Leibniz, Misc

Si bien es cierto que Leibniz se sintió atraído por la filosofía de Spinoza, sin embargo no podía aceptarla, pues pronto fue consciente de las implicaciones y consecuencias de dicho sistema; los peligros para la teología que suponían las tesis spinozistas, que fundan la moral en la naturaleza humana. El racionalismo de Leibniz se vio moderado por las exigencias de su cristianismo ortodoxo, e ideó su propio proyecto filosófico como una alternativa al de Spinoza, que representaba el ataque más radical (...) a la metafísica clásica. (shrink)

The paper is motivated by the desire to identify exactly what Leibniz has contributed to Deleuze and Whitehead’s particular version of vitalism. This reading of Leibniz is compared with those of Badiou. The paper compares each of these philosopher’s interpretations of the fundamental principles that ground Leibnizian monadology, with the intention of highlighting the implications of these readings for political theory. In particular, Badiou’s notion of a schema of torsion is examined and distinguished from Deleuze’s notions of actualization and realization.

In his rich and engaging essay, Professor Garber asks most centrally, “…what was the relation between Leibniz’s metaphysical project as set out in the so-called ‘Monadologie’ and the more theological project in the Essais de Théodicée?” His answer is, in short, that there isn’t much of a relationship between these two great works. Furthermore, he takes this result to be evidence of Leibniz’s not being a systematic philosopher in the spirit of Descartes or Spinoza. In these brief comments, I revisit (...) Garber’s two central questions in turn and offer some moderating resistance to both of his conclusions. (shrink)

This volume offers the first-ever complete English translation of Leibniz’s Dissertatio De Arte Combinatoria together with a critical edition of the original Latin text on fa...

Entre 1676 y 1680 Leibniz intentó conseguir un puesto remunerado en la Académie des sciencesque quedó vacante tras el fallecimiento de Roberval en 1675. Al mismo tiempo, Leibniz ofrece en cartas a Huygens varios métodos, recetas e invenciones que podrían ser de utilidad para la academia parisina: entre ellos encontramos el analysis situs, una discusión sobre el método de Becher para encontrar oro, la receta del fósforo, el método inverso de tangentes, la cuadratura aritmética y su propia red epistolar. La (...) hipótesis de este trabajo defiende que estas discusiones fueron presentadas a Huygens con la finalidad de conseguir el puesto remunerado en la Académie, lo cual no ha sido lo suficientemente tenido en cuenta en la literatura científica. (shrink)

Este artículo contribuye a aclarar el concepto leibniziano de _razón_ a partir del análisis de su proyecto de fundación de una sociedad o academia de las ciencias en Alemania. Los escritos de Leibniz sobre esta temática nos muestran un plan teórico y práctico puesto conscientemente al servicio de la conformación y constitución racional de lo real, mediante la institución de un organismo para el bienestar general y el progreso técnico en beneficio de la sociedad. En la particular concepción ilustrada que (...) subyace a su proyecto de fundación de academias Leibniz pone en juego elementos fundamentales de su pensamiento, como la defensa de que la racionalidad sólo es posible para el ser humano en tanto que el individuo y las comunidades participan de los principios universales de la racionalidad desde una determinada perspectiva. (shrink)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was a universal genius, making original contributions to law, mathematics, philosophy, politics, languages, and many areas of science, including what we would now call physics, biology, chemistry, and geology. By profession he was a court counselor, librarian, and historian, and thus much of his intellectual activity had to be fit around his professional duties. Leibniz’s fame and reputation among his contemporaries rested largely on his innovations in the field of mathematics, in particular his discovery of the (...) calculus in 1675. Another of his enduring mathematical contributions was his invention of binary arithmetic, though the significance of this was not recognized until the 20th century. These days, a good proportion of scholarly interest in Leibniz is focused on his philosophy. Among his signature philosophical doctrines are the pre-established harmony, the theory of monads, and the claim that ours is the best of all possible worlds, which forms the central plank of his theodicy. For Leibniz, philosophy was not the discovery of deep truths of interest only to other philosophers, but a practical discipline with the means to increase happiness and well-being. Philosophical truths, he believed, revealed the beauty and rational order of the universe, and the justice and wisdom of its creator, and accordingly could inspire contentment and peace of mind. Leibniz’s other intellectual projects were likewise geared toward the improvement of the human condition. He lobbied tirelessly for the establishment of scientific societies, devised measures to improve public health, and was actively engaged in projects to unite the churches and so end the religious strife that marred the Europe of his day. He was also engaged in politics for much of his career, and often took on a diplomatic role, sometimes officially and other times not. In the political sphere, Leibniz did not wield true power but was a man with influence, obtained in no small part by his cultivation of relationships with leaders and sovereigns both inside and outside Germany. The sheer range of Leibniz’s interests, projects, and activities can make him a difficult figure to study, and the vast quantity of his writings only compounds the problem (around fifty thousand of his writings survive). Nevertheless, even a sampling of Leibniz’s work is enough to get a sense of his vision, originality, and intellectual depth, and good secondary literature will only enhance this. The items in this bibliography were chosen with this in mind. (shrink)

Volume 28, Issue 1, January 2020, Page 204-207.

Encountering Leibniz for the first time can be a dizzying experience. Unlike many early modern thinkers, Leibniz did not produce a treatise, which outlines his philosophical system step by step. Rather, each of Leibniz’s texts provides a kaleidoscopic view of the whole, a complex mixture of elements, some in the foreground, some receding into the background, present but not altogether in focus. Furthermore, Leibniz produced philosophical work over 6 decades, and the extent to which his views changed over that time (...) is an ongoing subject of scholarly disagreement. The perpetual challenge for readers and teachers of Leibniz is, then, where to start: which fragment of the whole provides a viable entry point into Leibniz’s philosophy? Leibniz’s Key Philosophical Writings engages this challenge, providing an introduction to Leibniz’s thought, not by focusing on particular themes, doctrines, or threads running through his entire corpus, but by engaging complete texts in all their complexity. (shrink)

The Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky considered himself a Leibnizian of sorts. He accepted parts of Leibniz’s doctrine of monads, although he preferred to call them ‘substantival agents’ and rejected the thesis that they have neither doors nor windows. In Lossky’s own doctrine, monads have existed since the beginning of time, they are immortal, and can evolve or devolve depending on the goodness or badness of their behavior. Such evolution requires the possibility for monads to reincarnate into the bodies of (...) creatures of a higher level on the scala perfectionis. According to this theory, a monad can evolve by being progressively reincarnated multiple times through a sort of process of metamorphosis from the level of the most elementary particles all the way up to the level of human beings or even higher. Lossky argues that the works of Leibniz contain scattered elements of such a systematic doctrine of reincarnation. He attempts to reconstitute this doctrine in an article that appeared both in Russian and German in 1931. The Russian version, ‘Ученiе Лейбница о перевоплощенiи какъ метаморфозѣ’, was published in the Сборникъ Русскаго института въ Прагѣ, vol. 2, 1931, pp. 77–88. The German version appeared under the title ‘Leibniz’ Lehre von der Reinkarnation als Metamorphose,’ in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 40, n. 2, 1931, pp. 214–226. The content of the Russian and German versions is roughly the same, except for the omission, in the German version, of a mention of David Hume in the second sentence and of one paragraph and a half at the end of the article. The following is a translation of this article. I translated the text from the Russian version, which was in all appearances written first, but I also took the German version into account. The original pagination is added in angle brackets. Angle brackets are used wherever the additions are mine. — Frédéric Tremblay. (shrink)

A postprint-version of the review is available in PhilPapers.

Leibniz’s philosophy enjoyed a Russian fandom that endured from the eighteenth century to the death of the last exiled Russian philosophers in the twentieth century. There was, to begin with, Leibniz’s direct impact on Peter the Great and on the scientific development of Saint Petersburg. Then there was, still in the eighteenth century, Mikhail Lomonosov, who was sent to study with Christian Wolff in Marburg, and who came back to Saint Petersburg with a watered-down Leibnizian worldview, which he applied to (...) the study of chemistry and physics. Another eighteenth century philosopher, Alexander Radishchev, who studied in Leipzig, displayed acquiescence with a number of key elements from Leibniz’s philosophy. Russian Lebnizianism as a continuous philosophical movement was considerably reinvigorated in the 1870s when the Leibnizian German philosopher Gustav Teichmüller took a position at the University of Dorpat (nowadays Tartu, Estonia), which was then located within the Russian Empire. Teichmüller influenced a number of Russian philosophers into adopting a “Teichmüllerian” version of Leibnizianism. Among these philosophers were Evgeny Bobrov and Alexei Kozlov. In Saint Petersburg, Kozlov influenced his own son, Askoldov, and the latter’s friend — Nikolai Lossky. In the meanwhile, in Moscow Lev Lopatin, Nikolai Bugaev, and Petr Astafiev developed their own Leibnizianism in seemingly relative independence from Teichmüller’s influence and presumably, in some cases, under the partial influence of Vladimir Solovyov. Despite this relative independence, however, the fact remains that there was in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Russia a network of more or less loosely interconnected Leibnizian philosophers who read each other and wrote about each other, who exchanged ideas, and who constituted a movement that we might characterize as “Russian Leibnizianism” or “Russian Neo-Leibnizianism.” In this chapter, I tell the story of the intellectual lineage of Russian Leibnizianism. (shrink)

Recently we proposed "quantum language" (or, the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics"), which was not only characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics but also the linguistic turn of Descartes=Kant epistemology. We believe that quantum language is the language to describe science, which is the final goal of dualistic idealism. Hence there is a reason to want to clarify, from the quantum linguistic point of view, the following problems: "brain in a vat argument", "the Cogito proposition", (...) "five-minute hypothesis", "only the present exists", "Copernican revolution", "McTaggart's paradox", and so on. In this paper, these will be discussed and clarified in quantum language. That is, these are not in quantum language. Also we emphasize that Leibniz's relationalism in Leibniz-Clarke correspondence is regarded as one of the most important parts of the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This paper is the revised version of the paper: Open Journal of Philosophy, 2018 Vol.8, No.5, 466-480). (shrink)

In this paper, I will try to look at Leibniz from the topos of Indian philosophy. François Jullien called such a strategy “dépayser la pensée” – to withdraw an idea from its familiar environment and to see it through the lens of a different culture. “Read Confucius to better understand Plato.” I am referring to Indian philosophy, especially to some Buddhist systems, in order to highlight certain aspects of Leibniz’s mode of thinking, that I define as “atomistic approach”.

This is an appreciation of Richard Arthur, assessing his contributions to Leibniz studies and recounting the nature of our friendship over the past 30 years.

Rita Widmaier and Malte-Ludolf Babin have done a valuable scholarly service for studies of the early modern European reception of China in collecting letters from Leibniz's extensive correspondence concerning China and translating them from the original Latin and French into German. This multi-lingual and chronologically organized edition gathers letters to and from Leibniz as well as supplementary texts composed between the years 1694 and 1716. It incorporates helpful clarificatory notes as well as an informative and lucid introduction.This edition focuses on (...) the exchanges between Leibniz and the Jesuit theologian and philosopher Barthélemy Des Bosses S.J. and other Jesuits in Europe who were in... (shrink)

Los textos compilados en este libro hablan fundamentalmente de "Leibniz en diálogo", es decir, de Leibniz en su lectura de la tradición, en su confrontación con la filosofía y la ciencia de sus coetáneos; pero también hablan de la recepción y transformación de sus ideas por parte de las corrientes de pensamiento que le siguieron y de este modo se nutrieron de su espíritu intelectual. No pretende esta ser una edición exhaustiva, pero no por ello deja de significar la presente (...) una amplia selección de estudios de ámbito internacional sobre el significado filosófico de Leibniz como pensador abierto, plural y conciliador. Son aquí objeto de estudio las diferentes vías de comunicación entabladas por Leibniz con la tradición, con su época o con la filosofía posterior. Este volumen pretende ser una contribución a la difusión del pensamiento leibniziano entre los profesores y estudiantes de filosofía, a la promoción del debate entre los especialistas y a la mayor consolidación de la comunidad internacional de investigadores sobre Leibniz. (shrink)

“Baroque” sensitivity - a concept elusive enough - develops in the complex post-Renaissance culture and largely co-exists with the new culture shaped by seventeenth-century scientific revolution. I...

Leibniz's correspondence with Thomas Burnett of Kemnay is probably best known for Leibniz's attempts to communicate with Locke via Burnett. But Burnett was also, more generally a source of English intellectual news for Leibniz. As such, Burnett provided an important part of the context in which Locke was presented to and understood by Leibniz. This paper examines the Leibniz-Burnett correspondence, and argues against Jolley's suggestion that "the context in which Leibniz learned about Locke was primarily a theological one". That said, (...) in thinking about Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, and his subsequent defenses of it, Leibniz does offer an argument against Locke's book -- but not one that's closely related to Locke's theological views, or to any accusation of Socinianism. The paper also considers, by way of contrast, the way Leibniz and Burnett talk about the more obviously controversial figure John Toland. (shrink)

The subject of this article is Leibnizian interpretation of the principle of reason. Although the German philosopher called it principium grande of his philosophy, we do not find its systematic exposition in Leibniz’s works. The main aim of my paper is to present a short exposition of the principle. The article consists of three parts: in the first I present systematic exposition of the principle of reason with particular emphasis on explication of terms “principle” and “reason,” in the second, I (...) show the origins of the principle, finally, in the third part, I discuss in detail three forms of it: the principle of sufficient reason, the principle of determining reason and the principle of rendering reason. I accept two main theses: firstly, a proper interpretation of this principle requires taking into account the whole context of Leibnizian philosophy, i.e. one cannot limit oneself to only one discipline, e.g. logic. Secondly, the ultimate methodological and heuristical foundation of the principle of reason is Leibnizian metaphysics, especially natural theology. (shrink)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a man of extraordinary intellectual creativity who lived an exceptionally rich and varied intellectual life in troubled times. More than anything else, he was a man who wanted to improve the life of his fellow human beings through the advancement of all the sciences and the establishment of a stable and just political order. In this Very Short Introduction Maria Rosa Antognazza outlines the central features of Leibniz's philosophy in the context of his overarching intellectual vision (...) and aspirations. Against the backdrop of Leibniz's encompassing scientific ambitions, she introduces the fundamental principles of Leibniz's thought, as well as his theory of truth and theory of knowledge. Exploring Leibniz's contributions to logic, mathematics, physics, and metaphysics, she considers how his theories sat alongside his concerns with politics, diplomacy, and a broad range of practical reforms: juridical, economic, administrative, technological, medical, and ecclesiastical. Discussing Leinbniz's theories of possible worlds, she concludes by looking at what is ultimately real in this actual world that we experience, the good and evil there is in it, and Leibniz's response to the problem of evil through his theodicy. ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable. (shrink)

Leibniz é um contumaz crítico das filosofias da tradição e de seus contemporâneos. No que se refere à questão do conhecimento, existe na filosofia leibniziana uma oposição clara às gnosiologias mais influentes e determinantes de seu tempo, no caso do cartesianismo, do empirismo e até mesmo do intuicionismo espinoseano. O ecletismo de Leibniz tomou forma a partir de suas críticas, que, segundo algumas interpretações, intentavam conciliar os mais diletos pontos de vista. No entanto, o pensamento de Leibniz envereda por outros (...) campos na questão do conhecimento, assim como o fez reconhecidamente na física, na matemática e na metafísica? Nos propomos a discutir alguns pontos desta questão demonstrando que a ideia de invenção de Leibniz constitui-se em um movimento contra a filosofia da tradição e já reflete a insatisfação do pensador acerca dos rumos tomados pelas ciências em geral no seu tempo. Tendo como base o embate contra o método geométrico, alicerçando-se sobretudo no método matemático, Leibniz estabelece um pensamento que concilia a um só tempo a luz da descoberta e o rigor da demonstração, tendo em vista poder voltar a navegar efetivamente no ‘oceano das ciências’ e em busca da felicidade humana. (shrink)

El artículo busca hacer un traslado de la filosofía leibniziana al mundo de la arquitectura a través de la ley de la continuidad, planteando una serie de cinco leyes o condiciones que posibilitan dicho traslado y que a su vez fundan una teoría sobre cómo puede ser entendido el espacio arquitectónico a la luz de la filosofía. Además de la continuidad, el artículo aborda el problema del pliegue y su condición de dispositivo que puede ser entendido como el detonante primordial (...) del espacio y la experimentación formal. (shrink)

The historiography of philosophy is a hot topic these days. One need only peruse the 2013 Philosophy and Its History, edited by Mogens Lærke, Justin E. H. Smith, and Eric Schliesser, or this journal’s debate between Daniel Garber and Michael Della Rocca, to see that methodological issues in the history of philosophy are the subject of substantive contemporary discussion. In the volume under review, Lærke defends an approach to the historiography of philosophy that is fundamentally inseparable from the history of (...) philosophy itself: historical perspectivism.Lærke’s volume is a fait preuve for historical perspectivism, four case studies that demonstrate its benefits: methodological exactness, sensitivity.. (shrink)

En la producción filosófica de los siglos XVI al XVIII ocupa un papel muy importante la correspondencia entre los intelectuales de diversas disciplinas. Dada la ausencia de revistas científicas, de editoriales y, por supuesto, de correo electrónico, la correspondencia postal era un elemento clave de intercambio de conocimientos, de discusión y descubrimiento de nuevos hallazgos. Se plantea aquí una reflexión sobre el sentido de la carta y su papel en la constitución del saber. Se destacan tres rasgos principales: la carta (...) es una abstracción respecto a su contexto propio que es el conjunto de la correspondencia entre dos o más autores; la carta es un producto fundamental no sólo en la difusión del saber entre especialistas, sino también en su descubrimiento y creación; y por último, el intercambio epistolar no sólo constituye un modo esencial de comunicación entre científicos, políticos o intelectuales, sino que también a veces ha constituido la plataforma en la que han tenido lugar desencuentros de alcance histórico. Toda esta reflexión se ilumina al hilo de los textos y ejemplos de la inmensa correspondencia de Leibniz. (shrink)

Book review: ANTOGNAZZA, M.R. 2016. Leibniz: A very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 175 p.

The question why Leibniz continues to fascinate and perplex us 300 years after his death is one I approach with both hesitation and enthusiasm. Rather than attempting a survey of currrent controversies in Leibniz scholarship, as useful and interesting as such a survey would be, I take the opportunity to explain the underlying basis of our interest in Leibniz.

Les textes reunis dans ce volume visent a combler une importante lacune : l'absence d'etude d'ampleur consacree specifiquement aux relations entre Pierre Bayle et Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, permettant d'evaluer l'influence qu'ils ont exercee l'un sur l'autre, par leurs ecrits et leurs echanges, directs et indirects.Le but est de confronter ces deux philosophes majeurs du XVIIe siecle, en cherchant a depasser l'opposition reductrice entre scepticisme d'un cote et rationalisme dogmatique de l'autre. L'etude de leurs rapports montre les differentes etapes et la (...) fecondite de leurs echanges : d'abord autour de la critique de la physique de Descartes, ensuite a propos du « systeme de l'harmonie preetablie » defendu par Leibniz mais critique par Bayle dans son Dictionnaire historique et critique, enfin au sujet du rapport entre foi et raison, du probleme du mal et de la justification de Dieu. (shrink)