One for Leibniz

Sorites 4:10-20 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

For Leibniz, it was a requirement upon the `fundamentally real' to have a `principle of unity'. What does this mean?One general point is that Substance cannot be understood as pure extension. But there is a particular point about cohesion: a real thing had to have some means by which its parts were stuck together. But Leibniz' insistence on `unity' is also an insistence on indivisibility. Under this head there is first the point that there appears to be a contradiction between extension and being incapable of being cut in two. Second, Leibniz uses the notion of `indivisibility' to mark the following distinction among things made up of parts: those which cannot be split without being destroyed; and the rest . To be `indivisible' is to be of the first type. Leibniz' insistence that the truly real must be `indivisible' is then his insistence that the truly real, if it is made up of parts, must be a thing with `integrity', i.e. not an aggregate.What does Leibniz think of as the connection between what is truly real and the possession of `integrity'? He took from Scholasticism the doctrine that action is necessarily attributed to a substance having `integrity', contructing what was in effect a theory of action with two parts: only self-subsistent substances can act; and an action is an origination of change. Leibniz thus insists that self-subsistent substances must be indivisible, in the sense that they cannot be mere aggregates. Aggregates cannot act, and self-subsistence in effect is the capacity for action. This is the most fundamental reason Leibniz had for insisting that the truly real must have a `principle of unity'.It is misleading to speak of Leibniz reintroducing the Scholastic form-and-matter conception of substance for the following reasons: the Scholastic `form' precisely lacked a `principle of action'; and during the period when it is suggested that Leibniz' conception was essentially Scholastic he was defending the view that what his `form' informed was not matter at all but what he called a `metaphysical point'

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,505

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Leibniz on Corporeal Substance.Peeter Müürsepp - 2016 - Acta Baltica Historiae Et Philosophiae Scientiarum 4 (2):31-52.
Corporeal Substances and True Unities.Donald L. M. Baxter - 1995 - Studia Leibnitiana 27 (2):157.
Leibniz on Infinite Numbers, Infinite Wholes, and Composite Substances.Adam Harmer - 2014 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22 (2):236-259.
Was ist eine Person? Überlegungen zu Leibniz.Dominik Perler - 2016 - Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 64 (3):329-351.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-22

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Vernon Pratt
University of Central Lancashire

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references