I have literally no idea who the
current author, Johann Gottfried Walther, is supposed to be: the only
person with that name from the 18th century I have managed
to discover was a musician. Of course, it could be possible that an
organist might want to dabble with philosophy in his spare time, but
it still feels rather peculiar.
As
far as I know, Walther published only two philosophical texts, first
one in 1724, titled
Eleatische Gräber, oder Gründliche Untersuchung der Leibnitsischen
und Wolffischen Gründe der Welt-Weißheit,
which was meant to, as the title indicates, criticize Wolffian
philosophy. This work had the pleasure of awakening the interest of
J. F. Müller, a minor Wolffian, who wrote a defense of Wolff against
it. Finally, Walther answered Müller with Gedancken
über die philosophische Bigotterie, wobey zugleich auf dasjenige,
was der so genante J. F. Müller aus Würtemberg, oder vielmerh der
Herr Hof-Rath Wolff in der herausgegebenen Schrift Wahres Mittel etc.
etc. wider dessen Eleatische Gräber eingewandt, zureichend
geantwortet wird, und wider dessen Systema neue und umstößige
Zweiffel gemachet werden.
The reason why I chose to write about
this rather obscure work is that it shows much better style and
philosophical acumen than other critiques of Wolffian philosophy I
have met thus far. The nominal topic of the essay is bigotry: Walther
portrays Wolffians as philosophical zealots, mindlessly following
their leader who has contaminated their head with mumbo-jumbo.
In a truly original manner Walther
compares Wolff's philosophy with Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe.
A superficial reason for this comparison lies in the supposition that
both works combine factual statements with pure fiction. Yet, Walther
has a more substantial analogue in his mind. Walther thinks that
Crusoe's deserted island where the castaway manages to live by his own
is as convincing as the solitary state of a human soul supposedly cut
away from any real connection with other souls. And just like the
interaction of Crusoe and Friday is at first made impossible by a
language barrier, so is the interaction of soul and body denied
apparently by Wolff.
Walther did understand that Wolff later
downplayed the idea of pre-established harmony, but this just made
him more convinced that Wolff was a devious fraud wanting to deceive
his followers. It is remarkable that Walther found only this single
issue not to his tastes and would have admitted the whole of Wolffian
philosophy otherwise. He was also singularly aware of the reason why
Wolffians adopted the pre-established harmony, namely, because laws
of mechanics appeared to deny change of motion coming out of thin
air. Walther understood the reason, but couldn't care less: if the
interaction between soul and body contradict with laws of mechanics,
so much worse for the laws.
Furthermore, Walther was not just
satisfied with showing his disgust, but also had a good argument
against Wolffian position. It is a reasonable assumption that the
incapacity of human soul to control its body lies in the essence of
the soul: spiritual beings just cannot have causal interactions with
material beings. Then again, Wolff's system relies on God as the
creator of everything there is, including the material world. Yet,
God is obviously spiritual being also and thus essentially incapable
of doing anything for the material objects, let alone creating them.
Walther's argument appeared already in
the Eleatische Gräber, and
it was answered in turn by Müller. The answer relies clearly on
Christian assumptions. Müller suggests that there is nothing
essential in spiritual substances that would prevent them from
controlling material substances. Then again, in this particular world
human souls appear to have no effect on bodies, so this must be just
an accidental thing: current world is just built in such a manner
that souls cannot interfere with it.
Müller's answer
feels unconvincing, if you don't buy in the idea of creation or don't
believe in afterlife. Yet, it has its own difficulties, even if you
do. Walther points out that Müller's suggestion would make human
souls in their current condition unfree, because they would be
prevented of doing something that they would naturally be capable of.
Thus, God would have made human unfree, when he created the world –
a rather peculiar result in a Christian setting.
Next time we shall
see another critic of Wolffian philosophy.
There is a biographical article on Walther in Zedler's _Lexicon_: http://www.zedler-lexikon.de/blaettern/einzelseite.html?id=465991&bandnummer=52&seitenzahl=0938&supplement=0&dateiformat=1
VastaaPoistaThanks for clearing that up! Well, it seems he was not the musician and apparently wrote nothing of consequence after the two texts.
VastaaPoista