Jin Qian Dans son Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, Leibniz produit une interprétation du premier principe de la philosophie chinoise. Le présent article s’interroge sur les conditions de cette interprétation en la comparant avec la controverse entre Leibniz et Descartes par rapport à la conception de la substance. Il sera montré que, bien que Leibniz utilise un « principe herméneutique » dans son interprétation de la philosophie chinoise, ce principe n’est pas suffisant mais repose sur des conditions (...) plus fondamentales. La comparaison avec la controverse Leibniz-Descartes sur la substance permet d’identifier deux conditions majeures de l’application de ce principe herméneutique, à savoir la théorie dynamique de la substance et la conception de la théologie naturelle comme fondement de la physique, deux points sur lesquels divergent Leibniz et Descartes. (shrink)

This book introduces student to the three major figures of modern philosophy known as the rationalists. It is not for complete beginners, but it is an accessible account of their thought. By concerning itself with metaphysics, and in particular substance, the book relates an important historical debate largely neglected by the contemporary debates in the once again popular area of traditional metaphysics. in philosophy. (Do Not USE).

One of the challenges facing instructors of Chinese philosophy courses at many Western universities is the fact that students can often bring orientalizing assumptions and expectations to their encounters with primary sources. This paper examines the nature of this student bias and surveys four pedagogical approaches to confronting it in the context of undergraduate Chinese philosophy curricula. After showcasing some of the inadequacies of these approaches, I argue in favor of a fifth approach that deploys sources from the (...) “pre-history” of comparative philosophy, viz. documents by some of the first Western interpreters of Chinese thought. Such sources give students an access point to the Chinese primary source material that might be prima facie more culturally familiar, while also prompting them to recognize the limitations of that perspective. Of course, most of these early Western interpretations are naive, ignorant, or even blatantly xenophobic; but as Confucius stresses, even bad role-models can still serve as effective teachers by reminding us of pitfalls to avoid. Thus, if we can appreciate the failings of earlier interpretive efforts, we may be more cautious and open-minded in how we ourselves approach primary texts. An analysis is given of the hermeneutic climate of early modern European-Chinese comparativism, and Leibniz’s writings on Confucianism are unpacked as a specific case-study of this teaching strategy. (shrink)

A certain tension underlies any account of how we engage the thought of another culture. In order to learn from another culture, we must be able to judge what is of value to us, which means we must retain some criterion for judgment. At the same time, in so far as we presuppose some criterion, we place that criterion itself out of question. In my dissertation, I approach this tension through Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz, concentrating on two related aspects of his (...) philosophy. The first is that perfection requires the maximization of diversity and order. In uniting diversity and order, Leibniz lays the foundation for uniting an order allowing judgment with the actual diversity of cultures. The second aspect is the characterization of the relationship between experience and the universe as expression, rather than representation. The maximization of order and diversity yields a system in which each substance expresses the same universe from a different perspective. ;What do substances with diverse perspectives share? We might expect Leibniz to posit necessary truths as the common ground, but although necessary truths are universal, our access to them is limited. The specific form these limitations take depends on our concrete placement in the universe, and thus our perspective. I examine four ways in particular that our perspectival experience conditions our access to necessary truths. For example, our finitude requires that our discovery of necessary truths follow a concrete order, determined by experience. Thus a contingent encounter with a geometry school makes us more likely to learn necessary truths about geometry. ;The first half of my dissertation provides a broad interpretation of Leibniz's philosophy, setting up this foundation for cultural exchange. The second half is a comprehensive study of Leibniz's writings on China, in which this foundation is expressed. Through this study, I show how Leibniz himself conceives of understanding across cultures, while also showing how Leibniz's interests in China follow from foundations in his philosophy. I conclude by arguing that Leibniz's vision of different substances as expressions of the same universe provides a fruitful foundation for cultural exchange. (shrink)

This intelligent and often subtle introduction to rationalist metaphysics focuses on the development of the concept of substance in Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. After briefly reviewing the Aristotelian background in the introduction, Woolhouse spends the first three chapters presenting the broad outlines of each thinker’s account of substance. These are followed by three chapters devoted more specifically to the metaphysics of extended substance and to foundational issues in early modern physics. Next come two chapters on thinking (...) class='Hi'>substance and its relation to extended substance, and finally a chapter on the relation between created and uncreated substance, which Woolhouse describes as "an organizing centre of the whole book". (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe most prominent early modern argument against materialism is to be found in Descartes. Previously I had argued that this argument relies crucially on a robust conception of substance, according to which it has a single principal attribute of which all its other intrinsic qualities are modes. In the present paper I return to this claim. In Section 2, I address a question that is often raised about that conception of substance: its commitment to the idea that a (...) substance has a single such principal attribute. Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra and Daniel Garber have argued that this claim relies on Descartes's identification of substance with attribute. But I argue that it relies on his view that a substance has a single, unitary nature. In Section 3, I examine the role of this conception of substance in arguments found in Malebranche and Leibniz and compare these arguments with Descartes's. (shrink)

The monadology.--On the notions of right and justice.--New system of the nature of substances and of the communication between them.--Explanation of the new system--Third explanation of the new system.--On the ultimate origination of things.--New essays on the human understanding.--Introduction.--Principles of nature and of grace.

The Discourse on Metaphysics is one of Leibniz's fundamental works. Written around January 1686, it is the most accomplished systematic expression of Leibniz's philosophy in the 1680s, the period in which Leibniz's philosophy reached maturity. Leibniz's goal in the Discourse is to give a metaphysics for Christianity; that is, to provide the answers that he believes Christians should give to the basic metaphysical questions. Why does the world exist? What is the world like? What kinds of things exist? And what (...) is the place of human beings in the world? To this purpose Leibniz discusses some of the most traditional topics of metaphysics, such as the nature of God, the purpose of God in creating the world, the nature of substance, the possibility of miracles, the nature of our knowledge, free will, and the justice behind salvation and damnation. This volume provides a new translation of the Discourse, complete with a critical introduction and a comprehensive philosophical commentary. (shrink)

'I concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or nature resides only in thinking, and which, in order to exist, has no need of place and is not dependent on any material thing.' Descartes's A Discourse on the Method of Correctly Conducting One's Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences marks a watershed in European thought; in it, the author provides an informal intellectual autobiography in the vernacular for a non-specialist readership, sweeps away all previous philosophical traditions, (...) and sets out in brief his radical new philosophy, which begins with a proof of the existence of the self, next deduces from it the existence and nature of God, and ends by offering a radical new account of the physical world and of human and animal nature. This new translation is accompanied by a substantial introductory essay which draws on Descartes's correspondence to examine his motivation and the impact of his great work on his contemporaries. Detailed notes explain his philosophical terminology and ideas. ABOUT THE SERIES: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the widest range of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, helpful notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more. (shrink)

Two of Leibniz's most studied and often quoted works appear in this volume. Published in 1686, the Discourse on Metaphysics consists of the philosopher's explanation of individual perception as an expression of the rest of the universe from a unique perspective. The whole world--the best of all possible worlds, as he famously remarks--is thus contained in each individual substance. The Monadology, written in 1714, offers a concise synopsis of Leibniz's philosophy, establishing the laws of final causes, which underlie God's (...) free choice to create the best possible world--a world that serves as dynamic and perfectly ordered evidence of the wisdom of its creator. Translated by George R. Montgomery. (shrink)

Le corps entier des sciences peut estre consideré comme l’ocean, qui est continué partout, et sans interruption ou partage, bien que les hommes y conçoivent des parties, et leur donnent des noms selon leur commodité. Et comme il y a des mers inconnues, ou qui n’ont esté navigeés que par quelques vaisseaux que le hazard y avoir jettés: on peut dire,[10] de même qu’il y a des sciences dont on a connu quelque chose par rencontre seulement et sans dessein. L’art (...) des combinaisons est de ce nombre; elle signifie chez moy, autant que la science des formes ou formules ou bien des variations en general. En un mot, c’est la Specieuse universelle ou la Characteristique. De sorte qu’elle traite de eodem et diverso; de simili et dissimili; de absoluto et relato; comme la Mathematique ordinaire traite de [15] uno et multis, de magno et parvo, de toto et parte. On peut même dire que la Logistique ou bien l’Algebre luy est sousordonnée en un certain sens. Car lorsqu’on se sert de plusieurs notes indifferentes, ou qui au commencement du calcul pouvoient estre echangées et substituées mutuellement sans faire tort au raisonnement, en quoy les lettres d’Alphabet sont fort propres; et lors que ces lettres ou notes signifient des grandeurs, ou [20] des nombres generaux, il en vient l’Algebre ou plus tost la Specieuse de Viete. Et c’est justement en cela que consiste l’avantage de l’Algebre de Viete et de Descartes sur celle des anciens, qu’en se servant des lettres au lieu des nombres tant connus, qu’inconnus, on vient a des formules, ou il y a quelque liaison et ordre, qui donne moyen à nostre esprit de. (shrink)

Le corps entier des sciences peut estre consideré comme l’ocean, qui est continué partout, et sans interruption ou partage, bien que les hommes y conçoivent des parties, et leur donnent des noms selon leur commodité. Et comme il y a des mers inconnues, ou qui n’ont esté navigeés que par quelques vaisseaux que le hazard y avoir jettés: on peut dire,[10] de même qu’il y a des sciences dont on a connu quelque chose par rencontre seulement et sans dessein. L’art (...) des combinaisons est de ce nombre; elle signifie chez moy, autant que la science des formes ou formules ou bien des variations en general. En un mot, c’est la Specieuse universelle ou la Characteristique. De sorte qu’elle traite de eodem et diverso; de simili et dissimili; de absoluto et relato; comme la Mathematique ordinaire traite de [15] uno et multis, de magno et parvo, de toto et parte. On peut même dire que la Logistique ou bien l’Algebre luy est sousordonnée en un certain sens. Car lorsqu’on se sert de plusieurs notes indifferentes, ou qui au commencement du calcul pouvoient estre echangées et substituées mutuellement sans faire tort au raisonnement, en quoy les lettres d’Alphabet sont fort propres; et lors que ces lettres ou notes signifient des grandeurs, ou [20] des nombres generaux, il en vient l’Algebre ou plus tost la Specieuse de Viete. Et c’est justement en cela que consiste l’avantage de l’Algebre de Viete et de Descartes sur celle des anciens, qu’en se servant des lettres au lieu des nombres tant connus, qu’inconnus, on vient a des formules, ou il y a quelque liaison et ordre, qui donne moyen à nostre esprit de. (shrink)

Le corps entier des sciences peut estre consideré comme l’ocean, qui est continué partout, et sans interruption ou partage, bien que les hommes y conçoivent des parties, et leur donnent des noms selon leur commodité. Et comme il y a des mers inconnues, ou qui n’ont esté navigeés que par quelques vaisseaux que le hazard y avoir jettés: on peut dire,[10] de même qu’il y a des sciences dont on a connu quelque chose par rencontre seulement et sans dessein. L’art (...) des combinaisons est de ce nombre; elle signifie chez moy, autant que la science des formes ou formules ou bien des variations en general. En un mot, c’est la Specieuse universelle ou la Characteristique. De sorte qu’elle traite de eodem et diverso; de simili et dissimili; de absoluto et relato; comme la Mathematique ordinaire traite de [15] uno et multis, de magno et parvo, de toto et parte. On peut même dire que la Logistique ou bien l’Algebre luy est sousordonnée en un certain sens. Car lorsqu’on se sert de plusieurs notes indifferentes, ou qui au commencement du calcul pouvoient estre echangées et substituées mutuellement sans faire tort au raisonnement, en quoy les lettres d’Alphabet sont fort propres; et lors que ces lettres ou notes signifient des grandeurs, ou [20] des nombres generaux, il en vient l’Algebre ou plus tost la Specieuse de Viete. Et c’est justement en cela que consiste l’avantage de l’Algebre de Viete et de Descartes sur celle des anciens, qu’en se servant des lettres au lieu des nombres tant connus, qu’inconnus, on vient a des formules, ou il y a quelque liaison et ordre, qui donne moyen à nostre esprit de. (shrink)

Le Système de l'Harmonie préétablie est un système de communication. L'harmonie est une métaphore, que Leibniz reconnaît avoir empruntée à l'art ; la communication est un concept, qui, réglant les rapports perçus entre les éléments, produit et fait fonctionner le système comme tel. La notion de communication s'analyse en termes de correspondance, connexion, liaison, commerce, concomitance, accord, entr'expression (ou, figure négative, entr'empêchement). Lancée dans la controverse avec les cartésiens, elle s'applique à la relation de l'âme au corps ; mais encore (...) des corps aux corps, des substances aux substances, des âmes aux âmes, des esprits aux esprits ; mais aussi à ce qui réunit ou sépare les religions, les églises, les savoirs, les cultures. La communication traverse le système du monde comme celui des textes : elle est de physique, de métaphysique, de morale, de théologie, d'épistémologie. (shrink)

Vorwort, von R. Loosen und F. Vonessen.--Leibniz und das binäre Zahlensystem, von F. Vonessen.--Das Geheimnis der Schöpfung; Neujahrsbrief an Herzog Rudolph August von Braunschweig-Lüneburg-Wolfenbüttel, von G. W. Leibniz.--Leibniz und die chinesische Philosophie, von R. Loosen.--Lettre sur la philosophie chinoise à Nicolas de Remond. Abhandlung über die chinesische Philosophie. Von G. W. Leibniz. Anhang: Anmerkungen, Abkürzungen (bibliographical: p. [133-153]--Nachwort: Zur fünftausendjährigen Geschichte des binären Zahlensystems: Fuh-Hi, G. W. Leibniz, Norbert Wiener, von J. Gebser.

Leibniz construit, teste et vérifie sans cesse la pertinence et la cohérence de sa philosophie en la rapportant aux conclusions des autres disciplines. Cette méthode heuristique nourrit son dialogue avec les sciences mathématiques et physiques; moins connus, les enjeux révélés par la réforme moderne de la médecine et la chimie suscitent une interrogation sur la vie et la qualité. Ces sciences expérimentales s'avèrent en effet cruciales pour une philosophie de la nature qui cherche à concilier le mécanisme et le finalisme (...) à travers les concepts d'entéléchie et de monade. Elles obligent en outre à préciser la logique de l'expérience, la fonction de la raison, le statut des principes explicatifs (loi, cause, éléments, analogie). Enfin, elles exigent un fondement qui permette de rapporter les phénomènes organiques à leur véritable origine: la vie. Ce programme se réalise de façon systématique dans la controverse qu'entretiennent Leibniz et Stahl au sujet d'une philosophie de la nature capable de prendre acte des découvertes modernes de la médecine et de la chimie, tout en fondant ces connaissances sur une théorie générale de la substance et de la vie. (shrink)

Inherited primarily from Aristotle and his scholastic commentators, the concept of substance plays a central role in early modern metaphysics. Roger Woolhouse's book is the first monograph-length introduction devoted to this important philosophical concept. Aimed primarily at the advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate, this wide-ranging and clearly-written book offers a judiciously compendious but rich account of the doctrine of substance in the hands of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Leibniz and the Natural World: Activity, Passivity, and Corporeal Substances in Leibniz’s PhilosophyMichael FutchPauline Phemister. Leibniz and the Natural World: Activity, Passivity, and Corporeal Substances in Leibniz’s Philosophy. New Synthese Historical Library, 58. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005. Pp. xiii + 293. Cloth, $149.00.Leibniz's metaphysics has long been viewed as one of the more noteworthy systems of idealism in early modern philosophy. At the ground-floor level of his austere ontology, (...) the standard view maintains that the world is not populated by bodies in space and time, but rather by immaterial, mind-like entities: monads. All the rest is a kind of ontological construction from these simple substances. In this book, Pauline Phemister seeks to overturn the idealist reading of Leibniz and to show that "the true immaterial substances in Leibniz's philosophy" are "monads that exist as animated corporeal creatures" (76). What is ontologically basic for Leibniz are not immaterial monads but "living corporeal substances" with "both mental and physical characteristics" (3).If Phemister is right, one wonders what to make of Leibniz's many endorsements of idealism, as, for instance, when he says that "the explanation of all phenomena solely through the perception of monads... with corporeal substances to be rejected, [is] useful for a fundamental investigation of things" (Leibniz to Bartholomew Des Bosses, June [End Page 162] 16, 1712). This programmatic summary is only one of numerous statements from the late period where Leibniz asserts that ultimate reality is composed of immaterial monads. One possible option would be to posit an indecisive vacillation in Leibniz's late philosophy. Rejecting this, Phemister's strategy for dealing with texts such as these—including the "New System," the "Principles of Nature and Grace," and the "Monadology"—is to dismiss them as the rhetorical subterfuge of a Leibniz who is only exoterically, not privately, a Cartesian (15, 163). Leibniz is a public Cartesian in that he "invites comparison of his rational monads with Cartesian minds" by suggesting that the former, like Cartesian minds, are immaterial and incorporeal (13). This is ostensibly only a ruse Leibniz used to ingratiate himself to a Cartesian audience, hiding from them his real view that genuine substances are always corporeal. We are not told why Leibniz would have expected an idealist philosophy that explains mind-body interaction in terms of a pre-established harmony to be well received by Cartesians, but with this hermeneutical principle in hand, Phemister has deftly insulated her criticism from textual refutation.A more pressing concern is Phemister's principle thesis that "the monad is a corporeal substance" (73). Phemister argues that monads are not complete substances unless they comprise not only a soul-like entelechy, but also primary and secondary matter: a monad is not substantially complete "without the subordinate monads that comprise its organic body" (41). What is important to note in this account is that for monads to be complete substances, they must consist of both a "soul-like aspect" and secondary matter, an organic body (133). This organic body is itself an aggregate of other corporeal substances, which are themselves combinations of entelechies and primary and secondary matter (81). The clear consequence of this is that the monad's existence as a complete substance is dependent upon the existence of other substances, namely, those substances that aggregate to form its organic body, the secondary matter that completes the monad as substance. Hence, the existence of complete substances—the only genuine substances—is ontologically derivative. This conclusion flatly contradicts Leibniz's repeated assertions that substances are ontologically basic, not depending for their existence on the existence of other substances, the very cornerstone of Leibniz's metaphysics.This account is also beset by a vicious circularity. For there to be complete substances, there must first be secondary matter, as secondary matter is a constituent of complete substances. As Phemister puts it, "both primary and secondary matter complete the dominant entelechy," making it a genuine substance (71). Without secondary matter, the dominant entelechy does not exist as a substance. But the existence of secondary matter is itself dependent upon the existence of complete substances, for secondary matter just is an aggregate of corporeal substances (84... (shrink)

Leibniz used Descartes’ strict notion of substance in “That a Most Perfect being is Possible” to characterize God but did not intend to undermine his own philosophical views by denying that there are created substances. The metaphysical view of substance in this passage is Cartesian. A discussion of radical substance without any sort of denial in the possibility of other substances does not indicate Spinozism. If this interpretation is correct, then the passage is neither anomalous nor mysterious. (...) There is reason to believe that the passage expresses just the beliefs that we should expect Leibniz to hold in his De Summa Rerum period. Furthermore, this interpretation indicates that while Leibniz’s metaphysics during this stage of his career is suggestively similar to Spinoza’s, there is no evidence that Leibniz accepted Spinoza’s pantheistic conclusion. (shrink)

Leibniz's claim that a substance which is simple perceives is examined in terms of the cartesian model of mind which leibniz adopted. This examination helps to explain some of leibniz's claims about perception. Although leibniz can account for perception while maintaining that the substance which perceives is simple, He cannot adapt the cartesian model to encompass his broadened understanding of perception which includes unconscious perceptions in monads which apperceive nothing.

Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz stand out among their seventeenth-century contemporaries as the great rationalist philosophers. Each sought to construct a philosophical system in which theological and philosophical foundations serve to explain the physical, mental and moral universe. Through a careful analysis of their work, Pauline Phemister explores the rationalists seminal contribution to the development of modern philosophy. Broad terminological agreement and a shared appreciation of the role of reason in ethics do not mask the very significant disagreements that led to (...) three distinctive philosophical systems: Cartesian dualism, Spinozan monism and Leibnizian pluralism. The book explores the nature of, and offers reasons for, these differences. Phemister contends that Spinoza and Leibniz developed their systems in part through engagements with and amendment of Cartesian philosophy, and critically analyses the arguments and contributions of all three philosophers. The clarity of the authors discussion of their key ideas including their views on knowledge, universal languages, the nature of substance and substances, bodies, the relation of mind and body, freedom, and the role of distinct perception and reason in morals will make this book the ideal introduction to rationalist philosophy. (shrink)

In the preceding pages, Husserl's objections to the content of Descartes'Meditations on First Philosophy have been reconstructed over the line ofargument in that work. The tone of his interpretation moved from ambivalence to outfight rejection. Husserl's ambivalence manifested itself intwo of the three meditations to which he pays significant attention. We sawthe much heralded methodological strategy of the First Meditation, uponclose examination, is not endorsed by Husserl, that he finds reason toprotest against the content of each individual skeptical argument and (...) seesthere in general a subjectivistic doctrine of consciousness already at work.Nevertheless, Husserl clearly wanted to preserve the essential intent of theCartesian method of doubt if not its letter, namely, the move toward callinginto question naive presuppositions about the world, raising the possibilityof its non-existence, thereby resuscitating sheer wonder about the world,and rendering it problematic in its relation to subjectivity. Historically, thisstrategy has precedent in the ancient Greek sophists, who, however unintentionally, Husserl claims were the first to manifest a transcendental im-pulse. Moving into the Second Meditation and the so-called discovery ofthe ego cogito, we found a stronger ambivalence on Husserl's part. Whileapplauding Descartes for uncovering the truth that lay hidden at the basis ofskepticism, the subsequent interpretation of the ego as soul and substantialentity clouds this inchoative insight into pure transcendental subjectivity.By the Third Meditation Husserl's ambivalence moved to out right rejection. There are a number of reasons why: the circularity of Descartes'theological theory of evidence ; the epistemologicalcommitment to a subjectivistic theory of consciousness; hisScheinprobleme along with the assumption of an objectivein-itself forever remote from intuition; the ontological commitment to twofinite substances; and the attempt to deductively redress the cognitiveschism created by these commitments through appeal to the principle ofcausality and the goodness of God. All these gave Husserl decisive occa-sion to take leave of the Cartesian path of meditation.A further reason why Husserl's meditations consistently break off in theThird Meditation is suggested by noticing the textual moment whereHusserl's silence begins. It is that moment where Descartes dips into theScholastic tradition for the concepts of objective and formal reality in orderto prove the existence of God. The problem, I suggest, is that here Des-cartes insufferably compromises his radicalness. More specifically, with theconcepts of objective and formal reality Descartes installs on the metaphysi-cal level the distinction between image and original already operative allalong in the earlier Meditations. Now, through the concepts of objective andformal reality, the image /original distinction is given ex-planatory power and raised to a truth so evident as to be beyond the reach ofmethodic doubt. The fact that this distinction is employed to deduce theexistence of God is not so much the phenomenological offense as themetaphysical naivete of positing a formal reality, an in itself, to account forthe very matters in question. (shrink)

Locke and Leibniz on Substance gathers together papers by an international group of academic experts, examining the metaphysical concept of substance in the writings of these two towering philosophers of the early modern period. Each of these newly-commissioned essays considers important interpretative issues concerning the role that the notion of substance plays in the work of Locke and Leibniz, and its intersection with other key issues, such as personal identity. Contributors also consider the relationship between the two (...) philosophers and contemporaries such as Descartes and Hume. (shrink)

Gottfried Leibniz is well known for his claim to have “rehabilitated” the substantial forms of scholastic philosophy, forging a reconciliation of the New Philosophy of Descartes, Mersenne and Gassendi with Aristotelian metaphysics (in his so-called Discourse on Metaphysics, 1686). Much less celebrated is the fact that fifty years earlier (in his Hypomnemata Physica, 1636) the Bratislavan physician and natural philosopher Daniel Sennert had already argued for the indispensability to atomism of (suitably re-interpreted) Aristotelian forms, in explicit opposition to the rejection (...) of substantial forms by his fellow atomist Sébastien Basson.1.. (shrink)

While a significant amount of work has been done in recent years on the notion of substance in the seventeenth century, much of this work is narrow in focus and addresses itself only to specialists in the field. With this text, Roger Woolhouse has remedied this deficiency. The book, aimed at an audience at the advanced undergraduate level, provides a clear, comprehensive, and appropriately compact study of the doctrine of substance as it is developed by Descartes, Spinoza, and (...) Leibniz. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 63.3 (2002) 447-464 [Access article in PDF] Virtue, Reason, and Cultural Exchange: Leibniz's Praise of Chinese Morality Franklin Perkins I should regard myself very proud, very pleased and highly rewarded to be able to render Your Majesty any service in a work so worthy and pleasing to God; for I am not one of those impassioned patriots of one country alone, but (...) I work for the well-being of the whole of mankind, for I consider heaven as my country and cultivated men as my compatriots. —Leibniz (to Peter the Great), 1716 1 Diversity and Harmony Leibniz worked tirelessly to promote tolerance, peace, and the exchange of ideas, perhaps most in his attempts to bridge religious factions in Europe, but also in his receptiveness to the past and his attitude toward other cultures. This accommodation of differences is rooted in the belief that the most perfect possible world maximizes both diversity and harmony. In a time of rapid globalization, as the imperative to maximize diversity and harmony grows, I believe it is worthwhile to turn our attention to Leibniz's philosophy, particularly as it is expressed in his writings on China. The ground of Leibniz's openness toward other cultures is different from the ground to which we are accustomed. Multiculturalism is usually grounded in skepticism. We should accept and tolerate others because we can never be certain that our own beliefs are correct. The ground of Leibniz's tolerance leads in the opposite direction—we should [End Page 447] accept others not because no one knows the truth but because everyone knows something of the truth. 2The well-known metaphor of monads as perspectives on a city illustrates this approach. Leibniz writes, "Indeed, all individual substances are differentexpressions of the same universe and different expressions of the same universal cause, namely God. But the expressions vary in perfection, just as different representations or drawings of the same town from different points of view do." 3 The metaphor of different monads as different perspectives on a town captures what is needed for cultural exchange. What each of us "sees" is not wrong but partial or perspectival. Because our view is limited, we must learn from others whose views have different limitations, and we must be careful not to force our perspective on others. At the same time, each perspective is grounded in truth, which is what Leibniz intends when he says that each monad expresses the same universe. That is said to express a thing in which there are relations [habitudines] which correspond to the relations of the thing expressed. But there are various kinds of expression.... What is common to all these expressions is that we can pass from a consideration of the relations in the expression to a knowledge of the corresponding properties of the thing expressed. Hence, it is clearly not necessary for that which expresses to be similar to the thing expressed, if only a certain analogy is maintained between the relations. 4Leibniz gives many examples. An idea expresses its object. The perception of a monad expresses the universe, and the understanding of a mind expresses the understanding of God. Every effect expresses its cause. The senses and secondary qualities express their objects, as well as the body and its organs. Definitions express the essence of what they define. Paintings express the cities they represent. What do such dissimilar relationships have in common? The two things need not be similar but their conditions must be analogous. In the New Essays Leibniz writes that the resemblance is a relation of order, as an ellipse resembles the circle whose projection it is, "there is a certain precise and natural relationship between what is projected and the projection which is [End Page 448] made from it, with each point on the one corresponding through a certain relation with a point on the other." 5 In the Theodicy Leibniz says that the representation has a natural relationship to what is represented. If this representation is imperfect, then it... (shrink)

The goal of the modern scientific project, as defined by such thinkers as Descartes and Bacon, is "mastery of nature." Martin Heidegger, in an interpretation of mastery of nature that has left its imprint on post-modern critique of science, maintains that the essence of modern science lies in a projection of "technological being" upon nature. This projective "assault" has its origin in the "self-grounding" project of modern metaphysics, in which the human subject attempts to secure a self-sufficient position over against (...) all possible objects. ;The dissertation examines Heidegger's "technological thesis" from the vantage point of the history and philosophy of science. Adopting the vis viva debate between Leibniz and the Cartesians as a point of departure, it identifies and develops, historically and systematically, two themes upon which hinges the question of the technological essence of modern science and its relationship to the "self-grounding" project: the "rationalism" of modern science, and modern science's view of natural teleology. The main argument of the dissertation is that examination of the relationship between these two themes reveals the "teleology of reason" in modern science. ;Chapter's One and Two focus on Leibniz' disagreement with Descartes over the ontology of corporeal substance. From that discussion emerge our two metaphysical themes, which are addressed in Chapter's Three and Four respectively. On the basis of the results of those chapters it is argued that the problem of "mastery of nature" resides in a clash, indigenous to reason, between the intrinsic teleology of nature, through which nature is rendered intelligible to reason, and the teleology of reason itself, which is freedom. ;The conclusion shows that Heidegger ignores tendencies within science, and within the very self-grounding project itself, which run counter to his pessimistic portrayal of science as an "assault" upon nature. Finally, the prospect for a non-coercive resolution to the clash of teleologies in modern science through the "ravishing of nature" is considered. (shrink)

This paper paper will examine some very different positions that Leibniz held or explored on monism, force, and substance during his long philosophical life. For reasons to be explained, positions drawn from Leibniz’s youth as well as his maturity will be considered. It will prove useful to consider these Leibnizian positions on these issues in relation to some of the leading alternatives of his age, in particular, those of Descartes, Spinoza and Malebranche. A guiding idea of this paper is (...) that by meditating seriously on some key ideas explored by Leibniz on our topics, one can gain new insight into the philosophical options of his era. A few introductory remarks on Descartes, followed by an overview of the main divisions and aims of the present paper, will help set the stage for these Leibnizian meditations. (shrink)

This paper paper will examine some very different positions that Leibniz held or explored on monism, force, and substance during his long philosophical life. For reasons to be explained, positions drawn from Leibniz’s youth as well as his maturity will be considered. It will prove useful to consider these Leibnizian positions on these issues in relation to some of the leading alternatives of his age, in particular, those of Descartes, Spinoza and Malebranche. A guiding idea of this paper is (...) that by meditating seriously on some key ideas explored by Leibniz on our topics, one can gain new insight into the philosophical options of his era. A few introductory remarks on Descartes, followed by an overview of the main divisions and aims of the present paper, will help set the stage for these Leibnizian meditations. (shrink)

This paper paper will examine some very different positions that Leibniz held or explored on monism, force, and substance during his long philosophical life. For reasons to be explained, positions drawn from Leibniz’s youth as well as his maturity will be considered. It will prove useful to consider these Leibnizian positions on these issues in relation to some of the leading alternatives of his age, in particular, those of Descartes, Spinoza and Malebranche. A guiding idea of this paper is (...) that by meditating seriously on some key ideas explored by Leibniz on our topics, one can gain new insight into the philosophical options of his era. A few introductory remarks on Descartes, followed by an overview of the main divisions and aims of the present paper, will help set the stage for these Leibnizian meditations. (shrink)

This volume is devoted to studying the emergence and flourishing of new humanistically informed developments in philosophical hermeneutics within contemporary Chinese philosophy. By means of some articles published previously in the Journal of Chinese Philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s, questions about the nature of philosophical understanding and the diversity of hermeneutic options in Chinese indigenous teachings – including Ruist (“Confucian”), Daoist, and Chinese Buddhist realms of exploration – are reintroduced. Following these seminal essays, a number (...) of new pieces written by philosophers and sinologists active in evaluating basic orientations toward philosophical understanding in China are presented. Some offer new insights into the confluence of Gadamerian and Ruist approaches to philosophy, while others employ more critical methods to indicate why serious hermeneutic inquiries into these indigenous traditions and their most representative texts reveal significant challenges for the informed reader. The focus of this volume centers on issues arising in early Ruist and Daoist texts – the Analects and the Zhuangzi – and then moves to examine hermeneutic claims asserted in the synthetic philosophical efforts of Zhu Xi (1130-1200). A sequel dealing with modern and contemporary themes in Chinese hermeneutics will appear in the March 2007 issue of the Journal of Chinese Philosophy. (shrink)

Abstract:This article applies hermeneutics and conceptual metaphor theory to the cross-cultural encounter with China's philosophical metaphors. Philosophical hermeneutics draws attention to the fore-structures of understanding and the traditional horizons that condition interpretations of the world, and to a notion of truth as transformative experience. Conceptual metaphor theory draws attention to the ubiquity of cognitive metaphors as structures of anticipation and sources of meaning. Together they give us a notion of "fore-metaphors" that both condition and enable our encounters with truth and (...) meaning. Chinese philosophy's deeply embedded metaphors—such as water, family, and harmony—have profound implications. Thinking through the eff ects of our fore-metaphors can help overcome the cultural distance separating Western and Chinese philosophies. A hermeneutic attitude of openness and willingness to allow further truth to reform our fore-having could help us understand Chinese metaphors in a fusion of horizons that alters our way of being in the world. (shrink)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was hailed by Bertrand Russell as "one of the supreme intellects of all time." A towering figure in Seventeenth century philosophy, his complex thought has been championed and satirized in equal measure, most famously in Voltaire's Candide. In this outstanding introduction to his philosophy, Nicholas Jolley introduces and assesses the whole of Leibniz's philosophy. Beginning with an introduction to Leibniz's life and work, he carefully introduces the core elements of Leibniz's metaphysics: his theories of substance, (...) identity and individuation; monads and space and time; and his important debate over the nature of space and time with Newton's champion, Samuel Clarke. He then introduces Leibniz's theories of mind, knowledge, and innate ideas, showing how Lenin anticipated the distinction between conscious and unconscious states, before examining his theory of free will and the problem of evil. An important feature of the book is its introduction to Leibniz'smoral and political philosophy, an overlooked aspect of his work. The final chapter assesses legacy and the impact of his philosophy on philosophy as a whole, particularly on the work of Immanuel Kant. Throughout, Nicholas Jolley places Lenin in relation to some of the other great philosophers, such as Descartes, Spinoza and Locke, and discusses Leibniz's key works, such as the Monadology and Discourse on Metaphysics. (shrink)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was hailed by Bertrand Russell as 'one of the supreme intellects of all time'. A towering figure in seventeenth-century philosophy, his complex thought has been championed and satirized in equal measure, most famously in Voltaire's _Candide_. In this outstanding introduction to his philosophy, Nicholas Jolley introduces and assesses the whole of Leibniz's philosophy. Beginning with an introduction to Leibniz's life and work, he carefully introduces the core elements of Leibniz's metaphysics: his theories of substance, identity and (...) individuation; monads and space and time; and his important debate over the nature of space and time with Newton's champion, Samuel Clarke. He then introduces Leibniz's theories of mind, knowledge, and innate ideas, showing how Leibniz anticipated the distinction between conscious and unconscious states, before examining his theory of free will and the problem of evil. An important feature of the book is its introduction to Leibniz's moral and political philosophy, an overlooked aspect of his work. The final chapter assesses legacy and the impact of his philosophy on philosophy as a whole, particularly on the work of Immanuel Kant. Throughout, Nicholas Jolley places Leibniz in relation to some of the other great philosophers, such as Descartes, Spinoza and Locke, and discusses Leibniz's key works, such as the _Monadology_ and _Discourse on Metaphysics_. (shrink)

¿This splendid volume is a fitting tribute to the remarkable range of rich and revealing contributions Professor Cheng Chung-ying has made to our understanding of Chinese and comparative philosophy and constructive philosophy from a global perspective.¿ ¿Philip J. Ivanhoe, City University of Hong Kong.