Just like with
ontology, in cosmology Baumgarten appears to be rather close on
Wolff's ideas, but a more careful study reveals important
differences. One interesting point of distinction concerns the
question what belongs in a world. With Wolff, it appears that souls
do not exist within deterministic universe, but follow their own causal
series. With Baumgarten, on the other hand, souls appear to be just
as much part of the world as material objects. Thus, while for Wolff,
egoism is a statement on what there exists in general (nothing but
one soul), for Baumgarten it is a cosmological proposition (world
consists of one soul or is simple).
Reason for
Baumgarten's inclusion of souls in world might be his commitment to
Leibnizian notion of monads. True, even Wolff had said that monads do
correspond to what he called elements, but this admission was a bit
halfhearted. Baumgarten, instead, is quite insistent on using the
term monad. He even endorses the notion that these monads have some
soul-like properties, by stating that materialists must deny monads,
either in general or at least as parts of the world – because
Baumgarten, like Wolff, believes that all complex substances consist
of simple substances, which he identifies with monads, he can then
simply deny materialism as contradictory.
While it is
difficult to say what is the relation of elements and space in
Wolff's philosophy – and even more difficult to say what is the
relation of souls and space – Baumgarten states at once that monads
are located at some point in space. They are still not mere points in
space, because they also represent the world around them, some
darkly, others clearly (idealism is then defined as the idea that all
monads represent world clearly or are spirits).
Wolff was almost
silent on how his elements combined into, first corpuscles, then
visible material bodies – for instance, should we need an infinity
of them? Baumgarten does not provide a full explanation either, but
he at least has a more detailed story to tell. First of all, monads
are spatially located, that is, they must be in some sense positioned
in relation to one another. Now, this positionality was reduced in
Baumgarten's philosophy to interactions – being near another thing
meant just affecting it.
Now, Baumgarten held
that monads in some sense affect one another. In fact, when one monad
acts one another, this other monad must also react on the other
monad. Such interlocking combinations of monads form them more stable
connections. Their interaction forms their contact, and if no
external reason makes them lose their contact, the monads stay
together, forming a relatively stable material body.
Just like in
Wolffian philosophy, with Baumgarten the activities of monads explain
all phenomena on the level of bodies. Indeed, Baumgarten even says
that because all monads are active and e.g. change constantly their
relative positions (that is, start and cancel interactions with one
another), bodies also must be in constant movement.
Although Baumgarten
thus uses the language of monads interacting one another, it is still
unclear how seriously this statement is to be taken. Does Baumgarten,
like Wolff, admit interactions only with some primary elements, but
deny it between spiritual and other monads? Or does he accept or deny
all monadic interactions? These questions, along with the problematic
of a perfection of the world, will be dealt next time.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti