Abstract
Commentators like Hannequin,1 Dugas,2 and Gueroult3 have tended to consider the Hypothesis physica nova (1671)4, dedicated to the Royal Society, as a mere appendix to the Theoria motus abstracti, which Leibniz had sent that same year to the Académie des sciences in Paris. Both texts were intended as shows of skill on behalf of the young German philosopher in the area of natural philosophy, at the time he was planning his diplomatic mission to France. When Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society, received the Hypothesis, he requested Leibniz to send him a copy of the Theoria so as to cast more light on his theses in physics.5 Also Wallis, who had been mandated to examine these for the Royal Society, did not fail to consider the Theoria as the true ground for the Hypothesis and to agree that the object of physics cannot be analyzed without resorting to reasons in geometry. Leibniz himself connected the physical construction, which is real yet exact, with the geometrical construction, which is both imaginary and exact.6 He was convinced that everything in the physical world obeys the laws of phoronomia elementalis. However, these abstract laws do not suffice to account for the determination of material parts to circular motion nor for the effects resulting from mass.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Arthur Hannequin, “La première philosophie de Leibniz”, in Etudes d’histoire des science et d’histoire de la philosophie, Paris: F. Alcan, 1908, I, pp. 17–224.
Martial Gueroult, Leibniz: Dynamique et métaphysique, 2nd ed., Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1967, chap. 2. Les premières conceptions de physique, pp. 8–20.
René Dugas, La mécanique au XVII e siècle, Neuchâtel: Ed. du Griffon, 1954, chap. 14. La pensée mécanique de Leibniz, pp. 460–466.
G. W. Leibniz, Die philosophischen Schriften, hrsg. von C. J. Gerhardt, Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965, IV, pp. 177–219.
Letter of Oldenburg to Leibniz, 14 April 1671, in G. W. Leibniz, Mathematische Schriften, hrsg. von C. J. Gerhardt, Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1971, I, p. 17.
François Duchesneau, “The Problem of Indiscernibles in Leibniz’s 1671 Mechanics”, in K. Okruhlik and J. R. Brown, The Natural Philosophy of Leibniz, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985, pp. 7–26. Cf. P. IV, p. 235: “Triplex constructio est: Geometrica, id est imaginaria, sed exacta; Mechanica, id est realis sed non exacta; et Physica, id est realis et exacta.”
Cf. P. IV, p. 240.
P. IV, pp. 244–261.
P. IV, pp. 248
P. IV, pp. 248–249: “Credidi tamen excitari posse ingeniosores hoc exemplo, ut imposterum quoad ejus fieri posset sine fictitiis Hypothesibus Philosophiam naturalem tractare conentur, assumtis causis, quas revera in natura esse constaret … Ad novam enim et ni fallor veriorem de rerum natura ratiocinandi viam homines vocavi.”
P. IV, p. 257.
P. IV, p. 256.
Paul Mouy, Le développement de la physique cartésienne, 1646–1712, Paris: J. Vrin, 1934, pp. 218–29.
Hannequin seems to have been justified in linking Leibniz’s and Hobbes’s approaches in physics. However, one should be more careful in drawing strict analogies between the Hypothesis and the De corpore, since there are significant methodological differences involved, cf. Hannequin, op. cit., pp. 133–135.
Letter of Leibniz to Hobbes, 13/22 July 1670, P. I, pp. 82–85.
P. IV, 1, p. 181.
P. IV, 7, p. 182.
P. IV. 1–2, p. 249.
P. IV, 10, p. 184: “Atque hic est ille Universalis motus in globo nostro terr-aquaereo, a quo potius, quam atomorum figuris aut ramentorum ac vorticum varietatibus, res sunt repetendae.”
P. IV, 7, p. 251.
Hannequin, op. cit., p. 111.
P. IV, 11, p. 184.
Cf. P. IV, 12, p. 184: “Hae jam bullae sunt semina rerum, stamina specierum, receptacula aetheris, corporum basis, consistentiae causa et fundamentum tantae varietatis, quantum in rebus, tanti impetus, quantum in motibus admiramur: hae si abessent, omnia forent arena sine calce, avolaretque gyratione densorum expulsus aether, ac terram nostram mortuam damnatamque relinqueret. Contra a bullis, gyratione circa proprium centrum firmatis, omnia solidantur et continentur. Quae ratio est etiam, quod fornicata, ea quam admiramur firmitate polleant, cur vitra rotunda in experimentis Elasticis subsistant, alterius figurae dirumpantur.”
Hannequin, op. cit., p. 115.
P., IV, 43, p. 210: “Sciendum est enim, ut praeclari illi Micrographi, Kircherius et Hookius, observavere, pleraque quae nos sentimus in majoribus, lynceum aliquem deprehensurum proportione in minoribus, quae si in infinitum progrediantur, quod certe possibile est, cum continuum sit divisibile in infinitum, quaelibet atomus erit infinitarum specierum quidam velut mundus, et dabuntur mundi in mundis in infinitum.”
Cf. Letter of 21 May 1671, P., I, pp. 52–53: “Dann auch meine Demonstrationen gegründet sein auff der schwehren doctrina de puncto, instanti, indivisibilibus, et conatu; dann gleich wie Actiones corporum bestehen in motu, so bestehen Actiones mentium in conatu, seu motus, at sic dicam, minimo vel puncto; dieweil auch mens selbsten eigentlich in puncto tantum spatii bestehet, hingegen Ein Corpus einen platz einnimbt. Welches ich, nur populariter davon zu reden, daher klarlich beweise, dieweil das gemüth sein musz in loco concursus aller bewegungen, die von den objectis sensuum uns imprimirt werden.”
P. IV, 49, p. 203.
Hannequin, op. cit., pp. 116–117.
P. IV, 15, p. 186: “Porro has bullas, haec vitra varie intorta, figurata, glomerata esse, facile cogitatu est, ad tantum rerum apparatum producendum, de quo mox in origine specierum, nunc totius systematis affectionem, id est gravitatem praeoccupemus: ac merito quidem, cum gravitas plerorumque in globo nostro extraordinariorum motuum causa, aut certe clavis sit, eorum etiam, qui in speciebus privatim exeruntur, et danda sit Physico opera, ut ad mechanicas rationes, quippe simplicissimas, quoad ejus fiery potest, omnia reducantur.”
P. IV, 2, p. 181.
P. IV, 18, p. 186: “Cum enim turbent circulationem, expelluntur; non sursum, nam eo magis turbabunt (quia superficies sphaericae crescunt in duplicata ratione, non in eadem cum diametris ratione; ac proinde sectionum quoque in idem corpus agentium inaequalitas major evenit) ergo deorsum, id est descendent. Hinc porro incrementum impetus ob novam ubique inter descendum in qualibet aetheris liberi aut liberioris, quam rei illius ratio fert, parte impressionem.”
P. IV, 10 p. 251.
P. IV, 22, p. 190.
P. IV, 21, p. 188: “At corporum sensibilium alia plane facies: omnia enim dura sunt motu quodam intestino in se redeunte; omnia discontinua sunt, unde caeteris paribus plus efficit moles; omnia Elastica sunt, seu compressa ac mox sibi relicta, ab aetheris gyratione in statum priorem restituuntur.”
P. IV, 23–29, pp. 191–195.
P. IV, 30, p. 195.
P. IV, 33*–34*, p. 197–199, 17, p. 254.
P. IV, 7–8, p. 251.
P. IV, 46, pp. 202–203.
Hannequin, op. cit., p. 127 n. 3
P. IV, 40, p. 201.
P. IV, 51, p. 204: “Et hic certe Hypothesin condituro, nisi temerarius haben affecta, subsistendum est; specialior enim applicatio ab experientia pendet. Credidi tarnen semper admirabilem Conditoris sapientiam ita res instituisse, ut paucis multa gerantur. Unde si somniandum esset, dicerem…”
P. IV, 54, p. 206: “Sufficit causam omnibus motibus explicandis suffecturam reddidisse, sufficit ex simplicissimis et liquidissimis et intellectu facillimis, ad hanc usque experientiae portam volatiles, alioquin et usui vitae atque analysi practicae inconciliabiles Theorias deduxisse; sufficit ea attulisse, quae sectae omnes, salvis domesticis opinionibus, ferre possunt.”
P. IV, 58 pp. 210–211.
P. IV, 57, p. 209.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Duchesneau, F. (1989). Leibniz’s ‘Hypothesis Physica Nova’: A Conjunction of Models for Explaining Phenomena. In: Brown, J.R., Mittelstrass, J. (eds) An Intimate Relation. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 116. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2327-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2327-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7546-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2327-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive