Garber’s Interpretations of Leibniz on Corporeal Substance in the ‘Middle Years’

Abstract

In 1985 Daniel Garber published his highly intluential paper and the Founda­ tions of Physics: The Middle Years. In two recent articles, Garber returns to these issues with a new position - that we should perhaps conclude that Leibniz did not have a view concerning the ultimate ontology of substance during his middle years. I discuss the viability of this position and consider some more general methodological issues that arise from this discussion. I t is twenty years since Daniel Garber published his highly influential paper and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years (Garber 1985). In that paper Garber advocated an interpretation ofLeibniz's views concerning body and substance that has been subject to much discussion and debate. As a result of that discussion, Garber's position has changed somewhat and in two recent ar­ ticles, and Fardella: Body, Substance and Idealism, (Garber 2004) and and Idealism, (Garber 2005), he has returned to these issues with a fresh and, what I imagine will be, an equally provocative approach. Garber 2004 is partly autobiographical and I'll rely on Garber's account of his own progress when providing my analysis of the debate and the lessons that we can learn from its current state. I'll suggest that some elements in Garber's characterization of the debate may not be entirely accurate and clarification will certainly be one of my aims. But I want to discuss two further issues. As will become clear, a feature of Garber's current position is that we should perhaps conclude that Leibniz did not have a view concerning his ultimate ontology of substance during his middle years. I will be interested in the viability of this position. But I'll also explore some more general methodological issues that arise from Garber's willingness to embrace this kind of agnosticism on Leibniz's behalf (albeit tentatively). Finally, I want to return to an important and perennial aspect of Garber's views on body and corporeal substance that is somewhat downplayed in his most recent articles. I think this deserves greater attention and that such attention may lead to more