Monism, Separability and Real Distinction in the Young Leibniz

Mogens Laerke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

n this article, I discuss how Leibniz’s first correspondence with Malebranche from early 1676 can shed new light on the notorious “all-things-are-one”-passage (ATOP) found in the Quod ens perfectissimum sit possibile from late 1676—a passage that has been taken as an expression of monism or Spinozism in the young Leibniz. The correspondence with Malebranche provides a deeper understanding of Leibniz’s use of the notions of “real distinction” and “separability” in the ATOP. This forms the background for a discussion of Leibniz’s commitment to the monist position expounded in the ATOP. Thus, on the basis of a close analysis of Leibniz’s use of these key terms in the Malebranche correspondence, I provide two possible, and contrary, interpretations of the ATOP, namely, a “non-commitment account” and a “commitment account.” Finally, I explain why I consider the commitment account to be the more compelling of the two.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-29
Number of pages29
JournalThe Leibniz Review
Volume19
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Monism
Separability
Spinozism
Monist

Cite this

Monism, Separability and Real Distinction in the Young Leibniz. / Laerke, Mogens.

In: The Leibniz Review, Vol. 19, 12.2009, p. 1-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e2c20627b5a946b0be27925c07ef5af0,
title = "Monism, Separability and Real Distinction in the Young Leibniz",
abstract = "n this article, I discuss how Leibniz’s first correspondence with Malebranche from early 1676 can shed new light on the notorious “all-things-are-one”-passage (ATOP) found in the Quod ens perfectissimum sit possibile from late 1676—a passage that has been taken as an expression of monism or Spinozism in the young Leibniz. The correspondence with Malebranche provides a deeper understanding of Leibniz’s use of the notions of “real distinction” and “separability” in the ATOP. This forms the background for a discussion of Leibniz’s commitment to the monist position expounded in the ATOP. Thus, on the basis of a close analysis of Leibniz’s use of these key terms in the Malebranche correspondence, I provide two possible, and contrary, interpretations of the ATOP, namely, a “non-commitment account” and a “commitment account.” Finally, I explain why I consider the commitment account to be the more compelling of the two.",
author = "Mogens Laerke",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.5840/leibniz2009191",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "1--29",
journal = "The Leibniz Review",
issn = "1524-1556",
publisher = "Leibniz Society of North America",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Monism, Separability and Real Distinction in the Young Leibniz

AU - Laerke, Mogens

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - n this article, I discuss how Leibniz’s first correspondence with Malebranche from early 1676 can shed new light on the notorious “all-things-are-one”-passage (ATOP) found in the Quod ens perfectissimum sit possibile from late 1676—a passage that has been taken as an expression of monism or Spinozism in the young Leibniz. The correspondence with Malebranche provides a deeper understanding of Leibniz’s use of the notions of “real distinction” and “separability” in the ATOP. This forms the background for a discussion of Leibniz’s commitment to the monist position expounded in the ATOP. Thus, on the basis of a close analysis of Leibniz’s use of these key terms in the Malebranche correspondence, I provide two possible, and contrary, interpretations of the ATOP, namely, a “non-commitment account” and a “commitment account.” Finally, I explain why I consider the commitment account to be the more compelling of the two.

AB - n this article, I discuss how Leibniz’s first correspondence with Malebranche from early 1676 can shed new light on the notorious “all-things-are-one”-passage (ATOP) found in the Quod ens perfectissimum sit possibile from late 1676—a passage that has been taken as an expression of monism or Spinozism in the young Leibniz. The correspondence with Malebranche provides a deeper understanding of Leibniz’s use of the notions of “real distinction” and “separability” in the ATOP. This forms the background for a discussion of Leibniz’s commitment to the monist position expounded in the ATOP. Thus, on the basis of a close analysis of Leibniz’s use of these key terms in the Malebranche correspondence, I provide two possible, and contrary, interpretations of the ATOP, namely, a “non-commitment account” and a “commitment account.” Finally, I explain why I consider the commitment account to be the more compelling of the two.

U2 - 10.5840/leibniz2009191

DO - 10.5840/leibniz2009191

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 1

EP - 29

JO - The Leibniz Review

JF - The Leibniz Review

SN - 1524-1556

ER -