Leibniz: Philosophy of Religion

O artigo procura apresentar as modificações do clássico argumento da existência de Deus feitas por Leibniz nos textos _Novos ensaios sobre o entendimento humano _e _Meditações sobre o Conhecimento, a Verdade e as Ideias_. Defende-se que já há em Leibniz uma leitura "ontologizante" de Anselmo, cuja razão bem pode ser a apropriação cartesiana do argumento. O plano de fundo dessa discussão é a maneira como os filósofos, quando leem outros, na medida em que possuem suas próprias agendas filosóficas, cometem, intencionalmente (...) ou não, o que se chama, neste artigo, "deslize filosófico". (shrink)

El presente artículo analiza el concepto leibniziano de «creación de la nada» desde una doble perspectiva. Por un lado, se expone el modelo esencialista de la creación, entendida como traslado de esencias desde el plano de la mera posibilidad al plano de la existencia, y las dificultades que este planteamiento supone, al devaluar la causalidad divina. Por otro, se expone el modelo «participacionista», según el cual toda la perfección de la criatura se encuentra en actual y radical dependencia de las (...) perfecciones divinas. Se señalan las dificultades que este modelo implica, sobre todo en virtud de la introducción del controvertido concepto de «participación en la nada». Finalmente, se intenta mostrar de qué modo la explicitación técnica de la idea de participación, mediante la definición de la sustancia individual a partir de la notio completa posible presente en el entendimiento divino, implica la reducción de este modelo participacionista al planteamiento esencialista predominante en el pensamiento de Leibniz. (shrink)

In this article, I discuss how Leibniz’s first correspondence with Malebranche from early 1676 can shed new light on the notorious “all-things-are-one”-passage found in the Quod ens perfectissimum sit possibile from late 1676—a passage that has been taken as an expression of monism or Spinozism in the young Leibniz. The correspondence with Malebranche provides a deeper understanding of Leibniz’s use of the notions of “real distinction” and “separability” in the ATOP. This forms the background for a discussion of Leibniz’s commitment (...) to the monist position expounded in the ATOP. Thus, on the basis of a close analysis of Leibniz’s use of these key terms in the Malebranche correspondence, I provide two possible, and contrary, interpretations of the ATOP, namely, a “non-commitment account” and a “commitment account.” Finally, I explain why I consider the commitment account to be the more compelling of the two. (shrink)

Throughout his early writings, Leibniz was concerned with developing an acceptable account of God's relationship to the created world. In some of these early writings, he endorsed the idea that this relationship was similar to the human soul's relationship to the body. Though he eventually came to reject this idea, theanima mundi thesis remained the topic of several essays and correspondences during his career, culminating in the correspondence with Clarke. At first glance,Leibniz's discussions of this thesis may seem less important (...) in comparison to others, since it might seem like a topic which is far removed from what are regarded as his most important philosophical doctrines. I hope to show in what follows that such a view is mistaken. The large amount of attention Leibniz paid to this thesis is a sure indication of its importance to him. Further, as we shall see, his discussions of this thesis tum on some of his most interesting metaphysical topics, including the development of his thinking about the actual infinite, the structure of organic wholes, and the relationship between God and the created universe. In what follows, I examine these discussions chronologically, from the De Summa Rerum (1675-6), to the correspondence with Clarke (1715-6). (shrink)

Leibniz's polemical aim against those who claim that God could have created a better world is not Malebranche but Suarez. In fact, Leibniz and Malebranche are united in traveling the road of the commensurability of the finite world with God, in opposition to the Thomist theology.

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)

It is sometimes argued that Leibniz’s metaphysical commitments lead to Spinozist Necessitarianism, i.e., the view, in Spinoza’s words, that “Things could not have been produced by God in any way or in any order other than that in which they have been produced”. Leibniz comments on this passage as follows: “This proposition may be true or false, depending on how it is explained”. I suggest in this paper that what Leibniz means by this comment can be fleshed out by making (...) a distinction between what could have been actual and what is possible. I also address some potential objections to this distinction and attempt to elaborate it by means of comparing Leibniz’s and Alvin Plantinga’s approaches to modality. (shrink)

Loving God is our highest perfection for Leibniz. It secures our belief and trust in the Creator, which is integral to the sciences as well as faith. Those who love God have justification for reasoning, that is, they can rationally expect to arrive at truth. This is because love is a receptivity to the perfection all of things; loving God, then, is a disposition and tendency toward the most perfect being, the ens perfectissimum. Individuals who perceive the divine nature “do (...) not merely fear the power of the supreme and all-seeing monarch,” Leibniz writes, “but are assured of his beneficence, and lastly—and what brings everything together—burn with a love of God above all else.”1 In my dissertation, I argue that Leibniz’s qualification should be taken seriously: love of God “brings everything together.” The subject of my dissertation can be stated schematically. It consists of two pairs of claims, one pair philosophical, the other theological: A moral quality is required to secure our reason. From a most perfect unity, a moral quality follows. Love of God is our highest perfection. Love of God secures our reasoning. Both concern the security of reason, by which I mean the rational motivation for reasoning itself. They are reasons we ought to expect reasoning to lead to truth. Yet they do not form a tight demonstration: while an inference is clearly at work in the first pair, there are no inferences in the second. Also, there is a distinction between a moral quality and love for God. Unless they are identified, Leibniz’s philosophy and theology secure reasoning apart from one another. In 1686, Leibniz wrote his well-known “Discourse on Metaphysics.” A few months after, he composed a theological treatise, Examination of the Christian Religion. These texts, I argue, should be read side by side, and the first chapter compares how divine perfection secures our reasoning in both texts. Some Moderns’ notion of perfection—namely, Descartes’, Spinoza’s, and Malebranche’s—fail to secure our reasoning because their views entail arbitrariness in the world and the divine nature. But a proper sense of perfection, one that includes a moral quality, secures our reasoning by ensuring that everything is amenable to reason. Descartes also sought to secure our reasoning, and for the second and third chapters I compare his account with Leibniz’s own, then draw out the latter’s criticisms. For Descartes, the deity’s moral quality is characterized by an indifferent will, which is eminently and formally revealed throughout creation. Although recognizing the infinite source of all things directs our attention appropriate in the Cartesian system, Leibniz criticizes Descartes’ detached and indifferent God. When our disposition toward God is not characterized by love, we are less rational than otherwise. Leibniz finds intolerable moral implications in the Cartesian system, and I work out these implications in chapter three. Descartes’ criteria of true and false ideas does not settle dispute, but relies on “interior testimony.” Proper reasoning, then, does not tend toward unity among persons, and this is especially problematic in religious debate. Descartes’ method is Stoic, which also leads to trouble when it comes to church unity: one remains in the church by a sheer act of will, which can violate reason. Leibniz views such a detachment of faith and reasoning as dangerous, besides impoverishing the concept of reason altogether. Leibniz’s notions of God and perfection secure our reason by engendering love for God. “Discourse” and Examen begin with a moral disposition and tendency. In the last chapter, I argue that this is the case by considering two criteria Leibniz adopts—his test for perfection and the kinds of knowledge—as well as the foundation of his logic at the time. Leibniz can tolerate provisional beginnings, hypothetical truths, and original sin because of his robust conception of love. He distinguishes two ways we love God: spes, or hope, is a disposition or tendency to natural perfection, and caritas, or esteem, affection, or love, regards divine perfection. These states orient us according to the divine plan. Miracles are within the world as an effect of the deity’s moral quality: they are a means God personally relates to rational beings. Miracles reveal the moral effects of our perception of phenomena generally, included the regularity observed and classified by science. So, to conclude, I compare Leibniz’s discussion of revelation in Examen with his discussion of miracles in “Discourse” to draw out the significance of miracles for him. Besides much debate on the implications of miracles for his conception of substance, I argue that there is a moral motivation for retaining miracles, even those of the second rank. (shrink)

In this paper I claim that in Leibniz’s metaphysics we can use the term ‘world’ in a twofold sense. On the one hand to refer to highly complex divine thoughts, i.e. the ideal realm, and on the other hand to refer to a network of living substances with their perceptions and appetitions, i.e. the substantial realm. First of all, I will clarify the ideal realm in Leibniz's metaphysics, which consists of three combinatorial levels about the fundamental entities, namely the simple (...) ideas in God's mind: complex ideas, complete individual notions and possible worlds. The second part is about the individual substances, i.e. the monads. In the third section, fnally, I will discuss different ways to think about the connection between both worlds—how the best possible world is linked to the actual monadic world. (shrink)

Tolkien uses the terms “primary creation” and “secondary creation” in his works with reference to divine and human creation respectively. In the first part of this paper, I argue that one criterion to distinguish the former from the latter is their completeness or incompleteness. The primary creation is complete because it is thought of and created by God. The secondary creations like human fictions are incomplete since the human intellect is finite and does not have the capacity to grasp the (...) entire structure of its own creation. In the second part, I will examine this distinction in relation to Tolkien’s Christian background, and reformulate and systematise it in the metaphysical framework of G.W. Leibniz. Finally, I offer a definition of a human fiction as a part of a divine fiction, i.e. as a part of a possible world in a Leibnizian sense. (shrink)

Leibniz di fferenziert zwischen den Ideen des göttlichen Intellekts und den Ideen im menschlichen Geist, bestimmt ihr Verhältnis aber als Ähnlichkeit. Der Grund dafür, dass es sich bei der Beziehung zwischen Ideen des göttlichen Geistes und den Ideen der mens nicht um Identität oder Teilhabe, sondern um Ähnlichkeit handelt, liegt unter anderem in der Schulphilosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts geläufi gen theologischen Imago-Dei-Lehre begründet. Der menschliche Geist ist demnach dem göttlichen Intellekt wegen der biblisch begründeten Gottebenbildlichkeit, trotz des Sündenfalls und der (...) daraus resultierenden erbsündlich bedingten Korrumpiertheit des menschlichen Verstandesvermögens, ähnlich. Zwar ist nach Leibniz die mens in der Lage, unendlich viele Ideen in sich zu tragen, jedoch sind ihr diese Ideen nicht simultan präsent und zudem häufi g konfus und verworren; ihre Klarheit und Distinktheit hängt vom Situs der Geistmonade ab, von dem sie die regio idearum zu erfassen vermag. Zwischen den Ideen innerhalb des göttlichen Geistes und den eingeborenen Ideen der mens besteht eine Ähnlichkeit und damit ein irgendwie geregeltes Verhältnis. Für Leibniz treten Ideen "einmal als Urbilder individueller Substanzen im göttlichen Denken auf, darüber hinaus aber als Abbilder in den Substanzen selbst, die als Monaden das Universum "spiegeln": Aus dieser Doppelheit wird verständlich, wieso Ideen Objekte des Denkens sein können; nämlich im menschlichen Denken und darüber hinaus in Gott geschaut werden, nämlich in der Erkenntnis ihrer Gegründetheit in der regio idearum des gottlichen Denkens" (Poser, Hans: Leibniz' Philosophie. Uber die Einheit von Metaphysik und Wissenschaft, Hamburg 2016, S. 109). -/- Dieser Beitrag möchte das Verhältnis zwischen den Ideen im göttlichen Verstand und denjenigen des menschlichen Geistes in der Metaphysik Leibnizens unter der Berücksichtigung der zentrale Stellung der Lehre von der Gottebenbildlichkeit in der Philospohie Leibniz' untersuchen. (shrink)

Im Alltag äußern wir nicht nur Aussagen darüber, wie die Welt tatsächlich beschaffen ist, sondern auch darüber, was notwendigerweise oder möglicherweise der Fall ist. Doch worin ist die Wahrheit solcher sogenannten Modalaussagen fundiert? Auf diese Frage gibt Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz bereits in der Frühen Neuzeit eine höchst interessante Antwort: Für ihn sind modale Wahrheiten im Intellekt Gottes fundiert. Diese Modalitätskonzeption analysiert Sebastian Bender in der vorliegenden Studie auf systematisch informierte Weise. Dabei kommt er zu folgenden Ergebnissen: Erstens vertritt Leibniz, anders (...) als häufig angenommen, eine nicht-reduktionistische Metaphysik der Modalität– Modales wird von ihm also nicht auf etwas Nicht-Modales reduziert. Zweitens ist Leibniz' Theorie der Modalität kombinatorisch geprägt. Drittens repräsentieren mögliche Welten für Leibniz nicht alles metaphysisch Mögliche. Gott kann im Prinzip auch Ansammlungen von Substanzen erschaffen, die keine Welten konstituieren. Viertens schließlich ist das für Leibniz zentrale Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes kontingent und nicht, wie häufig vorausgesetzt, notwendig. Auf diese Weise gelingt es Leibniz, seinen Rationalismus mit seinem Theismus zu verbinden. (shrink)

Leibniz defends two apparently inconsistent doctrines. On the one hand, he holds that substances are independent entities and that God can, at least in principle, create any possible substance whatsoever no matter what else he creates. On the other hand, Leibniz insists that some possible substances are incompossible with one another and thus cannot coexist. I first discuss three attempts of dealing with this tension in Leibniz’s work that have recently been made in the literature: the logical approach, the lawful (...) approach, and McDonough’s tiling approach. I conclude that none of them solves the problem satisfactorily. I then argue that a modified version of the lawful approach, which also takes into account some of the insights of the two other options, is the most promising strategy. I believe that it is crucial to realize that it is, at least in principle, in God’s power to co-create incompossible substances. I do not take this to imply, however, that such substances can coexist. Since coexistence requires being in the same world, and because not all collections of possible substances are worlds in Leibniz’s sense, I argue that co-creation does not entail coexistence. Thus in order to get clear on Leibniz’s conception of compossibility, I suggest that we must better understand what a possible world is for Leibniz. What does it mean, then, for a collection of possible substances to form a world? I argue, first, that all complete concepts of the relevant possible substances need to have the same laws inscribed in them this is in line with some versions of the lawful approach). In addition, I argue that every complete concept in the relevant collection must also involve the concept of every other substance in the collection. Moreover, I maintain that these two requirements are not reducible to each other and that they are individually necessary and only jointly sufficient for a collection of substances to form a world. Only substances whose complete concepts fulfill both conditions can coexist and thus be compossible. (shrink)

This volume tells the story of the legacy and impact of the great German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). Leibniz made significant contributions to many areas, including philosophy, mathematics, political and social theory, theology, and various sciences. The essays in this volume explores the effects of Leibniz’s profound insights on subsequent generations of thinkers by tracing the ways in which his ideas have been defended and developed in the three centuries since his death. Each of the 11 essays is concerned (...) with Leibniz’s legacy and impact in a particular area, and between them they show not just the depth of Leibniz’s talents but also the extent to which he shaped the various domains to which he contributed, and in some cases continues to shape them today. With essays written by experts such as Nicholas Jolley, Pauline Phemister, and Philip Beeley, this volume is essential reading not just for students of Leibniz but also for those who wish to understand the game-changing impact made by one of history’s true universal geniuses. (shrink)

Monads, Composition, and Force: Ariadnean Threads through Leibniz’s Labyrinth, by ArthurRichard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. ix + 329.

In this paper, I am interested in the conception of toleration that can be gleaned from the political and theological texts of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. I argue that Leibniz did not defend a notion of toleration comparable to a standard modern conception. The modern conception is very often traced back to a constellation of writers contemporary with Leibniz including Locke, Bayle, and Spinoza. It involves an inclusive embrace of diversity, religious and otherwise, and an affirmation of toleration as a fundamental (...) value in and by itself, intrinsically linked to an equally fundamental imperative of freedom of expression allowing such diversity to flourish publicly. Leibniz, however, understood toleration as a political tool to be employed in order to facilitate the reunion of the Christian churches; he did not consider it a constitutive value, or a value in and by itself, but rather saw it as a means to an end; he did not establish any intrinsic link between toleration and freedom of expression but promoted moderate forms of censorship. Most importantly, however, while clearly seeing it as something positive, he also detected deep ambiguities in the concept from which we have much to learn in our own assessment of modern toleration. (shrink)

In the Nouveaux Essais, Leibniz famously declared that he once had “begun to lean towards” Spinozist necessitarianism. In this article, I argue that this remark refers to his modal philosophy anterior to 1677. Leibniz’s mature refutation of Spinoza’s necessitarianism relies on the notion that pure possibility has some sort of reality in God’s mind, because only this allows for a strong notion of divine choice. But I believe that Leibniz only developed this ontology of possibility after 1677. Before this date, (...) he inclined towards the view that non existing possibilities are mere logical abstractions that God never actually conceives. In order to show this, I analyze a series of early texts written between 1668 and 1676. Next, I consider a series of texts from 1677-1678, where Leibniz developed his ontology of possibility and put it to use against Spinozist necessitarianism for the first time. (shrink)

When the translator and editor of the German edition of Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary, Johann Christoph Gottsched, sug gested to Johann Georg Wachter that he supply an explanation of his views on Spinoza for inclusion in the eponymous article, he gladly obliged. Wachter, a failed university professor in Duisburg who had since managed to find employment in the council library in Gottsched’s adopted home town of Leipzig, had good reasons for doing this. Not only had his Elucidarius cabalisticus been (...) fiercely attacked in the Respublica litteraria as being the work of a new cabbalist evidently out to defend atheism and other purported evils of Spinoza’s philosophy, but also he appeared in that book to have adopted a philosophical position diametrically opposed to the one he had held just a few years earlier. His Der Spinozismus Im Jüdenthumb, which he had published in 1699 after a year-long stay in Amsterdam and which had been directed against a certain Moses Germanus, had after all sought to defend natural religion against Spinoza’s phi losophy by attacking those elements in it which were seen to represent the greatest threat to an understanding of God and the duties of man based solely on rational knowledge, in particular, its fundamental pantheism. In effect, while Wachter had there used the demonstration of the cabbalistic roots and the detrimental ethical consequences of Spinoza’s philosophy to show that Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally irreconcilable, he now used the first part of that demonstration as the basis for presenting the theory contained in the Ethics as a tenable philosophical theology. (shrink)

When the translator and editor of the German edition of Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary, Johann Christoph Gottsched, sug gested to Johann Georg Wachter that he supply an explanation of his views on Spinoza for inclusion in the eponymous article, he gladly obliged. Wachter, a failed university professor in Duisburg who had since managed to find employment in the council library in Gottsched’s adopted home town of Leipzig, had good reasons for doing this. Not only had his Elucidarius cabalisticus been (...) fiercely attacked in the Respublica litteraria as being the work of a new cabbalist evidently out to defend atheism and other purported evils of Spinoza’s philosophy, but also he appeared in that book to have adopted a philosophical position diametrically opposed to the one he had held just a few years earlier. His Der Spinozismus Im Jüdenthumb, which he had published in 1699 after a year-long stay in Amsterdam and which had been directed against a certain Moses Germanus, had after all sought to defend natural religion against Spinoza’s phi losophy by attacking those elements in it which were seen to represent the greatest threat to an understanding of God and the duties of man based solely on rational knowledge, in particular, its fundamental pantheism. In effect, while Wachter had there used the demonstration of the cabbalistic roots and the detrimental ethical consequences of Spinoza’s philosophy to show that Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally irreconcilable, he now used the first part of that demonstration as the basis for presenting the theory contained in the Ethics as a tenable philosophical theology. (shrink)

When the translator and editor of the German edition of Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary, Johann Christoph Gottsched, sug gested to Johann Georg Wachter that he supply an explanation of his views on Spinoza for inclusion in the eponymous article, he gladly obliged. Wachter, a failed university professor in Duisburg who had since managed to find employment in the council library in Gottsched’s adopted home town of Leipzig, had good reasons for doing this. Not only had his Elucidarius cabalisticus been (...) fiercely attacked in the Respublica litteraria as being the work of a new cabbalist evidently out to defend atheism and other purported evils of Spinoza’s philosophy, but also he appeared in that book to have adopted a philosophical position diametrically opposed to the one he had held just a few years earlier. His Der Spinozismus Im Jüdenthumb, which he had published in 1699 after a year-long stay in Amsterdam and which had been directed against a certain Moses Germanus, had after all sought to defend natural religion against Spinoza’s phi losophy by attacking those elements in it which were seen to represent the greatest threat to an understanding of God and the duties of man based solely on rational knowledge, in particular, its fundamental pantheism. In effect, while Wachter had there used the demonstration of the cabbalistic roots and the detrimental ethical consequences of Spinoza’s philosophy to show that Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally irreconcilable, he now used the first part of that demonstration as the basis for presenting the theory contained in the Ethics as a tenable philosophical theology. (shrink)

In this comprehensive study of Leibniz’s mature metaphysics, Donald Rutherford attempts to recover Leibniz’s theodicy as an essential part of his philosophy. Although Rutherford does not succeed in showing that the theodicy is essential to Leibniz’s metaphysics, he effectively uses the theodicy as an entry into Leibniz’s metaphysics and he highlights the many links between them. Of course, there are other significant ways of entering Leibniz’s philosophy—he wanted to “do justice to theology as to physics”—but Rutherford reminds us that Leibniz (...) ties all areas, even his dynamics, to the view that this is the best of all possible worlds. (shrink)

What is perhaps the biggeist metaphysical question of them all was put on the agenda of philosophy by G. W. Leibniz: “Why is there anything at all?” This question is not only difficult to answer but poses difficulties in its very conception. After all, it is—or should be—-clear that such questions as “Why is there anything at all?” and “Why are things in general as they actually are?” and “Why are the laws of nature as they are?” cannot be answered (...) within the standard causal framework. For causal explanations need inputs: they are essentially transformational rather than formational pure and simple. And so, if we persist in posing the sorts of global questions at issue, we cannot hope to resolve them in orthodox causal terms. For when we ask about everything there are no issue-external materials at our disposal for giving a noncircular explanation. Does this mean that such questions are improper and should not be raised at all—that even to inquire into the existence of the entire universe is somehow illegitimate? Not necessarily. For it could be replied that the question does have a perfectly good answer, but one that is not given in the orthodox causal terms that apply to other issues of smaller scale. (shrink)

Christian theology is one of the most neglected areas of Leibniz’s thought. It is a subject that engaged his attention throughout his intellectual career. He seems to have been very well informed about the main currents of theological opinion in his own time, and to have had an extensive knowledge of historic doctrinal positions. He left behind a wealth of letters and unpublished papers discussing topics in revealed theology; but this resource for understanding both his own thought and the history (...) of theology at the dawn of the Enlightenment remains largely unmined. The Academy edition of Leibniz’s works includes as yet no systematic project for the publication of his theological papers—the largest class of his papers—although important treatments of theological subjects are finding their way into series I and VI. Gaston Grua surveyed and assembled a large quantity of theological texts, but these are organized around Grua’s interest in Leibniz’s theodicy, so that Leibniz’s views on topics such as grace, predestination, and theological method are represented much more richly than other topics in revealed theology. Another topic much discussed in the secondary literature is Leibniz’s treatment of eucharistic theology, which has attracted attention because it is involved both in his negotiations about reunion of the churches and in some of his major discussions of issues about corporeal substance. But other central topics of Christian theology have received much less attention in the secondary literature; and this is true in particular of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, even though they are rich in metaphysical resonance and Leibniz had quite a lot to say about them. (shrink)

Working under the structure of his three main topics of determinism, theism, and idealism, Adams has produced a work on Leibniz of outstanding significance. Adams deftly handles the massive historical resources now available to Leibniz scholars, producing a major philosophical work which is a joy to read. Discussions are rich with references to heretofore little known documents, correspondence, and revisions, and Adams uses these texts to full advantage. He argues for a Leibniz deeply engaged with his contemporaries, a Leibniz constantly (...) refining and deepening his positions, but also a Leibniz who is more consistent about his basic positions than most contemporary commentators would acknowledge. (shrink)

In this work, the author argues that Leibniz's philosophical project should be viewed as being guided by a "moral vision." Rutherford does not focus on one narrow problem in the Leibnizian corpus; rather he tries to show the unity of Leibniz's thought. In particular, he wants to show that the system of monads makes most sense when it is seen as the metaphysical structure that the world must have in order for it to be the best of all possible worlds.

Leibniz is best known for maintaining two remarkable and seemingly implausible theses: the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, and reality ultimately consists of monads or soul-like entities. Scholars have subjected both these doctrines to searching examination, but on the whole they have not shown much interest in possible connections between them; Leibniz’s theodicy and his metaphysics have tended to be regarded as distinct projects which could be safely compartmentalized. In this deeply-researched, fluently-written and often penetrating study, (...) Rutherford argues that this approach is seriously mistaken. In his view we cannot fully understand Leibniz’s metaphysics unless we see how it is shaped by the themes of his theodicy. (shrink)

Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature is intended to offer a broad panorama on Leibniz’s philosophy. Although necessarily selective in its focus, it aspires to a comprehensive understanding of how the different parts of Leibniz’s philosophy — theodicy, ethics, metaphysics, natural philosophy — fit together in a coherent and compelling fashion. In the book, I indicate some of the places where tensions threaten the unity of this scheme. My primary goal, however, is to reconstruct a system that would be (...) recognizable to Leibniz himself. Within this system, primacy is assigned to the doctrine of theodicy. Although many topics vied for Leibniz’s philosophical attention, none was more firmly embedded in his consciousness than the problem of comprehending the existence and nature of the world in a way consistent with its creation by a supremely wise and good God. One of the central theses of the book is that it is only against the background of this project that we can properly understand the details of Leibniz’s complex metaphysics. (shrink)

The book under review contains a selection of the papers presented at the conference “Leibniz and Adam,” held in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem from December 29, 1991 to January 2, 1992. The object of the conference and the book was to consider the role of Adam, the first man, in Leibniz’s thought and, in doing so, “to provide an unusual view of the interrelations between his metaphysics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, theory of knowledge, logic, attidude vis-à-vis mysticism, philosophy (...) of history, philosophy of nature, ethics, and philosophical anthropology”. (shrink)

Leibniz is best known for maintaining two remarkable and seemingly implausible theses: the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, and reality ultimately consists of monads or soul-like entities. Scholars have subjected both these doctrines to searching examination, but on the whole they have not shown much interest in possible connections between them; Leibniz’s theodicy and his metaphysics have tended to be regarded as distinct projects which could be safely compartmentalized. In this deeply-researched, fluently-written and often penetrating study, (...) Rutherford argues that this approach is seriously mistaken. In his view we cannot fully understand Leibniz’s metaphysics unless we see how it is shaped by the themes of his theodicy. (shrink)

Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature is intended to offer a broad panorama on Leibniz’s philosophy. Although necessarily selective in its focus, it aspires to a comprehensive understanding of how the different parts of Leibniz’s philosophy — theodicy, ethics, metaphysics, natural philosophy — fit together in a coherent and compelling fashion. In the book, I indicate some of the places where tensions threaten the unity of this scheme. My primary goal, however, is to reconstruct a system that would be (...) recognizable to Leibniz himself. Within this system, primacy is assigned to the doctrine of theodicy. Although many topics vied for Leibniz’s philosophical attention, none was more firmly embedded in his consciousness than the problem of comprehending the existence and nature of the world in a way consistent with its creation by a supremely wise and good God. One of the central theses of the book is that it is only against the background of this project that we can properly understand the details of Leibniz’s complex metaphysics. (shrink)

The book under review contains a selection of the papers presented at the conference “Leibniz and Adam,” held in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem from December 29, 1991 to January 2, 1992. The object of the conference and the book was to consider the role of Adam, the first man, in Leibniz’s thought and, in doing so, “to provide an unusual view of the interrelations between his metaphysics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, theory of knowledge, logic, attidude vis-à-vis mysticism, philosophy (...) of history, philosophy of nature, ethics, and philosophical anthropology”. (shrink)

Leibniz is best known for maintaining two remarkable and seemingly implausible theses: the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, and reality ultimately consists of monads or soul-like entities. Scholars have subjected both these doctrines to searching examination, but on the whole they have not shown much interest in possible connections between them; Leibniz’s theodicy and his metaphysics have tended to be regarded as distinct projects which could be safely compartmentalized. In this deeply-researched, fluently-written and often penetrating study, (...) Rutherford argues that this approach is seriously mistaken. In his view we cannot fully understand Leibniz’s metaphysics unless we see how it is shaped by the themes of his theodicy. (shrink)

This welcome edition, the first volume of The Yale Leibniz, contains synoptically the original Latin text and an English translation of the very important philosophical papers written by Leibniz during his Paris period: on the one hand the series of the Elementa philosophiae arcanae de summa rerum from December 1675 to April 1676, and on the other hand a selection of the most important metaphysical texts and notes from March to December 1676. The printed text follows the Academy Edition, Series (...) VI, vol. 3, but with the intention to make a readable edition for students and scholars does not include Leibniz's revision steps. (shrink)

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 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)

At least some of these commentators have then, rather naturally, taken a step which it will be the business of this essay to criticize. They have suggested that Leibniz’s "counter-part theory" can be understood as providing an interpretation of counter-factuals and certain forms of modal discourse within his system. For example, Mondadori writes.

The fourth publication of the monograph series of the Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy, this lengthy letter of Leibniz on Chinese philosophy is an important contribution to East-West philosophical dialogue, for it depicts a sympathetic yet critical assessment of Chinese philosophy on the basis of translations and secondary sources available to Leibniz. Leibniz’s interest, as the translators point out, was not merely ecumenical, but an expression of high regard for the intrinsic contributions of Chinese thought. In spite of mistakes (...) in chronology, authorship, and interpretation of key notions of Chinese philosophy, Leibniz’s letter is important in the use of philosophical argumentation in the rebuttal of the historical and theological arguments given by Antonio Caballero a Santa Maria and Nicholas Longobardi who opposed the accommodationist position of Matteo Ricci. Leibniz’s letter cannot be regarded as a good guide to Chinese philosophy. But it has a place in the history of East-West philosophy in exemplifying the commendable attitude that combines serious appreciation and critical assessment. The translators have provided an excellent introductory guide to this Discourse. The explanatory notes and comments are quite helpful to the readers. An appendix on "Variant Readings of the Text" and a good bibliography are also provided.—A.S.C. (shrink)

In this paper I shall concern myself with the ontological argument as found in Leibniz. In recent years several authors, notable among them Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm, have contended that to speak of the ontological argument or the Anselmian argument is ambiguous, as in Anselm are to be found two logically independent ontological arguments. The more well-known version is from Proslogion II, and it takes existence as a perfection. This is the form of the argument rejected by Gaunilo, Aquinas, (...) and eventually Kant. Today it is in all but universal disfavor. (shrink)

It is good to have Huggard's translation of the Theodicy back in print. This book can find excellent use in philosophy of religion courses which attempt to follow the history of the theodical and predestination problems. Since the Theodicy is not otherwise available, however, the fact that this edition is a fifty percent abridgment is very disappointing. Repetitions and digressions could have been bracketed rather than deleted, and the appendices ought to have been retained since some of Leibniz' most concise (...) and subtle argumentation is contained in them. It is even quite a shame that Farrar's superb introduction in the original English edition was not retained. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that $2.75 is a lot to pay for an abridgment.--E. A. R. (shrink)

One of the hallmarks of the early modern rationalists was their confidence that a great deal of metaphysics could be done by purely a priori reasoning. They thought so at least partly because they inherited via Descartes Anselm's confidence that the existence of God could be established by purely a priori reasoning in an ontological argument. They also inherited a Thomistic and scholastic confidence that the concept of God as supremely perfect being, if subjected to serious and deep analysis, would (...) yield sound doctrine. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz all three took it that they had in their stock of ideas an idea of God sufficiently clear and detailed that a little analytic work could produce real metaphysical results, not only about God himself, but also about the universe in which they found themselves. Though they start with what purport to be ideas of the same God, they get radically different results in their analyses. (shrink)

¿Qué es lo que hace, según Leibniz, que se pueda decir que nuestro mundo es el mejor posible? Varias interpretaciones, no siempre posibles de conciliar, se han propuesto. Sería el mejor porque en ese mundo las criaturas razonables obtendrían la mayor felicidad, o por cuanto realizaría la mayor cantidad de ser y realidad a nivel total, o incluso porque sería el que asocia las leyes más simples con los fenómenos más ricos y variados. El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar (...) que lo mejor ha de comprenderse en el sentido del método de Formis optimis, es decir, como lo que remite, en un genero dado, a la forma más determinada, la cual es a la vez única y la más racional. Así, la perfección del mundo no resulta de que concentraría la mayor cantidad de esencia y bien, sino de que constituye el orden más inteligible, donde cada cosa, sin ser forzosamente la más perfecta en sí misma, contribuye no obstante a la armonía universal, a saber, a la unidad de una multiplicidad que cumple mejor los fines divinos. For Leibniz, what makes our world be the best? Several interpretations not always compatible have been proposed. It would be the best, insofar as it would maximize the happiness of reasonable creatures, or insofar as it would achieve the largest quantity of being and reality as a whole, or insofar as it would combine the simplest laws with the richest and most varied phenomena. The aim of this paper is to show that the best is to be understood in the sense of the method de Formis optimis, as what refers, for a given sort of things, to the most determined form, which is both unique and the most rational one. Thus, the perfection of the world does not result from its containing the largest quantity of essence and of good, but from its forming the most intelligible order, in which every single thing, without being necessarily the best in itself, nevertheless contributes to the universal harmony, that is to the unity of a manifold fulfilling the divine ends in the best possible way. (shrink)