Studia Leibnitiana 46 (2):167-186 (2014)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
In this paper I argue that, in Leibniz’s mature metaphysics, primary matter is not a positive constituent which must be added to the form in order to have a substance. Primary matter is merely a way to express the negation of some further perfection. It does not have a positive ontological status and merely indicates the limitation or imperfection of a substance. To be sure, Leibniz is less than explicit on this point, and in many texts he writes as if primary matter were a positive constituent of a substance. It seems to me, however, that the view most in keeping with the thrust of his mature philosophical system is that captured by a striking remark of 1695: “Materia rerum est nihilum: id est limitatio [The matter of things is nothing: that is, limitation].” This becomes especially apparent in texts showing that Leibniz’s conception of primary matter corresponds to his conception of creaturely limitation.
I start by discussing the notion of primary matter in the scholastic tradition. I then show that although Leibniz places the scholastic terminology of primary matter at a crucial juncture of his metaphysics, he thinks of primary matter in a way which significantly deviates from earlier scholastic views. I conclude that despite his adoption of distinctive terminology of Aristotelian scholasticism, instead of holding a broadly Aristotelian concept of primary matter as the ultimate subject of inherence, Leibniz thinks of primary matter according to a Neoplatonic blue-print in which matter is non-being, privation, mere absence of perfection.
|
Keywords | Primary matter Passive power Creaturely limitation Scholastic philosophy |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Du Châtelet on Freedom, Self-Motion, and Moral Necessity.Julia Jorati - 2019 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 57 (2):255-280.
Uma introdução atualizada a Leibniz. [REVIEW]César Schirmer Dos Santos - 2016 - Filosofia Unisinos 17 (3):390-391.
The Role of Plurality in Leibniz’s Argument From Unity.Adam Harmer - 2020 - Res Philosophica 97 (3):437-457.
Perception and Pluralism: Leibniz’s Theological Derivation of Perception in Connection with Platonism, Rationalism and Substance Monism.Gastón Robert - 2020 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 102 (1):56-101.
Similar books and articles
Unity and Primary Substance for Aristotle.Catherine Jack Deavel - 2003 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:159-172.
Leibniz’s Metaphysical Evil Revisited.Maria Rosa Antognazza - 2014 - In Samuel Newlands Larry Jorgensen (ed.), New Essays on Leibniz’s Theodicy. Oxford University Press. pp. 112-134.
The Concept of Matter in Modern Atomic Theory.M. Zuidgeest - 1977 - Acta Biotheoretica 26 (1):30-38.
Leibniz’s Early Views on Matter, Modes, and God.Candice S. Goad - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:261-273.
Bodies, Matter, Monads and Things in Themselves.Nicholas Stang - forthcoming - In Brandon Look (ed.), Leibniz and Kant.
Substances.S. Marc Cohen - 2009 - In Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle. Blackwell-Wiley.
Matter, Form, and Individuation.Jeffrey E. Brower - 2011 - In Brian Davies & Eleonore Stump (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas. Oxford University Press. pp. 85-103.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2013-06-18
Total views
385 ( #25,605 of 2,498,523 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #140,198 of 2,498,523 )
2013-06-18
Total views
385 ( #25,605 of 2,498,523 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #140,198 of 2,498,523 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads