Infinite Accumulations and Pantheistic Implications

Abstract

INFINITE ACCUMULATIONS AND PANTHEISTIC IMPLICATIONS are compensated. The whole world is one vortex for God. [Totus Mundus un us Deo vortex]5 (A VI, iii, 480 (DSR 35, 37)) Leibniz's reasoning here, as in many of his early writings, is difficult to follow. Nevertheless, the context once again invites some speculation. Leibniz seems quite insistent that Perrault's view, the view that the soul is in the whole body equally (or that it "exists at the same time in several things"), is mistaken on the grounds that it implies that the soul will, at the same time, be performing "different operations," or that one and the same soul will be active and passive in more than one respect at the same time. He then notes that the soul operates by "observing its own vortex." Presumably, this view of the soul, according to Leibniz, overcomes the lately noted objection to Perrault's view. That is, it overcomes the objection that the soul could be performing mutually inconsistent activities at the same time. From here, he considers that perhaps the world itself is "vivified by a soul ofthe same kind," viz., a soul which acts reflectively by putting a vortex in motion. 6 If so, this would be why the "laws of the system are observed and all things are compensated." Clearly, the suggestion of the last sentence is that it is God who is this soul. The fact that Leibniz thought his own view in this essay-that the soul operates by putting a vortex in motion-overcomes the objection to Perrault's view is revealing. He seems to think that the fact that all things are "compensated" can be explained by appeal to a world-soul. Now whatever "compensation" means here, it is difficult to believe that Leibniz would call Perrault's view ofthe soul one which could explain compensation. That is, if the world-soul was like what Leibniz saw as Perrault's view of the soul, then the world-soul would be performing inconsistent operations at one and the same time. If this is true, it is difficult to believe that it would explain how, according to Leibniz, "all things are compensated." Rather, the suggestion of the passage is that Leibniz' s view of the soul, and hence of the worldsoul, is one that explains the mutual compensation and regular activity (in the sense of all "the laws of the system [being] observed") of naturally occurring processes. This is admittedly speculative, but the passage clearly suggests that God is to the world what the soul is to the body, and that this explains important features of the world. It is interesting to note in this regard that during the time period in question, Leibniz attributed to the Stoics the view that "all the world remains in agreement" (A II, i, 500; cf. G IV, 523 (L 496)), and also the view that "God is the substance of the world" (A VI, i, 510). In fact, in the latter passage, which was written circa 1668, Leibniz drew on this Stoic view in support of some of his own doctrines, which suggests that at that time, he looked favorably upon it, or, at least, some aspects of it. Perhaps, then, what is meant by "all th...

Newton, Spinoza, Stoics and Others

“…32 This premise is implicit, but hardly controversial from Leibniz's point of view. 33 Consult articles by Carlin (1997), Arthur (1999, 2001, and especially Brown (2005) (see also Brown (1998) and Brown (2000)). In relation to Brown's articles, and also in many other ways, I am indebted to Brown for intellectual insight and stimulation over a long period of time.…”

Leibniz on Wholes, Unities, and Infinite Number

“…I n the 1999 issue of The Leibniz Review, Richard Arthur responded (Arthur, 1999) to a paper I had written (Brown, 1998) criticizing a certain argument that Leibniz had formulated to refute the possibility of a world soul. This argument, which had been delineated and analyzed in an earlier paper by Laurence Carlin (Carlin, 1997), turns upon Leibniz's rejection of infinite number and infinite wholes, on the grounds that they imply a contradiction. In the present paper, I wish to respond to Arthur by attempting to clarify the issues involved in the apparent dispute between us.…”