Correspondant de Leibniz, philosophe professant à Neuchâtel, Louis Bourguet (1678-1742) se fit l’interprète des vues de Leibniz sur le rapport entre monade et corps organique. Dans ses Lettres philosophiques (1729), il ne se contente pas d’analyser et de critiquer les diverses hypothèses relatives à la génération telles qu’on les soutenait à l’époque, mais il repense à nouveaux frais les arguments en faveur de la préformation et il réinsère la doctrine de l’« organisme » dans un cadre théorique inspiré (...) de la monadologie. Il définit ainsi, sous le vocable de « mécanisme organique », des principes aptes à régir les recherches de philo­sophie expérimentale sur le vivant. Il adapte de diverses façons les thèses leibniziennes et ouvre ainsi la voie à des évolutions marquantes du concept de corps organique au xviii e siècle. (shrink)

Les multiples équivoques, qui à plusieurs égards ont caractérisé jusqu'au siècle dernier la réception des Principes de la Nature et de la Grâce et de la Monadologie de Leibniz, trouvent leur origine dans les circonstances de la genèse de leurs manuscrits: ils donnèrent lieu à une information fautive publiée en 1721 dans un compte rendu anonyme des Acta eruditorum de Leipzig. Des recherches dans les archives démontrent que l'auteur de ce compte rendu ainsi que de la traduction latine (...) de la Monadologie, parue la même année dans les Supplementa des Acta eruditorum, était Christian Wolff qui possédait une copie du manuscrit leibnizien au moins depuis 1717. Cette traduction s'inscrit dans une stratégie culturelle précise qui vise à désamorcer toute interprétation idéaliste de la pensée monadologique de Leibniz. Un élément essentiel de cette stratégie consiste à lire la théorie de l'harmonie préétablie comme une doctrine fondée sur une métaphysique strictement dualiste des substances. (shrink)

À travers l'analyse de la correspondance entre Leibniz et Wolff, l'article cherche à restituer les modalités démonstratives utilisées par Leibniz pour transmettre sa dynamique ainsi que le dispositif métaphysique qui lui est inhérent. Il est question ici de l'ambivalence du vocable d'action, à la fois objet du principe de conservation et essence de la substance. C'est en étudiant sa réception par Wolff qu'il est possible de mettre en évidence, dès 1705, la singularité d'un cadre métaphysique wolffien qui (...) accueille la dynamique leibnizienne de l'action, puis la publicise, tout en proposant une acception irréductiblement différente de la substance. (shrink)

The many equivocations that, in several respects, characterised the reception of Leibniz's Principes de la Nature et de la Grâce and Monadologie, up until the last century, find their origins in the genetic circumstances of their manuscripts, which gave rise to misinformation published in an anonymous review that appeared in the Leipzig Acta eruditorum in 1721. Archival research demonstrates that the author of this review, as well as of the Latin review of the Monadologie, which appeared, the same year, (...) in the Supplementa of the Acta eruditorum, was Christian Wolff, who possessed a copy of the Leibnizian manuscrip since at least 1717. This translation figured as a precise cultural strategy that aimed to defuse any idealist interpretation of Leibniz’s monadology. An essential part of this strategy consists in reading the theory of pre-established harmony as a doctrine founded on a strictly dualistic substance metaphysics. (shrink)

The following article studies the paradoxical influence of Leibniz on Diderot’s materialism. Indeed, by using the principle of identity of indiscernibles, the principle of continuity and the idea that force is inherent to matter. Diderot develops a materialistic explanation of the apparent order of nature that he opposes to the empirical finalism, as well as to metaphysical finalism of “Leibniz, Newton and Clarke”.

Leibniz' Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der amerikanischen Philosophie ist bisher wenig erforscht worden. In diesem Aufsatz untersuche ich den Beitrag zweier amerikanischer Idealisten der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts zur Leibniz-Forschung. Der erstere, Frederic Henry Hedge, ein enger Mitarbeiter Emersons und eine zentrale Figur der transcendentalist movement, legte die erste Übersetzung der Monadologie ins Englische vor und schrieb die erste wichtige wissenschaftliche Abhandlung über Leibniz in einer amerikanischen Zeitschrift. Der zweite, H. A. P. Torrey, von prägendem Einfluß auf (...) die Gedanken John Deweys, schrieb eine Reihe kritischer Essays zur Théodicée, die Auswirkungen auf Deweys Buch über Leibniz hatten. In diesem Aufsatz gebe ich eine Überblick der Arbeiten von Hedge und Torrey, bewerte ihre Arbeiten zu Leibniz und untersuche einige Aspekte ihres Einflusses auf das amerikanische Denken. Ich folgere, daß Leibniz' Einfluß auf die amerikanische Philosophie größer ist als allgemein angenommen und schlage weitere Forschungsmöglichkeiten vor. (shrink)

Cet article propose une reconstruction du débat wolffien sur l'idéalisme de Leibniz autour de la première réception de la Monadologie de Leibniz. Cette reconstruction impose une relecture de quelques problèmes centraux à ce débat: traduction infidèle d'un terme dans la Monadologie latine ( « le composé » est traduit par « substantia composita »); statut du corps en tant que substance composée; statut des éléments en tant que substances simples dont résultent les corps (et cela contre la (...) conception cartésienne de la substance); statut des notions leibniziennes de perception, force et harmonie préétablie; statut de l'expérience comme procédé ho liste et systématique (contre sa conception et la tabula rasa chez Locke) dans la réception et le système wolffiens. Un examen approfondi des textes fondateurs de cette réception (Bilfinger et Wolff) nous permet de reconsidérer sous un nouvel angle le rapport entre Leibniz et Wolff. (shrink)

La première réception de la philosophie leibnizienne ne s’est certainement pas réduite à sa reprise dans le soi-disant « système leibnizo-wolffien », qui fut le prisme majoritaire, et déformant, de la lecture de Leibniz au xviii e siècle. Au contraire, Michael Gottlieb Hansch, traducteur de la Monadologie en latin, essaya de s’élever contre cette réappropriation de l’héritage leibnizien et de présenter le « vrai » Leibniz hors de tout système leibnizo-wolffien. Il se proposa alors d’expliciter les propositions (...) parfois denses de la Monadologie à partir de Leibniz lui-même, et en particulier de leur correspondance privée. Sa correspondance l’incite aussi à proposer une lecture « platonisante » de la Monadologie. À bien des égards, cette réception perdue révèle simplement des aspects encore largement méconnus de la philosophie leibnizienne. (shrink)

Leibniz lit, recopie et commente le fragment pascalien publié sous le titre « Connaissance générale de l’homme » au numéro 22 de l’édition de Port-Royal des Pensées au moment de l’élaboration de la doctrine des monades, de très longues années après avoir pris connaissance du livre. L’objet de cette étude est d’apprécier les conditions de réception par Leibniz d’une doctrine qui, à de multiples égards, s’oppose à la sienne, ainsi que certaines difficultés tournant autour des concepts d’infini (...) et d’organisme. Les remarques sur les « deux infinis » donnent des éléments de compréhension de l’articulation entre le plan phénoménal et continu d’une part et son fondement réel dans les unités ou monades de l’autre. En annexe, on donne une version revue des deux états du passage de Leibniz accompagné du texte pascalien publié en 1670.A great many years after first reading Pascal’s Thoughts, while elaborating his own doctrine of monads, Leibniz studied, wrote out and commented Pascal’s fragment published as number 22 in the Port-Royal edition of the Pensées under the title « Connaissance générale de l’homme ». The purpose of this study is first to examine how Leibniz reacted and related to a doctrine that opposed his in so many respects, and then to focus on some difficulties pertaining to the concept of the infinite and to that of organisms. Leibniz’s remarks on the « two infinites » provide elements that can help understand the way the phenomenal and continuous plane and its actual foundation in units or monads are articulated. A revised edition of the two versions of Leibniz’s commentary, along with the fragment by Pascal published in 1670, are supplied in an appendix. (shrink)

Comment les Lumières lisent-elles le corpus leibnizien avant que ne soient publiés les Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, œuvre majeure, puisque Leibniz y commente l'Essay concerning Human Understanding de Locke? Cette interrogation nous conduira à reconsidérer le contexte de la réception de la philosophie de Leibniz au XVIIIe siècle.

Résumé: Cet article vise à analyser la réception de la théorie cartésienne des vérités éternelles dans les œuvres de Leibniz et Malebranche. Les deux auteurs ont critiqué et refusé ses prémisses pour éviter les conséquences dont ils pensaient qu’elles découlaient de la doctrine de Descartes. L’objectif est celui de démontrer qu’on ne peut pas comprendre pleinement leurs réflexions sans les interpréter à la lumière de la théorie cartésienne, dans la mesure où elle représente la condition critique de possibilité (...) de leur approche philosophique. Mots-clés: Théodicée Moderne. Vérités Éternelles. Descartes. Leibniz. Malebranche. Descartes and the genealogy of modern theodicy in Leibniz and Malebranche: This article aims to analyze the reception of the Cartesian theory of the eternal truths in the works of Leibniz and Malebranche. Both authors criticized and refused the premises of Descartes’ doctrine in order to avoid the consequences they believed derived from it. The main goal is to demonstrate that we cannot fully understand their reflections without interpreting them in the light of the Cartesian theory, as it represents the critical condition of possibility of their philosophical approach. Key-words: Modern Theodicy. Eternal Truths. Descartes. Leibniz. Malebranche. Descartes e a genealogia da teodiceia moderna em Leibniz e Malebranche Resumo: Este artigo propõe-se a analisar a recepção da teoria de Descartes das verdades eternas nas obras de Leibniz e Malebranche. Os dois autores criticaram e recusaram as premissas cartesianas para evitar as consequências que eles pensavam dependentes da doutrina. O objetivo é demonstrar que não podemos compreender plenamente as reflexões de Leibniz e Malebranche sem interpretá-las à luz da teoria cartesiana, como se essa doutrina representasse a condição crítica de possibilidade da sua abordagem filosófica. Palavras-chave: Teodiceia Moderna. Verdades Eternas. Descartes. Leibniz. Malebranche. (shrink)

Le discours international actuel sur l’écologie s’est mué en un mouvement qui s’identifie avec le discours de la vérité scientifique. L’exemple de Greta Thunberg et de ses appels à l’action illustre dans quelle mesure l’identité actuelle du mouvement enveloppe un paradoxe qui lui est inhérent. D’une part, elle s’appuie sur la nature auto-explicative et claire des idées vraies. D’autre part, pour propager ces idées, elle fait résider son pouvoir rhétorique dans l’impact émotionnel. L’approche par Spinoza de la relation entre raison (...) et foi, telle qu’elle apparaît quand on juxtapose les passages pertinents de l’ Éthique et ceux du Traité théologico-politique qui décrivent la prophétie, constitue un cadre théorique susceptible de rendre compte de ce paradoxe inhérent à l’écologie moderne. (shrink)

This study of the metaphysics of G. W. Leibniz gives a clear picture of his philosophical development within the general scheme of seventeenth-century natural philosophy. Catherine Wilson examines the shifts in Leibniz's thinking as he confronted the major philosophical problems of his era. Beginning with his interest in artificial languages and calculi for proof and discovery, the author proceeds to an examination of Leibniz’s early theories of matter and motion, to the phenomenalistic turn in his theory of (...) substance and his subsequent de-emphasis of logical determinism, and finally to his doctrines of harmony and optimization. Specific attention is given to Leibniz’s understanding of Descartes and his successors, Malebranche and Spinoza, and the English philosophers Newton, Cudworth, and Locke. Wilson analyzes Leibniz’s complex response to the new mechanical philosophy, his discontent with the foundations on which it rested, and his return to the past to locate the resources for reconstructing it. She argues that the continuum-problem is the key to an understanding not only of Leibniz’s monadology but also of his views on the substantiality of the self and the impossibility of external causal influence. A final chapter considers the problem of Leibniz-reception in the post-Kantian era, and the difficulty of coming to terms with a metaphysics that is not only philosophically "critical" but, at the same time, “compensatory.” Originally published in 2050. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

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)

With regard to Christian Wolff’s invention of a new science of final causes that he called “teleology” this article examines the relationship between teleology and the science of perfection. On the one hand, it shows how an epistolary debate between Leibniz and Wolff in 1715 sheds light on the inherent teleological nature of the Leibnizian notions of perfection and harmony. On the other hand, it analyzes how Wolff eventually inverted priority relations between structure and function as a consequence of (...) his doctrinal revision of the modal status of essences – a revision that was provoked by Leibniz. (shrink)

Leibniz wished that his Theodicy (1710) would have as great and as wide an impact as possible, and to further this end we find him in his correspondence with Caroline often expressing his desire that the book be translated into English. Despite his wishes, and Caroline’s efforts, this was not to happen in his lifetime (indeed, it did not happen until 1951, almost 250 years after Leibniz’s death). But even though the Theodicy did not make quite the impact (...) in England that Leibniz had hoped it would, it did draw some attention from the English intelligentsia. In this paper I shall focus on two responses to the Theodicy that were made in England in the years immediately following its publication. First, I shall consider the response of Michel de la Roche and his efforts to promote the book to an English audience in 1711 (efforts which only came to Leibniz’s attention much later, in 1713). De la Roche’s response was broadly positive, though his admiration for the Theodicy was tempered by his belief that Leibniz had struggled – unsuccessfully – to reconcile free will with divine foreknowledge. Second, I shall consider the largely negative response of George Smalridge, the Bishop of Bristol, who delivered his verdict on the book in a letter to Sophie written in 1714. Leibniz subsequently wrote a point-by-point rebuttal of (most of) Smalridge’s criticisms in a letter to Caroline, conceding only one very minor point to the Bishop. As we shall see, some of the points of substance raised by de la Roche and Smalridge have loomed over the Theodicy ever since. (shrink)

It is not the purpose of this short essay to try the impossible and give an adequate historical survey of the Western image (or rather images) of China. There is, moreover, a vast literature on the subject to which both sinologists and historians of European culture have contributed. The following paragraphs will restrict themselves to two poles in this history: the perception and reception of China in the 17th century (with Leibniz as the most significant and impressive representative of (...) the period)—in other words the image of China as current among the philosophes i.e., the pre-enlightenment, still Christian humanists, none of which was (or could have been) a sinologist properly speaking—and again at the end of the 19th century, when academic sinology began to get into stride. Without in any way detracting from the significance of his great predecessors and contemporaries, especially Marcel Granet, we shall limit our discussion to J.J.M. de Groot (Leiden and Berlin, d. 1921). (shrink)

Am Ausgang des europäischen 18. Jahrhunderts zeichnet sich eine signifikante Leibniz-Renaissance ab. Während die Kritische Philosophie Immanuel Kants an den philosophischen Fakultäten Einzug hielt, wurde Leibniz für deren Kritiker interessant. Die in diesem Band gesammelten Beiträge behandeln die philosophische Leibniz-Rezeption bei Johann Gottfried Herder, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi und Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Weitere Schwerpunkte bilden die monadologischen Natur- und Kulturphilosophien um 1800, die Bedeutung der Leibniz-Rezeption an der Schwelle vom philosophischen zum literarischen Diskurs sowie die nachhaltige (...) Weiterwirkung der Leibniz’schen Ideen in Ästhetik und Literatur seit Baumgarten. Mit den vorliegenden Beiträgen wollen die Autoren und Herausgeber der Forschung neue Impulse geben. At the end of the 18th century in Europe a significant Leibniz renaissance emerged. As Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy gained ground in the philosophical faculties, Leibniz became interesting to its critics. The essays collected in this volume examine the philosophical reception of Leibniz by Johann Gottfried Herder, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. (shrink)

That Leibniz finds the philosophy of Spinoza horrifyingly wrong is obvious to anyone who reads Leibniz’s work; that Leibniz finds Spinozism so seductive that his own system is in danger of collapsing into it is less obvious but, I believe, equally true. The difference here is not so much between an exoteric and an esoteric philosophy suggested by Russell2 but between a thorough-going rationalism on the part of Spinoza and Leibniz’s “mitigated rationalism” – mitigated by the (...) exigencies of his orthodox Christianity. In other words, it is Leibniz’s traditional view of the nature of God and his creatures that leads him to abhor Spinoza’s vision, while his own commitment to a number of principles and ideas pushes him to rationalism. And if Kant is right that the mind naturally desires a system, then Leibniz ought to see the Spinozistic consequences of many of his philosophical principles. Of course, there is nothing new in saying that the God of Spinoza and the God of Leibniz are fundamentally different, but I believe that if we focus on Leibniz’s critique of Spinoza’s account of the nature of God and a constellation of related concepts, we can come to a deeper understanding of the thought of both philosophers. (shrink)

Johann Christoph Sturm’s natural philosophy, with which Leibniz engages in “De ipsa natura”, as well as Petrus van Musschenbroek’s epistemology, constitute important steps in the process of the speciation of physics. In this case, speciation is understood as the process through which the explanation of natural phenomena via empirical regularities comes to define the whole domain of the newly established niche of physics, to the exclusion both of teleology and efficient causality.

The 1695 publication of the “New System of the Nature of Substances and their Communication, and of the Union which Exists between the Soul and the Body” in the June 27 and July 4 issues of the Parisian Journal des sçavans marks an important milestone in Leibniz’s philosophical trajectory. It presented the first comprehensive public presentation of his metaphysics as it had matured over the preceding decades, and it would spark many lively exchanges and debates between Leibniz and (...) his philosophical contemporaries in the decades to come. This chapter provides background regarding the text’s genesis and reception, and introduces its main philosophical themes. After highlighting some interpretative challenges raised by both the “New System’s” form and philosophical content, it goes on to explore two key elements of the metaphysical picture it advances: Leibniz’s account of individual substances, and his theory of the pre-established harmony between them. (shrink)

This article does not describe die pedagogical history of the reception of Leibniz' way of thinking, but rather inquires into the central motif which was derived from Leibniz' way of thinking and how it was assimilated to pedagogics. Furthermore it wants to make apparent how much modern pedagogics owes to Leibniz, without being aware of the debt. Leibniz' influence on pedagogics, however, is an indirect one, because as a rule pedagogics does not explicidy refer to (...) class='Hi'>Leibniz. His specific influence implicidy originates from certain motifs central to his way of thinking. Considering this, it is the Theodizee and the Monadologie, which above all have an important bearing on the current theoretical discussion in pedagogics. (shrink)

Leibniz's dispute with Newton over the physico-mathematical theories expounded in the Principia Mathematica have long been identified as a crucial episode in the history of science. Dr. Bertoloni Meli examines several hitherto unpublished manuscripts in Leibniz's own hand illustrating his first reading of and reaction to Newton's Principia. Six of the most important manuscripts are here edited for the first time. Contrary to Leibniz's own claims, this new evidence shows that he had studied Newton's masterpiece before publishing (...) An Essay on the Causes of Celestial Motions. This article, representing his response to Newton, is included here in English translation. Dr. Bertoloni Meli analyses the important implications of this episode on a variety of themes ranging from priority claims to the mathematization of nature in the seventeenth century. Besides providing a careful study of Leibniz's style and strategy, the author examines how our perception of Newton's achievement is affected and the reception of the rival theories by the mathematical community around 1700. "Bertoloni's book provides a very detailed and deep analysis of Leibniz's calculus and dynamics by focusing on a consistent and important set of previously unknown manuscripts..." Niccolo Guicciardini, Universita de Bologna "...Equivalence and Priority is a major contribution to our understanding of the development of mathematical physics in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century." Daniel Garber, University of Chigago. (shrink)

This paper discusses the contribution of Madame Du Châtelet to the reception of Newtonianism in France prior to her translation of Newton’s Principia. It focuses on her Institutions de physique, a work normally considered for its contribution to the reception of Leibniz in France. By comparing the different editions of the Institutions, I argue that her interest in Newton antedated her interest in Leibniz, and that she did not see Leibniz’s metaphysics as incompatible with Newtonian science. Her (...) Newtonianism can be seen to be in the course of development between 1738 and 1742 and it was shaped by contemporary French debates and the achievement of French Newtonians like Maupertuis in confirming his theories. Her Institutions therefore is linked to the same drive to disseminate Newtonianism undertaken by popularisations such as Voltaire’s Elements de la philosophie de Newton and Algarotti’s Newtonianismo per le dame.Author Keywords: Emilie du Châtelet; Isaac Newton; Voltaire; French reception of Newtonianism. (shrink)

Les tenants de la philosophie de Leibniz et de Wolff, dont les principaux représentants se regroupèrent au sein de la revue d’Eberhard, le Magazine philosophique, opposèrent à la Critique une position « dogmatique ». Que signifie, à l’époque de Kant, cet adjectif? Tel est l’objet de cet article qui s’attache à reconstituer la nature des arguments de ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler le « leibnizo-wolffianisme »; ce faisant, nous montrerons que le dogmatisme, que stigmatise Kant, non seulement n’existe plus (...) à son époque mais encore que ces adversaires « dogmatiques » sont plus proches de Hume que ne l’était la Critique. Lorsque paraît la Critique, le « Dieu des philosophes et des savants » est mort; défunte l’idée d’une adéquation totale de nos concepts au réel. Cette étude d’une des réceptions immédiates de la Critique nous permettra de questionner, en retour, les lectures plus tardives ( XXe siècle) de Kant qui, toutes, valorisent, dans la Critique, sa réfutation du dogmatisme et sa dénonciation de la structure ontothéologique de la métaphysique. Il s’agira donc, en dernière instance, de questionner la nature de la référence actuelle à Kant. (shrink)

The importance of teleology in the 18 th century has mainly been studied from the point of view of a few specific authors. Leibniz is one of the most convinced advocates of the use of final causes in both physics and metaphysics. Despite its significance for the history of teleology, very few studies were in fact devoted to the influence of the Leibnizian doctrine during the 18 th century. However, Leibniz’s reception allows us not only to understand his (...) own views on teleology in comparison with those that 18 th century thinkers attributed to him, but also to feed the conceptual debate on the legitimate articulation of finality and efficiency in natural philosophy in that period. Consequently, studies on 18 th century physico-theology may help us to clarify the following questions: what is the difference between explanations concerning organic functions and in the architectonic use of the principle of optimum in physics? And how exactly do “the details of physics” illustrate the general harmony of the world? In order to clarify these kinds of questions, the present issue explores how Leibniz’s 18 th century readers integrated in their own philosophical doctrines multiple interpretative possibilities opened up by Leibniz’s texts. (shrink)

During the querelle des infiniment petits Leibniz wrote several texts addressed to Parisian savants to justify the use of the differential calculus, but only three of them were made public. One of the three, the “Sentiment de Monsieur Leibnitz”, was published without authorization in 1706 at the peak of the quarrel, together with the writings of other mathematicians united in the defence of the new calculus ( Joseph Saurin, Jacob Hermann and the Bernoulli brothers). However, Jean-Paul Bignon, director of (...) the Académie Royale des Sciences, confiscated the prints. All copies of this publication were assumed to be lost, but we have recently identified one copy of it in the British Library catalogue. In this article, we analyse the “Sentiment de Monsieur Leibnitz” by contextualizing it not only from an epistemological approach but also from a political perspective. We will examine the institutional issues at stake by relying on recently published correspondence. (shrink)

In his article La fin de la matière (1906) Henri Poincaré reported that according to many physicists “matter does not exist”, but he immediately added: “this discovery is not conclusive”. This caution was not shared by many philosophers, who swiftly saluted both special and general relativity as the sources of a new conception of physical objects. In my talk I will focus on Marburg neo-Kantianism (Cohen, Natorp and Cassirer) with its characteristic thesis of a progressive “dissolution” of matter modern physics, (...) culminating in relativity. I will point out that this view predated Einstein’s discoveries and was rooted in a long epistemological tradition starting with Leibniz and Kant. Indeed, the neo-Kantian philosophers argued that this view was an originally Platonic insight that modern physics (and Einstein’s relativity in particular) eventually confirmed. I will show that this historical-philosophical perspective influenced the reception of relativity and left open a number of epistemological and scientific problems. (shrink)

The text compares Leibniz’s architectonic principles with Wolff’s uses of teleological explanations. Among other points of divergence, it appears that in Wolff “the living being qua ‘natural machine’ has been dispossessed of its character of entailing ‘organism’ to infinity, and deprived of a sufficient reason for its operations equated with the finalized sequences of perceptions of the dominant monad”. As a consequence, while the Leibnizian machines of nature differ from any man-made mechanism, the living being, according to Wolff, is (...) a natural machine whose composition may be legitimately represented as a set of mechanist models. (shrink)

In this article we distinguish four kinds of finalities at stake in Nieuwentijt’s “scopologia” (general design, teleology of health, particular final causes and organic uses). We show that the tension between the principle of economy and the assignation of particular final causes in Nieuwentijt’s physico-theology perfectly illustrates what later commentators as Gould and Lewontin called the problem of ‘panglossism’ in biology. It was a problem to which Leibniz himself drew attention in different texts.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

The article examines how Reimarus reorients concepts borrowed from Leibniz and Wolff – the principles of perfection, harmony and continuity – in order to feed his own natural religion project. Teleology is understood as a doctrine aiming at proving not only God’s perfections, but also the effects of the divine wisdom on creatures. Consequently, recourse to final causes in natural philosophy cannot remain at the level of general reasons, as Maupertuis’s principle of least action does, but rather ought to (...) be used in the explanation of the specific purpose of beings. (shrink)

l. Es la razón la que hace que en la naturaleza una cosa tenga existencia, en vez de ser nada. Esto es la consecuencia de aquel gran principio que nada se hace sin razón y conviene a la razón el porqué una cosa exista en vez de otra cualquiera.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This volume is a critical edition of the ten-year correspondence between Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, one of Europe’s most influential early modern thinkers, and Bartholomew Des Bosses, a Jesuit theologian who was keen to bring together Leibniz’s philosophy and the Aristotelian philosophy and religious doctrines accepted by his order. The letters offer crucial insights into Leibniz’s final metaphysics and into the intellectual life of the eighteenth century. Brandon C. Look and Donald Rutherford present seventy-one of Leibniz’s and (...) Des Bosses’s letters in the original Latin and in careful English translation. Few of the letters have been translated into English before. The editors also provide extensive annotations, deletions, and marginalia from Leibniz’s various drafts, and a substantial introduction setting the context for the correspondence and analyzing the main philosophical issues. (shrink)