Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T20:56:05.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harmonizing Leibniz’s Ontology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2012

ANDREW D. H. STUMPF
ANDREW D. H. STUMPF*
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I propose a novel compatibilist interpretation of Leibniz’s mature views concerning what is metaphysically basic. Drawing on a compatibilist reading of Aristotle on primary substance in the Categories and Metaphysics Z, I argue that Leibniz is working with two complementary ways of being metaphysically basic—one applying to immaterial monads, the other to corporeal substances. Although corporeal substances derive their status as basic from their dominant monads, they are nevertheless fully real, unified, and genuinely capable of acting. This perspective respects Leibniz’s idealist tendencies and his commitment to the reality of bodies without (implausibly) attributing inconsistency to his considered views.

Je propose une interprétation compatibiliste des positions de Leibniz sur ce qui est métaphysiquement fondamental. En m’appuyant sur une lecture compatibiliste de ce que dit Aristote de la substance première dans les Catégories et au livre Z de la Métaphysique, je soutiens que Leibniz pense en fonction de deux manières d’être fondamentales—l’une qui s’applique aux monades immatérielles, et l’autre aux substances corporelles. Ces dernières sont fondamentales d’une façon secondaire, mais elles sont néanmoins vraiment réelles, unifiées et capables d’agir. Cette approche respecte à la fois les tendances idéalistes de Leibniz et son attrait pour la réalité des corps, sans pour autant attribuer d’incohérence aux positions en question.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 467 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R.M. 1994 Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Futch, M. 2007 “Review of Leibniz and the Natural World.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 45.1, 162–163.Google Scholar
Gale, G. 1989 “Physics, Metaphysics, and Natures: Leibniz’ Later Aristotelianism.” Leibnizian Inquiries, ed. Rescher, N.. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 95–102.Google Scholar
Gale, G. 1970 “The Physical Theory of Leibniz.” Studia Leibnitiana II (2): 114–127.Google Scholar
Garber, D. 2005 “Leibniz and Idealism.” Leibniz: Nature and Freedom, eds. Rutherford, D. and Cover, J. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95–107.Google Scholar
Garber, D. 2004 “Leibniz and Fardella: Body, Substance and Idealism.” Leibniz and His Correspondents, ed. Lodge, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 123–40.Google Scholar
Garber, D. 1997 “Leibniz on Form and Matter.” The Fate of Hylomorphism: “Matter” and “Form” in Early Modern Science (= Early Science and Medicine 2, Special Issue), eds. Luthy, C. H. and Newman, W. R.. Leiden: Brill, 326–352.Google Scholar
Garber, D. 1985 “Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years.” The Natural Philosophy of Leibniz, eds. Okruhlik, K. and Brown, J. R.. Dordrecht: Reidel: 27–130.Google Scholar
Hartz, G. & Wilson, C. 2005 “Ideas and Animals: The Hard Problem of Leibnizian Metaphysics,” Studia Leibnitiana XXXVII (1): 3–19.Google Scholar
Hartz, G. 1998 “Why Corporeal Substances Keep Popping up in Leibniz’s Philosophy.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 6 (2): 193–207.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1991 G.W. Leibniz’s Monadology: An Edition for Students, ed., trans., Rescher, N.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1981 New Essays on Human Understanding, eds. Remnant, P. and Bennett, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1997 Leibniz’s “New system” and Associated Contemporary Texts. eds., trans., Woolhouse, R. S. and Francks, R.. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1989 Philosophical Essays. eds., Ariew, R. and Garber, D., Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1956 Philosophical Papers and Letters, ed. Loemker, L.E.. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Loux, M. 1991 Primary Ousia: An Essay on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z and H. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Phemister, P. 2006 The Rationalists: Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Phemister, P. 2005 Leibniz and the Natural World. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, V. 1996 “One for Leibniz.” Sorites 4: 10–20.Google Scholar
Rutherford, D. 1995. Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wedin, M. 2000 Aristotle’s Theory of Substance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Witt, C. 2002 “Critical Notice: Aristotle’s Theory of Substance.” The Philosophical Review 111, 1: 98–101.Google Scholar