Leibniz and Clarke: Correspondence

by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, Roger Ariew (Editor)

For this new edition, Roger Ariew has adapted Samuel Clarke's edition of 1717, modernizing it to reflect contemporary English usage. Ariew's introduction places the correspondence in historical context and discusses the vibrant philosophical climate of the times. Appendices provide those selections from the works of Newton that Clarke frequently refers to in the correspondence. A bibliography is also included.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction, Religion, History Of Science, Metaphysics, Physics

110 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1716

About the author

German philosopher and mathematician Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz or Leibnitz invented differential and integral calculus independently of Isaac Newton and proposed an optimist metaphysical theory that included the notion that we live in "the best of all possible worlds."

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, a polymath, occupies a prominent place in the history. Most scholars think that Leibniz developed and published ever widely used notation. Only in the 20th century, his law of continuity and transcendental homogeneity found implementation in means of nonstandard analysis. He of the most prolific in the field of mechanical calculators. He worked on adding automatic multiplication and division to calculator of Blaise Pascal, meanwhile first described a pinwheel in 1685, and used it in the first mass-produced mechanical arithmometer. He also refined the binary number system, the foundation of virtually all digital computers.

Leibniz most concluded that God ably created our universe in a restricted sense, Voltaire often lampooned the idea. Leibniz alongside the great René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza advocated 17th-century rationalism. Applying reason of first principles or prior definitions, rather than empirical evidence, produced conclusions in the scholastic tradition, and the work of Leibniz anticipated modern analytic logic.

Leibniz made major contributions to technology, and anticipated that which surfaced much later in probability, biology, medicine, geology, psychology, linguistics, and computer science. He wrote works on politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology. Various learned journals, tens of thousands of letters, and unpublished manuscripts scattered contributions of Leibniz to this vast array of subjects. He wrote in several languages but primarily Latin and French. No one completely gathered the writings of Leibniz.

Reviews

[Mohammad Ali Shamekhi · Rating 4 out of 5]

به نظرم خوندن این کتاب، البته با تأمل و طمأنینه، واقعا برای درگیری شخصی با مسأله ی آن اعصار فلسفه مفیده - من خودم هر دفعه پنج شیش صفحه می خوندم که در نتیجه چند ماهی درگیرش بودم. درسته که کلارک در نامه هاش نشون می ده اهل فلسفه نیست و درسته که لایبنیتس اخلاق مباحثه رو رعایت نمی کنه و مثل آدم حرفشو برای کلارک توضیح نمی ده خیلی جاها؛ اما فکر کردن به سنخ اندیشه ی این دو آدم تفکر برانگیزه. لایبنیتس همزمان دغدغه ی علمی بودن - به معنای شناخت حقیقت چیزها -، عقلانی بودن، و الهی بودن رو داره ولی کلارک تأکیدش بیشتر بر الهیات غیرفلسفی، آزادی بشری، و علم - به معنای شناخت قوانین پدیدارهای جسمانی و رها از کشف علل حقیقی ( به تبع گالیله ) - است. فضای فلسفه بعد از این دو تلاش کرد هر دو رو حفظ کنه: هم آزادی هم ضرورت و عقلانیت

بخش های کتاب

کتاب شامل دو بخشه: 1) مقدمه ی الکساندر؛ 2) پنج نامه از لایبنیتس و پنج پاسخ از کلارک. مترجم بخش های دیگر کتاب اصلی را ترجمه نکرده - مثلا مقدمه ی مختصر کلارک یا گزیده ی برخی بندها از آثار نیوتن و لایبنیتس که به کتاب ضمیمه شده بوده. علی الظاهر بخش هایی را هم که الکساندر خودش از آثار نیوتن گزیده، نیاورده - من متاسفانه به اصل نسخه ی الکساندر درسترسی نداشتم و بر حسب عنوان کتاب اصلی این قضاوتو می کنم - یعنی این کتاب

ترجمه

من به نسخه ی الکترونیکی راجر آریو دسترسی داشتم - یعنی این کتاب - و ترجمه رو با اون سنجیدم. ترجمه قابل اتکا و معقوله - جز چند مورد معدود اشتباه. البته وقتی مقدمه ی الکساندر رو می خوندم حس خوبی از ترجمه نداشتم ولی چون اصل مقدمه در دسترسم نبود نمی دونم خود مقدمه سرراست نوشته نشده بود یا ترجمه مشکل داشت. به هر حال ترجمه ی نامه ها تا اونجا که من دیدم قابل اتکائه. حیف که مترجم ظاهرا ترجمه ی دیگه ای در کارنامه اش نداره

[Campbell Rider]

Leibniz with the galaxy-brained take that space is fake and gravity is made up

[Corey Schuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best geinig

[Stephen Hanna · Rating 3 out of 5]

The majority of the most interesting discussions revolve around God, space, and time. Clarke argues Newton's conception of space, which explains it to be an independent object to humans that is part of God's composition, namely God's "sensorium". Space has quantifiable intervals. I believe Clarke argues space is infinite, since God is infinite. The same goes for time. Leibniz argues space and time to be psychological constructs, specifically the ordering of things. They are God's creations and are independent of God, thus allowing them to be finite.

God acts with "Moral necessity" according to Leibniz, where God makes the wisest choice among multiple decisions and must do so through moral necessity (basically wise beings avoid foolish decisions). God also created everything to be uniquely different to all else, which makes every choice have some difference, meaning that no two options are the same. In this sense, god has free will according to Leibniz, but Clarke argues that's questionable because then God will have predetermined actions based on moral necessity. This is because of the principle of sufficient reason, where all actions (and in fact the reason why all events occur) are undertaken for some sufficient reason based on differences in outcomes.

Clarke argues that God is not bound by moral necessity, and that God has an independent will that allows them to choose between equalivalent options where all factors are the same. Clarke thinks moral necessity is a bullshit concept, at least so far as its application to God.

All in all, an interesting book showing how the growth of knowledge comes through conflicting, partially correct ideas. Leibniz was explicitly proven wrong when it came his theory of space and time by Einstein's discovery that space and time are a construct influence by gravity that can be empirically investigated. Leibniz made more sense when it came to decision making and claiming that all things are measurably unique.

[Adam Chandler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved reading through these letters between Gottfried Leibniz and Samuel Clarke. These are two of the most important names in science and mathematics in their day. What do they have to discuss? The role of God in the universe. Leibniz originally intended to speak with Newton on the subject but Clarke takes up Newton's perspective to correspond with Leibniz. Within Leibniz's philosophy, God has set all things into motion so perfectly that there is no need for any intervention in creation (deism). However, Newtonian thought proposes that there is a degradation of motion (and momentum and energy) over time so God upholds the creation by "winding it up" at different points in history (theism).

From a Christian perspective, there is something to be said for both sides. God's original intention for His creation was for it to be constantly living in harmony with itself and with God. However, following the fall into sin and the degradation of how creation was supposed to live in harmony with itself and constantly receive life from God, the Lord sent His Son into creation (among other miracles) to deliver people from sin, death, and the power of the devil. Miracles are themselves interventions in the universe, but Newton was arguing not for miracles in this sense of salvation but more for continued operation. That can be argued for as God continuously sustains His creation (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3) but we do not observe an influx of supernatural energy into the closed physical system of our universe.

[Andreas Freiberger · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I have to read the words “principle of sufficient reason” again I may end it all. If I take any more philosophy at duke I probably will though :/ This sort of debate really isn’t my favorite because each philosopher just has a different metaphysical model which is put to a different use; there’s no reconciliation if those two models are incompatible! That means there’s very little debate on tangible issues, and the metaphysical principles take center stage. Also, analytic philosophy isn’t my favorite, but there were some interesting ideas here, namely the idea of possible worlds/impossible worlds, and what that might mean. I’m just frankly bored as shit with the principle of sufficient reason and this kind of metaphysics. Hopefully ancient philosophy will be a good reprieve next year.

[Aljoša Toplak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this correspondence provides some interesting insight into the way philosophers handle discussions. It’s full of straw-man arguments and misunderstandings, rendering the synthesis of two great philosophies of nature impossible.

Given the historical significance of these letters it’s a must-read for every philosopher. It’s easy to read and sheds light on Leibniz’ philosophical system, which was scarcely presented outside the Monadology. Surprisingly enough, Clarke provides some striking arguments in favour of Newton’s conception of space, arguments which will acquire a prominent role in the philosophy of Kant.

[Harris Bolus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of historical interest, both because of the commentary on preceding philosophers (Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Locke) and because of the import for the discussions that followed (Berkeley, Hume, and Kant).

While the discussion was interesting, Leibniz and Clarke managed to talk past each other a bit over the course of all five letters on each side, particularly on the subject of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. That limited the progress they were able to make, and the depth of the conversation.

[Sudip Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Leibniz had much better arguments than Clarke. However, he arrived at wrong conclusions due to his philosophical commitments, viz. the perfection of God and the principle of sufficient reason (essentially an invariance principle). Now we know both of them to be false. God doesn't exist and the principle of sufficient reason is false (e.g., in quantum mechanics identical experiments can give rise to different outcomes). Even though Leibniz was wrong he was wrong for profound reasons. For example, he thought that two distinct objects cannot be identical. Now we know that quantum mechanics allows identical particles.

[Lane Wilkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is wonderful look at a key debate in early modern physics and philosophy of space/time.

[Thamnocalamus · Rating 5 out of 5]

for Newton, Clarke were so patient...

[Andrew Corrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two great minds wrestle with ideas of space and time.

[Alexandre Guay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un excellent premier livre de philosophie.