Leibniz: Philosophy of Action

In his defense of innateness in New Essays on Human Understanding (1704), Leibniz attributes innateness to concepts and principles which do not originate from the senses rather than to the ideas that we are born with. He argues that the innate concepts and principles can be known in two ways: through reason or natural light (necessary truths), and through instincts (other innate truths and principles). In this paper I will show how theoretical and moral reasoning differ from each other in (...) Leibniz, and compare moral reasoning and instincts as sources of knowledge in his practical philosophy. As the practical instincts are closely related to pleasure and passions, which are by nature cognitive, my emphasis will be on the affective character of instinctive moral action and especially deliberation which leads to moral action. I will argue that inclinations arising from moral instinct, which lead us to pleasure while avoiding sorrow, can direct our moral action and sometimes anticipate reasoning when conclusions are not readily available. Acting by will, which is related to moral reasoning, and acting by instincts can lead us to the same moral knowledge independently, but they can also complement each other. To illustrate the two alternative ways to reach moral knowledge, I will discuss the case of happiness, which is the goal of all human moral action for Leibniz. (shrink)

This article examines the rift in Leibniz’s conception of determinism after being rebuffed by the Parisian theologian Antoine Arnauld in their correspondence of 1686. As, in addition, his study of surds infracted his confidence in the “complete concept,” Leibniz embarked on a new, dynamic doctrine of substance or “law of the series.” In the literature, this strategy has been widely understood as “tweaking” the system to allow some self-assertion of free will. But as this article will show, it amounts to (...) a revolutionary conception that culminates in the unmasking of determinism as an insupportable, indeed incoherent doctrine. As all forms of determinism are profoundly entangled with human self-perception, the Leibnizian Kehre invites us to a new engagement with human freedom and autonomy and the disentanglement from a philosophical position for which neither a metaphysical nor an empirical proof can be given. (shrink)

Resumen: El presente trabajo pretende analizar algunos de los postulados principales de la ontología vitalista de Leibniz, en especial su noción de máquina natural y su propuesta monadológica, con la finalidad de demostrar la viabilidad en su pensamiento de una teoría de la acción. Se divide en tres partes: la primera examina la estructura compleja de las máquinas naturales, a partir de la cual se puede observar una composición dual de la acción; a partir de esto, la segunda parte distingue (...) tres tipos de mónadas con la intención de perfilar la posibilidad de una agencia racional; y, finalmente, la tercera parte ofrece algunas conclusiones relevantes para su teoría de la acción, como el papel de la percepción en el proceso de elección y el intelectualismo leibniziano, entre otros.: This paper aims to analyze key postulates of Leibniz’s vitalist ontology, with a special emphasis on his conception of a natural machine and his monadological proposal. It is divided into three sections: first I analyze the complex structure of natural machines, from which a twofold composition of action can be reckoned; hence, the second section identifies three kinds of monads, with the purpose of devising the possibility of rational agency; finally, the third section draws some relevant conclusions for Leibniz’s account of action, as the place of perception in the process of choice and Leibnizian intellectualism, among others. (shrink)

spontaneity is a key concept of freedom in Kant and Leibniz philosophy. Leibniz defends spontaneity as a necessary condition for freedom, and defines it generally in terms of the absence of constraint. According to Leibniz, every substance is sole cause of all of its own states thus every change that occurs in it occurs spontaneously. Two type of spontaneity in Leibniz is determined by his commentators monadic spontaneity and agent spontaneity. Kant, from the Leibnizian tradition took the idea that spontaneity (...) is not only the inner principle of action but also characterizes the subject as a thinking substance. But Kant explains the spontaneity by introducing two kinds of spontaneity, relative and absolute. The understanding is relatively spontaneous when it refers to an object of experience that must be subsumed under categories. Reason is absolutely spontaneous in legislating, in following and in incorporating moral law but is relatively spontaneous when it is affected by the empirical and heterogeneous elements of sensible nature. the power of judgement is relatively spontaneous when it can refer only to the object of an actual experience. (shrink)

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)

This is a response to Donald Rutherford's review of Jorati, Leibniz on Causation and Agency. The review is published in Leibniz Review 27 (2017), 183-197.

In this paper I claim that there are three primary dimensions to the issue of freedom in Leibniz’s work. The first, and most widely discussed, is the logical dimension. When discussing this dimension, Leibniz is concerned primarily about the relationship between freedom and modality: what does it mean for choice to be contingent? The second dimension is the theological one. When discussing this dimension, Leibniz is interested in considering such issues as the relationships between divine knowledge or providence and human (...) freedom, the nature of freedom in God, the angels, the demons, the blessed, the damned, etc., the relationship between human freedom and divine grace, and like matters. The third dimension treats freedom from the perspective of faculty psychology. In this mode, Leibniz considers how the intellect, will, and passions are related to one another in complete human acts. Questions such as: What is deliberation? What is choice? What is weakness of will?, etc. define this third dimension of the freedom discussion. In a forthcoming paper, an abstract of which appeared in the 1992 issue of this Review, I discuss the second dimension in some detail. In this paper, I take up the third. (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)

In numerous texts Leibniz claimed that while metaphysical necessity is inconsistent with free choice, moral necessity is not. A question naturally arises concerning what Leibniz took moral necessity to be. In a series of recent articles Michael Murray has argued that the concept of moral necessity Leibniz utilized is one developed and deployed by a group of 17th century Spanish Jesuits. This chapter argues that Leibniz's commitment to certain deep metaphysical principles suggests otherwise.

Acouple of years ago I gave a talk on Leibniz’s approach to human freedom. I tried to apply some current philosophical distinctions in order to resolve the tension between Leibniz’s doctrine of complete concept, which entails every truth about an individual, and Leibniz’s insistence that such an individual—whose identity and individuality are defined by its complete concept—acts freely.

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.