Abstract
In 1697, the publication of a letter from Leibniz to Bourguet in the Journal des Sçavants prompted a vigorous reply from the Cartesien Pierre-Sylvain Regis, leading to a public exchange between the two philosophers. The controversy ended with a contribution by Regis who seemingly got the final word. The exchange mainly focused on Descartes’s Principles of philosophy, III, art. 47, a text where Descartes held that the world would eventually take all the possible forms it is capable of. While Leibniz maintained that this claim had inescapable Spinozistic consequences, Regis defended Descartes against the accusation. Each position relied on its own distinct conception of the world’s infinity. This chapter follows this controversy step by step. I show in particular that Leibniz, although he did not write it, had a forceful reply to Regis’s final published objections ready at hand, based on his rehabilitation of the notion of actual infinity.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I use the following abbreviations: DESCARTES: AT = Œuvres, 11 vols., ed. C. Adam et P. Tannery, Paris: Cerf, 1897–1909.; CSM(K) = The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, ed. and trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, A. Kenny, 3 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991. LEIBNIZ: A = Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1923-; GP = Die philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz, ed. C. I. Gerhardt, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1875–1890. The article includes, in condensed form, analyses also presented in French in M. Lærke, Les Lumières de Leibniz. Controverses avec Huet , Bayle, Regis et More, Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2015, p. 285–312.
- 2.
Leibniz to Nicaise , February 15th, 1697, GP II, p. 562–63.
- 3.
Regis , “Réflexions sur une lettre de Monsieur Leibniz, écrite à Monsieur l’abbé Nicaise dans laquelle il pretend faire voir que les principes de la filosofie de Monsieur Descartes, renferment des consequences contraires à la religion and à la piété,” in Journal de sçavans, n° 23, June 17th, 1687, p. 273–76 [GP IV, p. 333–36].
- 4.
Leibniz, “Reponse aux réflexions qui se trouvent dans le 23 Journal des Sçavans de cette année, touchant les consequences de quelques endroits de la filosofie de Descartes,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 32, August 19th, p. 381–84, and “Suite de la réponse etc.,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 33, August 26th, 1697, p. 384–88 [GP IV, p. 336–42]. It was Leibniz himself who preferred to publish the text in two parts, deeming it “too long for a journal” (GP II, p. 342).
- 5.
P. S. Regis , “Reflexions pour servir de replique à une reponse insérée dans le 32 & dans le 33 journal de l’année présente,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 37, November 18th, 1697, p. 439–442.
- 6.
Descartes, Principia philosophiae, III, § 47, AT VIII, p. 103, trans. CSM I, p. 257–58.
- 7.
AT VIII, p. 102, trans. CSM I, p. 257.
- 8.
Leibniz, Periculosa in Cartesio, 1683–1684/85 (?), A VI, iv, p. 1478.
- 9.
Regis , “Réflexions sur une lettre,” p. 273 [= GP IV, p. 333].
- 10.
For an English translation, see P.-D. Huet, Against Cartesian Philosophy, trans. T. M. Lennon , New York: Humanity Books, 2003. For a commentary, see T. Lennon , The Plain Truth. Descartes, Huet , and Scepticism, Leiden: Brill, 2008.
- 11.
See Leibniz, “Extrait d’une Lettre de M. de Leibnis à M. l’Abbé Nicaise, sur la philosophie de M. Descartes,” in Journal des sçavans 15, April 13th, 1693, p. 163–165. The original letter is dated June 5th, 1692 (A II, ii, 532–538 = GP II, 534–535). For a discussion of this letter, including a complete English translation, see M. Lærke, “Leibniz, Huet , and the Critique of the Cartesian Spirit,” in The Leibniz Review 23 (2003), p. 7–36.
- 12.
Regis , “Reflexions sur une lettre,” p. 274–75 [GP IV, p. 334].
- 13.
Ibid., p. 275 [GP IV, p. 334].
- 14.
It is not a question that arises among our interlocutors. For another analysis that insist on the “deformation” to which Leibniz allegedly submits Descartes’s position, see M. Fichant, “Postface: Plus ultra,” in G. W. Leibniz, De l’horizon de la doctrine humaine, éd. M. Fichant, Paris, Vrin, 1991, p. 188–89, including note 38.
- 15.
See J. L. Marion , “De la divinité a la domination: étude sur la sémantique de capable /capax chez Descartes,” in Revue philosophique de Louvain, 73:18 (1975), p. 263–293.
- 16.
AT VIII, p. 103.
- 17.
Philipp to Leibniz, 7 (17) January 1680, A II, i, p. 786.
- 18.
Leibniz to Philipp , January 1680, A II, i, p. 786.
- 19.
Leibniz, Confessio philosophi, 1672–73, A VI, iii, 128–29, trans. in G. W. Leibniz, Confessio Philosophi. Papers concerning the problem of Evil, 1671–1678, ed. and trans. R. C. Sleigh. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 58.
- 20.
Leibniz, De mente, de universo, de Deo, décembre 1675, A VI, iii, p. 464, trans. in G. W. Leibniz, De Summa Rerum. Metaphysical Papers 1675–1676, trans. G. H. R. Parkinson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992, p. 7.
- 21.
Leibniz, Principium meum est., quicquid existere potest, et aliis compatibile est, id existere, December 12th, 1676, A VI, iii, p. 582, trans. in De summa rerum, p. 105.
- 22.
Leibniz to Fabri, early 1677 (?), A II, i, p. 464.
- 23.
See for example Leibniz to (?), 1679, A II, i, p. 778–779; Leibniz to Philipp , end of January 1680, A II, i, p. 786. See also A VI, iv, p. 1352, 1466, 1478, 1481–82, 1663, etc.
- 24.
See Leibniz, Notata quaedam G. G. L. circa vitam et doctrinam Cartesii, in C. Thomasius, Historia sapientiae et stultitiae, vol. II, April–June 1693, p. 113–22 [= A VI, iv, p. 2057–65].
- 25.
Regis , “Reflexions pour servir de réplique,” p. 439–42.
- 26.
Ibid. p. 439.
- 27.
Ibid. p. 440.
- 28.
Ibid. p. 441.
- 29.
For more on this classic distinction, see the article by A. Schechtman in this volume.
- 30.
See also O. Nachtomy , “A Tale of Two Thinkers, One Meeting, and Three Degrees of Infinity: Leibniz and Spinoza (1675–78),” in British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19:5 (2011), 939–40.
- 31.
See K. Löwith , Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 60–61.
- 32.
On the disputes between Regis and Huet , see P.-D. Huet, Censura philosophiae cartesianae, Paris: Daniel Horthemels, 1689; P.-S. Regis , Pierre-Sylvain, Reponse au livre qui a pour titre P. Danielis Huetii, Censura philosophiae Cartesianae, Paris: Jean Cusson, 1691; P.-D. Huet, Censura philosophiae cartesianae, 4e éd. aucta et emendata, Paris: Joannem Anisson, 1694. For commentary, see T. M. Lennon , The Plain Truth. Descartes, Huet, and Scepticism, Leiden: Brill, 2008.
- 33.
Anon . [in fact: P. Coste], “Discours sur la philosophie, ou l’on voit en abrégé l’histoire de cette science,” in P.-S. Regis , Cours entier de philosophie ou Systeme general selon les principes de M. Descartes, Amsterdam, Huguetan, 1691b, vol. I, not paginated, p. 1r-22v.
- 34.
Leibniz, “Reponse de M. de Leibniz à l’extrait de lettre de M. Foucher Chanoine de Dijon, insérée dans le Journal du 16 mars 1693,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 30, August 3rd, 1693, p. 355–356, here p. 356 [the original letter from around January 1693 can be found in GP I, p. 415–416).
- 35.
See H. A. Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle , Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971.
- 36.
See M. Lærke, “Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (2011), 59–68. On Spinoza, Crescas and infinity, see also M. Lærke, “Spinoza and the Cosmological Argument According to Letter 12,” in British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21:1 (2013), p. 57–77.
- 37.
P. S. Regis , Cours entier de philosophie ou Systeme general selon les principes de M. Descartes, Amsterdam: Huguetan, 1691b, t. II, ii, chap. 4–12, p. 397–424.
- 38.
Ibid. II, ii, chap. 4, p. 398.
- 39.
Leibniz, Principes de la nature et de la grâce, § 7, GP VI, p. 602, trans. in G. W. Leibniz, Philosophical Essays, eds. R. Ariew and D. Garber , Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989, p. 209–10.
- 40.
Leibniz, Periculosa in Cartesio, 1683–1684/85 (?), A VI, iv, p. 1478.
- 41.
Leibniz to Philipp , December 1679, A II, i, p. 767.
- 42.
Leibniz to Verjus , 2 December 1697, A I, xiv, p. 839–40.
References
Fichant, M. (1991). Postface: Plus ultra. In M. Fichant (Ed.), Leibniz, G. W. De l’horizon de la doctrine humaine (pp. 125–210). Paris: Vrin.
Huet, P. D. (1689). Censura philosophiae cartesianae. Paris: Daniel Horthemels.
Huet, P. D. (1694). Censura philosophiae cartesianae, 4e éd. aucta et emendata. Paris: Joannem Anisson.
Huet, P. D. (2003). Against Cartesian philosophy (T. Lennon, Trans.). New York: Humanity Books.
Lærke, M. (2003). Leibniz, Huet, and the critique of the Cartesian Spirit. The Leibniz Review, 23, 7–36.
Lærke, M. (2011). Leibniz’s cosmological argument for the existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 93, 59–68.
Lærke, M. (2013). Spinoza and the cosmological argument according to letter 12. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 21(1), 57–77.
Lærke, M. (2015). Les Lumières de Leibniz. Controverses avec Huet, Bayle, Regis et More. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Leibniz, G. W. (1989). In R. Ariew & D. Garber (Eds.), Philosophical essays. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Leibniz, G. W. (1992). De Summa Rerum. Metaphysical papers 1675–1676 (G. H. R. Parkinson, Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Leibniz, G. W. (2005). Confessio Philosophi. Papers concerning the problem of Evil, 1671–1678 (R. C. Sleigh, Ed., and Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lennon, T. M. (2008). The plain truth. Descartes, Huet, and Scepticism. Leiden: Brill.
Löwith, K. (1957). Meaning in history: The theological implications of the philosophy of history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nachtomy, O. (2011). A tale of two thinkers, one meeting, and three degrees of infinity: Leibniz and Spinoza (1675–78). British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 19(5), 939–940.
Regis, P.-S. (1691a). Reponse au livre qui a pour titre P. Danielis Huetii, Censura philosophiae Cartesianae. Paris: Jean Cusson.
Regis, P.-S. (1691b). Cours entier de philosophie ou Systeme general selon les principes de M. Descartes. Amsterdam: Huguetan.
Wolfson, H. A. (1971). Crescas’ critique of Aristotle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lærke, M. (2018). All the Forms of Matter: Leibniz, Regis and the World’s Infinity. In: Nachtomy, O., Winegar, R. (eds) Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy. The New Synthese Historical Library, vol 76. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94556-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94556-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94555-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94556-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)