When I was just beginning the blog, I was suggested to include Leibniz. In the very first post I strictly stated that I would skip him altogether, but I also said I might do some backtracking – and when I learned even Leibniz had written some German texts, I started to reconsider my stance. I still won't do a detailed analysis of all the works of Leibniz – that would set back my progress with another decade. Instead, I shall make one special article on his philosophy. Luckily I received as a PhD gift from Markku Roinila, one of the leading Leibniz-scholars of Finland, a recent Finnish translation of a number of Leibnizian texts, so suitable material was readily available.
I shall probably have to say something
about the translation itself. It is a collection of writings of very
diverse sort, containing in addition to more philosophical writings
also religious texts, physical investigations, papers on logic and
even a plan for making money with science. The only connecting
element, in addition to the author, is the relative shortness of the
texts. Thus, the collection includes mere excerpts of such larger
writings as Theodicy and New essays of human understanding. As I
don't know the originals, I cannot really say whether the
translations are faithful to them, but I am at least convinced that
the translating team has consisted of capable persons.
What becomes quite clear after reading
this mixed bunch of writings is the multifariousness of Leibniz's
talents and the variety of his interests – when Leibniz is not
engaged in a philosophical or scientific discussion with other
luminaries of the time or busy with yet another system of logic, he
is probably spending his free time for the unification of all
Christian churches. A good example of the ingenuity of Leibniz is the attempt to wed science with money, where the
philosopher suggests a sort of scientific circus in which innovations
are used as an entertainment – and which includes also a casino
using the theory of probability for making profit (all the money is,
of course, meant for further scientific endeavours).
What interests us here is the more
metaphysical part of the Leibnizian ouvre and especially its
connection to Wolff's metaphysics that we have just finished. I am
sure that most of you know at least some rudiments of Leibnizian
theory of monads – and those who don't can surely find some text
book to study – so I will just skip the details of this theory.
What is really fascinating is that Leibnizian philosophy can blend
the new scientific innovations of the 18th century with
the traditional religious world view – observations of the
microscopic world become evidence for the capacity of God to create
an infinite abundance of life.
Many of the details of the Wolffian
metaphysics we have investigated derive obviously from Leibniz: the
two principles of contradiction and sufficient reason, the division
of the substances into simple and complex, the division of concepts
according to the different levels of clarity, the relational theory
of space and time, the pre-established harmony and the choice of the
best possible world by God. That is not to say that Wolff himself
wasn't original. Yet, the originality lies more in details than in
the big picture, and some innovations of Wolff were far from true
improvements: witness, for instance, Wolff's attempt to base the
principle of sufficient reason on the principle of contradiction.
The most substantial difference between
the two philosophers lies in the difference of Wolffian elements and
Leibnizian monads: while former are units of force, latter are units
of perception. Yet, here Wolff is actually preferring earlier works
of Leibniz to his monadology. That is, Leibniz does suggest in some
texts that the ultimate elements of world are essentially forces, but
in later works the more famous idea of monads as perspectives to the
whole world becomes more apparent.
Still, the true novelty in the Wolffian
philosophy was its systematic form, which was the ideal that many
philosophers of the time tried to achieve – and which haunted even
the later German idealists. Of course, this systematicity was also the
reason why Wolff became so scorned by later philosophers- it is easy
to see the gaps in the argumentation and unwarranted presuppositions,
when the ideas are at least presented in the form of an axiomatic
system. Similar faults in Leibniz are more difficult to uncover, due
to the fractured nature of his philosophy – although they do
surface in his letters to other philosophers, such as Samuel Clarke,
who dare to question the ultimate presuppositions of Leibnizian
philosophy.
Still, it is probably this fragmentary
character that has kept the name of Leibniz alive through the ages –
everyone can find something to appreciate in his philosophy. In the days of
German enlightenment he was seen as a mediator between atheistic
materialism and irrational fideism. Although Kant was against
traditional metaphysics, he still appreciated Leibnizian ideas on the
capacities and limits of human knowledge. German idealists became
fascinated by his insistence on life and consciousness constituting
the fundamental essence of the world. Although Russell bewared
grandiose philosophical theories, he could still praise Leibniz's
logical works. And if philosophy for philosophy's sake loses the
remnants of its former glory, I am sure someone will get excited of
the idea of scientific circus.
So much for the digression on Leibniz.
In next post, the regular schedule will continue with yet another
book of Wolff, this time on ethics.
Someone should find out what Leibniz-texts Wolff read as only a few of them was published at the time...
VastaaPoistaAt least the correspondence between Leibniz and Wolff concentrated mainly on mathematical issues. I'd wager Wolff must have read at least Theodicy and Clarke-Leibniz -correspondence - at least his own metaphysics shows clear influence of these writings.
VastaaPoista