Work Of Leibniz Research Articles

Nikolai Lossky’s Evolutionary Metaphysics of Reincarnation

The Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky (1870–1965) adhered to an evolutionary metaphysics of reincarnation according to which the world is constituted of immortal souls or monads, which he calls ‘substantival agents.’ These substantival agents 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 or of a lower level on the scala perfectionis. According to this theory, a substantival agent can evolve by being gradually 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. In ‘Ученiе Лейбница о перевоплощенiи какъ метаморфозѣ’ (‘Leibniz’s Doctrine of Reincarnation as Metamorphosis,’ 1931), Lossky argues that the works of Leibniz contain scattered elements of such a systematic evolutionary doctrine of reincarnation as metamorphosis and he attempts to reconstitute this doctrine. The present article is intended as an historical introduction to the translation (published in the same journal issue) of Lossky’s ‘Leibniz’s Doctrine of Reincarnation as Metamorphosis.’

Leibniz’s Doctrine of Reincarnation as Metamorphosis

The Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky (1870–1965) 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’ (‘Uchenie Lejbnica o perevoploshhenii kak metamorfoze’), was published in the Сборникъ Русскаго института въ Прагѣ (Sbornik Russkago instituta v Pragě), vol. 2, 1931, pp. 77–88. The German version appeared under the title ‘Leibniz’ Lehre von der Reinkarnation als Metamorphose,’ in Archiv fur 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. — Frederic Tremblay

V—Time and Subtle Pictures in the History of Philosophy

Abstract For centuries, philosophers of time have produced texts containing words and pictures. Although some historians study visual representations of time, I have not found any history of philosophy on pictures of time within texts. This paper argues that studying such pictures can be rewarding. I will make this case by studying pictures of time in the works of Leibniz, Arthur Eddington and C. D. Broad, and argue they play subtle roles. Further, I will argue that historians of philosophy more widely could benefit from paying more attention to pictures.

Leibniz�s well-founded fictions and their interpetations

Leibniz used the term fiction in conjunction with infinitesimals. What kind of fictions they were exactly is a subject of scholarly dispute. The position of Bos and Mancosu contrasts with that of Ishiguro and Arthur. Leibniz's own views, expressed in his published articles and correspondence, led Bos to distinguish between two methods in Leibniz's work: (A) one exploiting classical `exhaustion' arguments, and (B) one exploiting inassignable infinitesimals together with a law of continuity. Of particular interest is evidence stemming from Leibniz's work Nouveaux Essais sur l'Entendement Humain as well as from his correspondence with Arnauld, Bignon, Dagincourt, Des Bosses, and Varignon. A careful examination of the evidence leads us to the opposite conclusion from Arthur's. We analyze a hitherto unnoticed objection of Rolle's concerning the lack of justification for extending axioms and operations in geometry and analysis from the ordinary domain to that of infinitesimal calculus, and reactions to it by Saurin and Leibniz. A newly released 1705 manuscript by Leibniz (Puisque des personnes...) currently in the process of digitalisation, sheds light on the nature of Leibnizian inassignable infinitesimals. In a pair of 1695 texts Leibniz made it clear that his incomparable magnitudes violate Euclid's Definition V.4, a.k.a. the Archimedean property, corroborating the non-Archimedean construal of the Leibnizian calculus. Keywords: Archimedean property; assignable vs inassignable quantity; Euclid's Definition V.4; infinitesimal; law of continuity; law of homogeneity; logical fiction; Nouveaux Essais; pure fiction; quantifier-assisted paraphrase; syncategorematic; transfer principle; Arnauld; Bignon; Des Bosses; Rolle; Saurin; Varignon

Leibniz, Lefebvre and the spatial turn in law

This contribution takes as its point of departure the spatial turn in law and the notion of spatial justice. It traces the term ‘spatial justice’ as introduced through the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act and it looks at the underlying view of space that has influenced the spatial turn in law. It furthermore investigates the ways in which the spatial turn in law has been influenced by the thinking of Henri Lefebvre, who relies on a Leibnizian conception of space. Lastly the link between Leibniz and legal positivism is considered in order to reach the final conclusion in the form of a caution against merely adding the language of spatial justice to an approach to space that remains caught up in abstract space. This will only further entrench existing fault lines in society. For this conclusion the work of Roger Berkowitz is central. Berkowitz argues convincingly that the work of Leibniz was central in the development of legal positivism, despite Leibniz in general being considered as a natural law thinker. The same applies to spatial justice theory, where the work of Leibniz is central: it may present the possibilities of another law – the law as it ought to be. The law conceptualised as ‘ought’ instead of ‘is’ would promote reconciliation. Alternatively, spatial justice can simply present the law as it ‘is’ and reconfirm and deepen the chasms in our world.

Diotima's Children: German Aesthetic Rationalism from Leibniz to Lessing

Frederick Beiser presents another study on German intellectual history, this time exploring aesthetic rationalism during the Enlightenment period. The structure follows the chronological development, and is with one exception organized around individual thinkers. After his introduction he starts with a first chapter on Leibniz, followed by chapters on Wolff and Gottsched. Chapter 4 deals with the dispute between Gottsched and the German-Swiss aestheticians J.J. Bodmer and J.J. Breitinger in the 1740s. The remaining four chapters are again dedicated to individual thinkers: Chapter 5 to Baumgarten, Chapter 6 to Winckelmann, Chapter 7 to Mendelssohn and Chapter 8 to Lessing. There is, somewhat surprisingly, no concluding chapter and the book therefore finishes slightly abruptly. The underlying thesis of this study is that despite Kant’s aesthetics and his critique of the earlier tradition of aesthetic rationalism—notably in his Kritik der Urteilskraft—this earlier tradition still has a lot to offer and is far from obsolete. For Beiser, there is thus not only a historical, but also, and perhaps more importantly, a philosophical interest in this tradition. The obvious starting point of this tradition is to be seen in the work of Leibniz. Beiser argues that: Following Leibniz, the rationalists held that this is the best of all possible worlds, and they assigned to art a very important role in upholding such optimism. The importance of the aesthetic for their general worldview follows immediately from their analysis of pleasure. According to that analysis, all pleasure is aesthetic because it consists in the perception of perfection, which is the objective correlate of beauty itself. (p. 23)

Disinterested Love: Understanding Leibniz's Reconciliation of Self- and Other-Regarding Motives

While he was in the employ of the Elector of Mainz, between 1668 and 1671, Leibniz produced a series of important studies in natural law. One of these, dated between 1670 and 1671, is especially noteworthy since it contains Leibniz's earliest sustained attempt to develop an account of justice. Central to this account is the notion of what Leibniz would later come to call `disinterested love', a notion that remained essentially unchanged in Leibniz's work from this period to the end of his life. Through his notion of disinterested love, Leibniz sought to resolve the supposed conflict between self- and other-regarding motives. For a variety of reasons, many commentators have failed to understand the basis of Leibniz's proposed resolution. My purpose in the present paper is to clarify the terms in which Leibniz effected this resolution, as well as to point out important developments in his later thought concerning the relation between pleasure, good, and happiness.

Dalgarno and Leibniz on the Particles

This article discusses the treatment of linguistic particles in various contexts by seventeenth-century philosophers, linguists and logicians. Starting out with a discussion of the logical tradition which formed the background to many of these treatments, the article then focuses on the approach to the subject taken by George Dalgarno, author of the first artificial language published in the seventeenth century, and on Leibniz's study of particles in the context of his grand rational grammar project. The article argues that in spite of a shared background, Dalgarno's and Leibniz's work in this area was informed by widely different aims.

Leibniz's Two Realms Revisited

AbstractLeibniz speaks, in a variety of contexts, of there being two realms—a “kingdom of power or efficient causes” and “a kingdom of wisdom or final causes.” This essay explores an often overlooked application of Leibniz's famous “two realms doctrine.” The first part turns to Leibniz's work in optics for the roots of his view that nature can be seen as being governed by two complete sets of equipotent laws, with one set corresponding to the efficient causal order of the world, and the other to its teleological order. The second part offers an account of how this picture of lawful over‐determination is to be reconciled with Leibniz's mature metaphysics. The third addresses a line of objection proposed by David Hirschmann to the effect that Leibniz's doctrine undermines his stated commitment to an efficient, broadly mechanical account of the natural world. Finally, the fourth part suggests that Leibniz's thinking about the harmony of final and efficient causes in connection with corporeal nature may help to shed light on his understanding of the teleological unfolding of monads as well.

Kurt Gödel: A Genius at Odds with the Zeitgeist

A typical character of a genius is that it extends beyond his period. Kurt Godel was not an exception. His letters to his mother show his tendency to search for explanations of seemingly random coincidences. In the science field, Godel opposed opinions his colleagues that the mathematics is syntax of a language. His platonism led him to believe the mathematical intuition and so that he did not accept the Turing suggestion that the mind processes could be entirely mechanised. His papers from the field of general relativity are close to Kant philosophy, ontological proof of existence of God arises in his interest in Leibniz work.

The Gift of Science: Leibniz and the Modern Legal Tradition

The Gift of Science: Leibniz and the Modern Legal Tradition. By Roger Berkowitz. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. 234p. $49.95.Roger Berkowitz's The Gift of Science is about the genesis and development of legal codification from its birth in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's work to the German Civil Code of 1900. Leibniz's legal writings have been long neglected and this study is to be commended for bringing these writings back to our attention. Berkowitz charts the development of Leibniz's legal thought from his early to mature writings, illuminating Leibniz's surprisingly helpful reflections on the nature of law.

Leibniz, Historicism, and the "Plague of Islam"

This essay exams the wide range of references to Islam and the Muslim Orient in Leibniz's works, from his earliest references to "Mohammedanism" in the 1660's, through his Egyptian Plan (1671), to extracts from some of his last letters and essays. The article shows the compartmentalization of three separate though porous vocabularies in Leibniz—a theological, political, and philological one—and how each vocabulary reflects a different series of attitudes each time to the faith, followers, and cultures of Islam. The evaporation of the Ottoman threat and an increasingly ethnological/philological interest in the languages and races of the Muslim world, it is suggested, explains a general mellowing of Leibniz's overall attitude to Islam from the beginning of the 1690's onward.

The Analytic Principle of Continuity

arguments with complex ones. We come across instances of the use of this device if we study the evolution of geometry beginning with Kepler. Most of the mathematicians who used this device referred to it as the principle of (this term is sometimes also used in the sense of an axiom of of a space, such as Dedekind's Principle or Cantor's Principle). We will use the term principle of continuity if the only process used is transition to a limit, and the term principle of continuity if, in addition to passage to a limit, real arguments are replaced with complex ones. In this paper we consider the appearance of the general principle of in the work of Kepler and its most general formulation in the work of Leibniz, the appearance of the analytic principle of in the work of Euler and its most extensive use in the geometric work of Carnot, Poncelet, and Lobachevskil, as well as the application of this principle in connection with the theory of Lie groups. [Translator's note. The use of the analytic principle of by Lobachevskil is described in the untranslated section 5, and its use in the theory of Lie groups is described in the

LEIBNIZ E LA RESISTENZA DELLE TRAVI

SUMMARY Leibniz's contribution to studies on the strength of beams is not very clear from the current literature. Leibniz's works, though known, have not received the proper attention. This paper includes an attempt to make up for this override by referring to the integral translation from Latin of two important contributions. A record appeared in the «Acta Eruditorum» of 1684 and in a letter to Jakob Bernoulli of 1690. The presentation of Leibniz's texts is preceded by an explicative essay which frames Leibniz's work in its historical context and tries to decode his argumentations.

Leibniz's Palace of the Fates: A Seventeenth-Century Virtual Reality System

In the late 1600s the mathematician and philosopher Leibniz produced the first description of a virtual reality system. He described an organized system of virtual worlds available for human perceptual exploration, along with an interface for exploring them. Leibniz's work on the logic of possible worlds has direct relevance to the conceptual foundations of virtual reality work today.

Elementary Principles for Representing Knowledge

KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION , Seite 88 - 102

Leibniz on Divine Foreknowledge of Future Contingents and Human Freedom

The issue of freedom and contingency as it appears in the works of Leibniz is one that has frustrated and fascinated students of Leibniz beyond measure. Since the publication of Bertrand Russell's A Critical Exposition of Leibniz's Philosophy in 1900, English-language discussions on this issue have focused on how Leibniz can have freedom and contingency as part of his given the logical, metaphysical, and modal doctrines he wants to defend. These discussions usually begin with an exposition of some set of logical, metaphysical, or modal doctrines that Leibniz endorsed and proceed through a protracted attempt to reconcile the set with some notion of freedom or contingency. In addition, these discussions have often taken for granted, and in fact modelled, the popular notion, endorsed and promoted by Russell, that Leibniz begins his philosophizing with a certain set of logical or metaphysical doctrines he wishes to defend, and then proceeds to build a system around them. However, as more of Leibniz's work becomes available to us this model of Leibniz's work seems less and less accurate. It is now becoming clear that for Leibniz, as for most figures in the history of philosophy, numerous factors were responsible for leading him to the claims he endorsed. One of these factors which has received surprisingly little attention in the English-language literature on Leibniz is the role that his theological commitments played in the development of his views. In this essay I would like to look at one facet of Leibniz's theological agenda in order to show that his thoughts on this matter profoundly impacted his views on freedom. The air in the seventeenth century was surely filled with as many theological disputes of central importance as any other prior to it or since. The Reformation had taken full hold and the theological factionalism that arose in its wake left the Catholic Church with more than just Luther and his progeny to worry about. One of the central disputes which raged, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but within Catholicism and Protestantism them-

Rachunek "współistniejących" i "istniejących-w" a leibnizjańska metafizyka wyrażania

The paper is devoted to some Leibniz's works concerning formal calculus, which makes use of so-called real sum operator. The author tries to show that the calculus had been created to articulate certain metaphysical intuitions specific for Leibniz. The calculus made it possible to put forth and to solve some problems unknown to the scholastic tradition.

Leibniz on Divine Foreknowledge of Future Contingents and Human Freedom

The issue of freedom and contingency as it appears in the works of Leibniz is one that has frustrated and fascinated students of Leibniz beyond measure. Since the publication of Bertrand Russell's A Critical Exposition of Leibniz's Philosophy in 1900, English-language discussions on this issue have focused on how Leibniz can have freedom and contingency as part of his given the logical, metaphysical, and modal doctrines he wants to defend. These discussions usually begin with an exposition of some set of logical, metaphysical, or modal doctrines that Leibniz endorsed and proceed through a protracted attempt to reconcile the set with some notion of freedom or contingency. In addition, these discussions have often taken for granted, and in fact modelled, the popular notion, endorsed and promoted by Russell, that Leibniz begins his philosophizing with a certain set of logical or metaphysical doctrines he wishes to defend, and then proceeds to build a system around them. However, as more of Leibniz's work becomes available to us this model of Leibniz's work seems less and less accurate. It is now becoming clear that for Leibniz, as for most figures in the history of philosophy, numerous factors were responsible for leading him to the claims he endorsed. One of these factors which has received surprisingly little attention in the English-language literature on Leibniz is the role that his theological commitments played in the development of his views. In this essay I would like to look at one facet of Leibniz's theological agenda in order to show that his thoughts on this matter profoundly impacted his views on freedom. The air in the seventeenth century was surely filled with as many theological disputes of central importance as any other prior to it or since. The Reformation had taken full hold and the theological factionalism that arose in its wake left the Catholic Church with more than just Luther and his progeny to worry about. One of the central disputes which raged, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but within Catholicism and Protestantism them-

Sémiotique et problématique corps-esprit chez Leibniz et les occasionnalistes

ABSTRACT : Leibniz, when he opposed the occasionalists's conception of the relationship between the body and the mind, entered into a debate that was deeply to influence him when he evolved his theory of the sign. The studies devoted to Leibniz's work have not so far made full use of this line of interpretation. Besides, the examination of the debate between Leiniz and the occasionalists makes it possible to draw a (to my mind, fruitful) parallel between the theories of language and the theories on the mind-body relationship in 17 th century philosophy. This paper is meant to be the first step towards the reconstruction of the links between the two domains at the time.