes Soll hat, das es, Freiheit verwirklichend, im Leben zu erfüllen gilt. (...) Fichte erkennt in Leibniz einen Vorläufer der eigenen Transzendentalphilosophie. Ein Unterschied zwischen den beiden Denkern besteht darin, dass Leibniz stets die Individualität im Auge hat, wo Fichte vom reinen Vernunftwesen ausgeht, dessen individuelle Pathologien ihn nicht interessieren. Beide Philosophen supponieren, dass die Welt ein Ende habe, Leibniz, auf dass das Weltgericht stattfinden könne, Fichte, auf dass in einer neuen Welt nur noch die sittlichen Individuen wiedergeboren werden. Der vorliegende Text versucht auch, den Bogen zu schlagen von der philosophischen Tradition des Abendlandes, und insbesondere von Leibniz, Kant und Fichte zu einer Gotteslehre auf Grund der modernen Physik. Die hochenergetische Urmaße wird gefasst als psychophysische Energeia, die sich – im Leibnizschen Sinne Wissen, Macht und Wollen – aus dem Nichts kontrahiert hat und nun ins All explodiert. In der Kontraktion aus dem ursprünglich Verwobenen hat das Absolute sich vom Nichts, das Gute sich vom Bösen geschieden, entsteht das Übel als privatio boni. (shrink)

I attempt to appy Leibniz's vectorial model of rational decision-making to a memoir on church reunion.

This paper discusses the topic of weakenss of the will or akrasia in Leibniz, especially in the context of Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain. I argue that Leibniz can be seen as supporting both the weak and the strong forms of akrasia in book II of the work.

Der Aufsatz zielt auf eine nähere Präzisierung der üblicherweise gegebenen Bestimmung, Leibniz sei „Kompatibilist“ gewesen. Willensfreiheit ist für Leibniz mit Gottes Vorherwissen und Vorherbestimmung sowie mit dem Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes kompatibel, keineswegs jedoch mit Indifferenz. Urn die Vereinbarkeit der Willensfreiheit mit vollständigen individuellen Begriffen zu zeigen, scheint der Rekurs auf Gegenstücke in anderen möglichen Welten unerläßlich. Es wird argumentiert, daß Willensfreiheit für Leibniz nicht mit der prinzipiellen Vorhersagbarkeit von Willensentscheidungen durch einen menschlichen Beobachter oder durch einen Laplaceschen Dämon kompatibel (...) ist. (shrink)

Leibniz’s claim that possibles strive towards existence has led to diverging interpretations. According to the metaphorical interpretation, only the divine will is causally efficacious in bringing possibles into exisence. According to the literal interpretation, God endows possibles with causal powers of their own. The present article suggests a solution to this interpretative impass by suggesting that the doctrine of the striving possibles can be understood as a consequence of Leibniz’s early cognitivist theory of volition. According to this theory, thinking the (...) degree of goodness of something is identical with wanting it to this degree. Arguably, this analysis of volition is relevant not only for Leibniz’s early analysis of the human mind but also for his early analysis of the divine mind. (shrink)

This article is an attempt to investigate a classic problem associated with the human action that can be extracted from the Leibnizian texts about the weakness of will, an issue emblematically briefed by Ovide: “I see clearly which [way] is better, and I know it is right, yet I follow the way that is worse”. The author of the Theodicy seems to suggest a way to understand the phenomenon of akrasia. A good source for this research is his work New (...) Essays on Human Understanding, in which he directly debates thesis of the book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by Locke. In Leibnizian text, one of the concepts discussed is the uneasiness. Locke believes that the fundamental basis for human actions would be to prevent the uneasiness caused by the feeling of missing something. Leibniz not completely refutes the idea of the English philosopher, however looks for improving it by introducing “the perceptions which are not apperceived”. In Leibnizian philosophy the problem of weakness of will may be linked to a region that the agent does not know directly but which is fundamental to any action, even for the so-called rational. (shrink)

The ‘middle knowledge’ doctrine salvages free will and divine omniscience by contending that God knows what agents will freely choose under any possible circumstances. I argue, however, that the Leibnizian problem of divine knowledge of human evil is best resolved by applying a Theodicy II distinction between determined, foreseen, and resolved action. This move eliminates deference to middle knowledge. Contingent action is indeed free, but not all action is contingent, and so not all action is free. For Leibniz, then, God’s (...) knowledge extends to the sum pattern of determinates for an act, rather than to contingent events. (shrink)

There are two inspirations for the theory presented. One is the Kantian idea that a free choice affects a deterministic sequence of events globally rather than just locally. The second is the Leibnizian idea that God chooses for actuality the possible world he deems best. But instead of God choosing, suppose free agents collectively do. Let actuality be an office which deterministic possible worlds are voted in and not of. In this way free choice can change things even if every (...) event is fully governed by deterministic laws: free choice substitutes one deterministic world for another. One way to look at the actual world on this theory is as a patchwork of segments of possible worlds. This gives the theory two advantages over familiar compatibilisms: it explains how the future is unsettled until chosen, and it allows that free choices are spontaneous. (shrink)

According to a standard picture of Leibniz’s mature views on creaturely causation, Leibniz held what some interpreters have described as his ‘thesis of spontaneity’: “every non-initial, nonmiraculous state of every created substance has as a real cause some preceding state of that very substance.”2 Evidence for this thesis is abundantly available throughout Leibniz’s mature work and here are some prominent instances.

Leibniz is an eclectic and ecumenical philosopher. He often worked out philosophical positions that reconciled seemingly opposed theoretical systems and chastised people for rejecting certain views too quickly. In this paper, I describe one episode of Leibnizian reconciliation. My target is the phenomenon of deliberation. Traditionally, philosophers have offered two different accounts of deliberation based on two different accounts of the compatibility of freedom and determinism. Leibniz, I argue, cannot accept either account because of his broader theoretical commitments. This leads (...) Leibniz to formulate an interesting account of deliberation that adopts certain elements from each account while excising the untoward aspects of each one. I outline the various mechanisms involved in deliberation on Leibniz’s view and show how deliberation fits into a broader theory of free action. I close with an assessment of whether Leibniz in fact succeeds in offering an account of deliberation that is distinct from the traditional positions. (shrink)

In New Essays on Human Understanding, book II, chapter xxi Leibniz presents an interesting picture of the human mind as not only populated by perceptions, volitions and appetitions, but also by endeavours. The endeavours in question can be divided to entelechy and effort; Leibniz calls entelechy as primitive active forces and efforts as derivative forces. The entelechy, understood as primitive active force is to be equated with a substantial form, as Leibniz says: “When an entelechy – i.e. a primary or (...) substantial endeavour – is accompanied by perception, it is a soul” (NE II, xxi, §1; RB, 170). What about efforts, then? One is certainly the will. In NE, II, xxi, §5 Leibniz argues that volition is the effort (conatus) to move towards what one finds good and away from what one finds bad and that this endeavor arises from the perceptions we are aware of. As an endeavour results in action unless it is prevented, from will (which is always directed to the good) and power together follows action. However, this is not so simple. Leibniz argues that there is also a second class of efforts: “There are other efforts, arising from insensible perceptions, which we are not aware of; I prefer to call these ‘appetitions’ rather than volitions” (NE II, xxi, §5; RB, 173). Although there are appetitions of which one can be aware, usually these appetitions arise from the insensible petite perceptions and are consequently affecting us subconsciously. Now, although all minute perceptions are confused perceptions, they are always related to pleasure and displeasure and also to perfection and imperfection. From this follows that there can be different efforts present in the soul at the same time: the will which is directed to apperceived good and several separate appetitions which lead to different goals, both to those which bring about perfection and pleasure of the mind (joy) and those which bring about displeasure and imperfection (sorrow). These efforts are not only in conflict with each other but may also be in conflict with entelechy. A typical case is perceiving a sensual pleasure. Our entelechy which is always directed to final causes (perfection) may be in conflict with several different appetitions which are related in different ways to the sensual pleasure in question. If our understanding is developed enough, our will resists the temptation posed by the pleasure (agreeing with entelechy), but if the temptation is too strong, the appetitions outweigh the will and the resulting action bring about imperfection and sorrow as it is related to imperfection. In this paper I will argue that deliberation in the human soul is a battle of different endeavors described above: the entelechy in the soul strives according to its law-of-the-series towards its telos (perfection) and the will accompanies it by being automatically directed to the good. This thrust towards the apparent good is aided or hindered by the appetitions which can be thought as derivative forces in the Leibnizian dynamics. Depending on whether the predominant appetitions are related to good or bad desires, the deliberation succeeds or fails in achieving the real good which is the goal of human deliberation. The successs can be facilitated beforehand by developing our understanding so that we are less easily swept away by the derivative forces (NE II, xxi, §19). A central role in this task is played by strong willing. As Martha Bolton has noted in her recent paper, an essential feature of the basic, standing endeavors is that they are continuous – although the power balance in the soul changes from moment to moment, something lingers from our previous volitions. That is why Leibniz argues that we pave way for the future deliberations by our previous voluntary actions (NE II, xxi, §23). In contrast, the appetitions are temporary, fliegende Gedanken as Leibniz says in NE II, xxi, §12. Therefore there is a constant, always changing power balance between two kinds of endeavors in the soul: primitive active force versus derivative forces. I will argue that the behavior of the forces in the soul can be understood with a vectorial model which is related to Leibniz’s early ideas of calculus of variations and which was anticipated by Arnauld and Nicole’s Port-Royal Logic. The central idea in the model is that the options are in tension towards each other and the ratio between them at each moment determines the consequent outcome. The proper relationship between the endeavors is not a simple balance, two options which exhaust each other, but a case where different efforts complement each other: “Since the final result is determined by how things weigh against one another, I should think it could happen that he most pressing disquiet did not prevail; for even If it prevailed over each of the contrary endeavours taken singly, it may be outweighed by all of them together.” Leibniz continues : “Everything which then impinges on us weighs in the balance and contributes to determining a resultant direction, almost as in mechanics” (NE II, xxi, §40; RB, 193). The different endeavors can be understood as vectors leading to different directions and the end result is a certain direction that deliberation takes. The dynamical tension between the different endeavors presents a situation where everything affects everything and the following direction, the resulting volition follows more or less automatically. In Theodicy, §325 Leibniz describes the deliberation as follows: “One might, instead of the balance, compare the soul with a force that puts forth an effort on various sides simultaneously, but which acts only at the spot where action is easiest or there is least resistance” (Huggard, 322) This kind of dynamical tension can be understood in terms of the calculus of variations where there are several possible variations available but where the dynamics of the situation results in the decision taking the “easiest” route which is more or less objectively good depending on the level of the deliberator’s understanding. In his comments to Bayle’s note L of “Rorarius” Leibniz says: “The soul, even though it has no parts, has within it, because of the multitude of representations of external things, or rather because of the representation of the universe lodged within it by the creator, a great number, or rather an infinite number, of variations (Woolhouse & Francks (ed.), ‘New System’ and Associated Texts, 101). This kind of deliberation is comparable to God’s choice of the best world with the difference that God’s understanding is infinite which again results in the fact that the choice is the best possible. Whereas in nature the easiest route taken is always optimal as nature is God’s creation, in men the goodness or badness of men’s actions is dependent on their state of wisdom, that is, how developed their understanding is. The more wise men are, the more metaphysical goodness or perfection follows from their actions. (shrink)

Locke and Leibniz are often classified as proponents of compatibilist theories of human freedom, since both maintain that freedom is consistent with determinism and that the difference between being and not being free turns on how one is determined. However, we will argue in this paper that their versions of compatibilism are essentially different and that they have significantly distinct commitments to compatibilism. To this end, we will first analyze the definitions and examples for freedom and necessity that Locke and (...) Leibniz present in sections 8-13 of chapter 21 of the Essay on Human Understanding and the Nouveaux essais respectively, and then conjecture how Locke and Leibniz would have continued the discussion, if they had had the opportunity to engage in an exchange of opinions. In this way, we believe, one will be in a position to understand why Leibniz thinks that Locke’s discussion of freedom “est un des plus prolixes et des plus subtils de son ouvrage.”. (shrink)