LEIBMIZ 135
rllllvU-
the Jesuits, the Master of the Sacred Palace and founds new system of philosophy, as that of a philo-
others " (Rommel, *' Leibniz u. der Landgraf Ernst V. sophic diplomatist who would reconcile all existing sys-
H. Pheinfels," II, Frankfort, 1847, p. IS^). The ne- terns by demonstrating their essential harmony. Con-
fotiations were continued even after the death of seqiicntly, his starting<{>oint is vcr>' different from that )uke Johann Friedrich in 1670. Leibniz, it should be of Descartes. Descartes believed that his first duty was understood, was actuated as much by patriotic mo- to doubt all the conclusions of all liis predecessors; tives as he was by religious considerations. He saw Leibniz was of the opinion that his duty was to show clearly that one of the greatest soiu'ces of weakness in how near all Ins predecessors had come to the truth, the German States was the lack of religious unity and Descartes was convinced, or at least assumed the con- tiie absence of the spirit of toleration. Indeed, the viction, tliat all the philosophers who went before him rdle he played was that of a diplomaf rather than that were in error, because they appeared to be involved in of a theoloeian. However, nis correspondence with inextricable contradictions; Leibniz was equally well Bossuet ana Pelisson and his acquaintance with inany convinced that all the great systems agree tundamen- prominent Catholics produced a real change in his at- tally, and that their imaniniity on essentials is a fair titude towards the Church, and, although ne adopted indication that they arc in the right. Leibniz there- for his own creed a kind of eclectic rationalistic Chris- fore resolved, not to isolate himself from the philo- tianity, he ceased in 1696 to frequent Protestant ser- 'sophical, scientific, and literary efforts of his predeces- vices. The causes of the failure of his negotiations sors and contemporaries, but, on the contrary, to liave been, variously summed up by different histori- utilize everything that the human mind had up to his ans. OnethingseemsclearrLouisAlV. who, through time achieved, U> discover agreement where discord Bossuet, professed his approval of Leibniz's project, and contradiction semed to reign, and thus to estab- had very potent political reasons for placing obstacles lish a permanent peace among contending schools, in the way of Leibniz's irenic efforts. Leibniz, it Even thinkers so widely scimrated as Plato and De- should be added, met with httle success in his other mocritiis, Aristotle and Descartes, the Schola-stics and plan of conciliation, namely, his scheme for the union modern physicists, hold certain doctrines in common, of Protestants among themselves. and Ijeil>niz makes it the business of his philosophy to
III. Leibniz and Learned Societies. — In 1700 single out those doctrines, explain the manifold bear- Leibniz, through the munificenco of his royal pupil ings of each, remove apparent contradictions, and so Princess Sophie Charlotte, wife of Frederick the First accomplish a diplomatic triumph where others had, of Prussia, founded the Society (afterwards called the hke Descartes, but made confusion worse confounded. Academjr) of Sciences of Berlin, and was appointed its The philosophy to which Leibniz thus ascribed irenics first president. In 1711, and again in 1712 and 1716, as one of its chief aims, is a partial idealism. Its he was accorded an interview with Peter the Great, and principal tenets are: (1) The doctrine of monads, (2) suggested the formation of a similar society at St. pre-established harmony, (3) the law of continuity, Petersburg. In 1689, during his visit to Rome, he and (4) optimism.
waLS elected a member of the pontifical Accademia (1) Tlie Doctrine of Monads, — Like Descartes and
Fisico-Mattematica. Spinoza, Leibniz attaches great importance to the no-
IV. Leibniz's Works. — Since the discovery in tion of substance. But, while they define substance 1903 of fifteen thousand letters and unedited frag- as independent existence, he defines substance in ments of l^eibniz's works at Hanover, the learned terms of independent action. The notion of sub- world has come to realize the full force of a saying of stance as essentially inert (see Occasionalism) is fun- Leibniz himself: " He who knows me by my published damentally erroneous. Substance is essentially act- works alone does not know me at all" (Qui me non ive: to be is to act. Now, since the independence of nisi editis novit, non novit). The works published substance is an independence in regard to action, not during his lifetime or immediately after his aeath are, in regard to existence, there is no reason for maintain- for the most part, treatises on particular portions of ing, as Descartes and Spinoza maintained, that sub- his philosophy. None of them gives an aaequate ac- stance is one. Substance is, indeed, essentially indi- count of his system in its entirety^. The most import- vidual, because it is a centre of independent action; ant are **Disputatio metaphysica de principio mdi- but it is no less essentialljr manifold, since actions are vidui",**Lamonadologie","fesaisdetn^odic^e",and many and varied. Tlie indeixjndent, manifold cen- •'Nouveaux essais sur Tentendement humain". The tres of activity are called monads. The monad has (ast of these is a reply, chapter by chapter, to Locke's been compared to the atom, and is, indeed, like it "Essay". In the account given below, these works in many respects. Like the atom, it is simple (devoid are used; but use is also made of the fragments pub- of parts), indivisible, and indestructible. However, iished by Couterat in his "Opuscules et fragments the indivisibility of the atom is not absolute but only inddits de Leibniz " (Paris, 1903), and by Baruzi in his relative to our power of analysing it chemically, while "Leibniz" (Paris, 1909). Of Leibniz s treatises on the indivisibility of the monad is absolute, the monad religious topics the most important arc: (1) Dialogus being a metaphysical point, a centre of force, incap- de rehgione rustici", a fragment, dated Paris, 1673, able of being analysed or separated in any way. Again, and treating of predestination; (2) " Dialogue effectif according to the Atomists, all atoms are alike: accord- sur la libeitd de Thomme, et sur Torigine du mal" ing to Leibniz no two monads can be exactly alike. dated 1695, still unpublished, and treating of the same Finally, the most important difference between the topic; (3) Letters" to Amauld and others on tran- atom and the monad is this: the atom is material, and sunstantiation ; (4) Letters, tracts, opuscula, etc., of an performs only material functions ; the monad is imma' irenic character, e. ^. ** Variae definitioncs ecclesi®" terial and, in so far as it represents other monads, "De persona Christi", "Appendix, de resurrectione functions in an immaterial manner. The monads, corporum", "De cultu sanctorum", letters to Pelis- therefore, of which all substances are composed, and son, Bossuet, Mme de Brinon,etc.; (5) contributions which are, in reality, the only substances existing, are to mystical theology, e. g. " Von der wahren Theologia more like souls than bodies. Indeed, Leibniz does Mystica", "Dialogues" on the psychology of mysti- not hesitate to call them souls and to draw the ob- cism {cS. "Revue de Metaph. et de Morale", Jan., vious inference that all nature is animated (panpsy- 1905). chism).
V. Leibniz's Philosophy. — As a philosopher Leib- The immateriality of the monad consists in its niz exhibited that many-sidedness which characterized power of representation. Each monad is a micro- his mental activity in general. His sympathies were cosm, or universe in miniature. It is, rather, a mirror broad, his convictions were eclectic, and his aim was of the entire universe, because it is in relation with all not 90 much that of the synthetic thinker who would other monads, and to that extent reflects them all, so
