Search

In recent years a certain emphasis has been put by some scholars on Leibniz's concern about empirical sciences and the relations between such concern and the development of his mature metaphysical system. In this paper I focus on Leibniz's interest for the microscope and the astonishing discoveries that such instrument made possible in the field of the life sciences during the last part of the Seventeenth century. The observation of physical bodies carried out by the "magnifying glasses" revealed a matter swarming everywhere with life and activity, contrary to the cartesian and atomistic view of matter as something sterile and passive. Moreover, the discovery of uncountable complete "animalcula" living in the smallest drop of water provided evidence for the idea of the preformation of every organism. During his lifetime, Leibniz was extremely watchful about the new microscopical discoveries and came into contact with some of the major "observers" of his time, such as Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam and Malpighi. Relying both on some passages in Leibniz's texts and on recent critical studies, I will argue that important aspects of his metaphysics have been strongly affected by the empirical observation of the "invisible world" which the microscope made possible. In the last part of the paper I show how the concept of "preformation", originally drawn from the context of the life sciences, comes to play in Leibniz's philosophy a very general role, going far beyond the scope of biology and shaping important aspects of his overall philosophical system.

In this article, I first reconsider the personal links between Comenius and Leibniz, searching for how Comenian texts and ideas may have reached Leibniz. For that reason, I outline a constellation of thinkers within Central European Protestantism, since a vast majority of the important intellectuals with some noteworthy link both to Comenius and Leibniz were based there. Second, I investigate more closely one particular intellectual link between Comenius and Leibniz, namely their common combinatorial standpoint, because the striking parallels, connections and similarities between Comenius's and Leibniz's ideas on combinatorics, universal language and relational metaphysics have been largely overlooked thus far. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of force is at the heart of Leibniz's metaphysics. One of his central theses is that powers are to be reconceived as forces. Connectedly, he maintains that force is essential to the very account of substance. The paper contends that these claims have not been well understood due to an inadequate understanding of the notion of force itself. Against a common reading, I argue that Leibnizian force is not fundamentally dispositional, but an activity. Taking seriously this idea means reconsidering not only the nature and function of powers, but also the basic character of Leibniz's metaphysics—including his view of substances as soul-like and as causally independent. This paves the way for a novel interpretation of the unity of physical and metaphysical forces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The status of continuity in Deleuze's metaphysics is a subject of debate. Deleuze calls the virtual, in Difference and Repetition, an Ideal continuum, and the differential relations that constitute the Ideal imply the continuity of this field. But, Deleuze does not hesitate to formulate the same field by the affirmation of divergence (incompossibility) that can be regarded as a form of discontinuity. It is, hence, unclear how these two ostensibly contradictory accounts might reconcile. This article attempts to reconstitute a Deleuzian theory of continuity through Leibniz, whose philosophy is equally subject to a tension between the law of continuity, prevalent in his mathematics and metaphysics, and the discontinuity or absolute individuality of monads. By reorienting The Fold around the motif of continuity a new conceptual space is opened for continuity qua heterogeneity-and-inseparability. Then, enfolding the conceptual personae of The Fold onto Difference and Repetition reveals the tacit though decisive presence of different types of continuity operational in Deleuze's metaphysics that will be called divergent, intensive, torsional, and tenorsional continuities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In The Fold, Deleuze regards Raymond Ruyer as the most recent of Leibniz's great disciples. This claim is not self-evident, since Ruyer often criticises Leibniz and stresses the divergence of his theory from Leibniz's monadological metaphysics. Therefore, while Ruyer does not seem to regard himself as indebted to Leibniz, and as his psychobiology is not always reconcilable with Leibniz's philosophy, it is necessary to explore what is at stake in Deleuze's recognition of Ruyer as a Leibnizian thinker. This essay foregrounds the tacit intertwining between Leibniz and Ruyer, which can, on the one hand, contribute to Leibniz's scholarship and uncover the contemporaneity of his thought, and on the other hand, expose certain revealing Ruyerian moments in Deleuze's immanent philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Social Sciences Institute / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi is the property of Bingol University / Rectorate and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Logos: Anales del Seminario de Metafísica (1575-6866) is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article offers a reconstruction of Derrida's critique of Leibniz. It suggests that in attempting to fit Leibniz into his conception of the history of metaphysics and the all-embracing notion of logocentrism that underwrites it, Derrida presupposes two regimes of logocentrism: one subjective, the other theological. Subsumed into this second mode, Derrida casts Leibniz as a progenitor of structuralism and the new sciences and technologies of information in order to expose their logocentric foundations. However, in doing so, he ends up sidelining the aspect of Leibniz's ideas that anticipates the specificity of the new epoch of writing he claims to historicise. The article goes on to argue that to grasp this specificity one must look beyond the "expressivist" schema of exterior representation, which Derrida draws from Husserl's theory of meaning, and instead look to Leibniz's own formal-combinatorial concept of expression, which exceeds Derrida's critical framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite drives' importance for Nietzsche's explanation of individuals' values, controversies persist over how to interpret Nietzsche's attribution of normative capacities to the drives themselves. On one reading, drives evaluate their aims and recognize the normative authority of other drives' aims. On another, drives' normative properties reduce to nonnormative, causal properties. Neither approach is satisfying. The former commits Nietzsche to the homuncular fallacy by granting drives complex cognitive capacities. The latter reading either commits Nietzsche to the naturalistic fallacy, having him derive normative conclusions from descriptive premises, or eliminates normativity from his thought altogether. In response to this impasse, this article advances a Leibniz-informed interpretation of Nietzsche's drive psychology. By construing the normative and efficient causal orders as parallel modes of explanation distinguished by one's perspective, a Leibniz-informed reading captures the benefits of extant interpretations while avoiding their drawbacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cauriensia: Revista Anual de Ciencias Eclesiásticas is the property of Instituto Teologico San Pedro de Alcantara de Caceres and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The essay examines the question of whether the world can be explained immanently or ontotheologically. It is argued that neither an immanent nor an axiogenetic explanation is possible, but only an ontotheological explanation can be successful. The text also discusses the question of whether a necessarily existing being is possible and presents two promising attempts to give this idea a meaningful significance. It is pointed out that both attempts are promising but exclude each other and therefore cannot both be successful. The essay is dedicated to the memory of Christoph Schwöbel. [Extracted from the article]

Leibniz uses the concept of probability in both epistemic and non-epistemic contexts, as do many of his contemporaries. Some commentators have claimed that this dual-use is inexact or confused. In this paper, I describe Leibniz’s understanding of the concept of probability and discuss its dual usage in his work. Then, building on Leibniz’s creation theory, in conjunction with Russell’s interpretation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, I endeavor to justify this dual usage and to show that this justification is also valuable for the contemporary discussion of the concept of probability.

Leibniz is often cited as an authority when it comes to the formulation and answer strategy of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Yet much current research assumes that Leibniz advocates an unambiguous question and strategy for the answer. In this respect, one repeatedly finds the argument in the literature that alternative explanatory approaches to this question violate Leibniz's intention, since he derives the question from the principle of sufficient reason and also demands a causal explanation to the question. In particular, the new research on non-causal explanatory strategies to the Leibniz question seems to concern this counter-argument. In this paper, however, I will argue that while Leibniz raises the question by means of the principle of sufficient reason, he even favours a non-causal explanatory strategy to the question. Thus, a more accurate Leibniz interpretation seems not only to legitimise but also to support non-causal explanations to the Leibniz question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a transcription of a handwritten Latin text, along with its translation into English, that was identified only very recently in the Kongelige Bibliothek in Copenhagen while preparing the new critical edition of Kant's Nova dilucidatio (PND). The text consists of remarks by Johann Reinhold Grube, composed in his role as opponent at Kant's disputation for the venia legendi on 27 September 1755. Grube's interleaved opposing remarks on Kant's dissertatio metaphysica pro receptione contain precious starting points for new lines of research, since they vividly exemplify the point of view of one of the participants in the debate, a perspective that is rarely documented. In addition to informing us about how the disputation itself was carried out and which traditional rhetorical techniques were used, these remarks offer a compelling glimpse into the immediate reception of Kant's first thoughts on logic and metaphysics, giving scholars access to an ingenious reaction to Kant's stance on the theory of judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, to understand individual substances we must distance ourselves and see the totality. In fact, it is necessary to see the picture at a convenient distance to understand the perfection of wholeness and uniqueness. The possible exit from the labyrinth in which metaphysics entangled us, stimulates the desire to know everything and the certainty that there are no equal substances. Totality and difference; maximum totality and maximum difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses some issues of Leibniz's metaphysics to show the relationship between religion, God, and the conception of eternal truths, and with that to reveal that Leibniz's philosophy is a coherent and intertwined whole. His idea of religion is set out briefly, then his metaphysics is analyzed, in particular creation and what are the eternal truths. The paper ends with a commentary on some quotations from the New essays that make evident that these truths require the existence of God. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This text is an answer to Daniel Garber's article. In the reply, I challenge the idea that the dynamics is a parallel project, incompatible with the monadological project. To criticize this position, I present the importance of the conceptualization of action from Dynamica de potentia (1690) and its implications for the monadological metaphysics itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores a PSR-connected trail leading from theistic idealism to a form of substance monism. In particular, I argue that the same style of argument available for a Leibnizian form of metaphysical idealism actually leads beyond idealism to something closer to Spinozistic monism. This path begins with a set of theological commitments about the nature and perfection of God that were widely shared among leading early modern philosophers. From these commitments, there arises an interesting case for metaphysical idealism, roughly the thesis that only minds and mind-dependent states actually exist. However, I contend, that same theistic reasoning also leads to an idealist form of substance monism, the view that God is the only actual substance and that almost everything else is merely an intentional object in God's mind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically examines a prominent and perennial strategy—found in thinkers as diverse as Kant and Shamik Dasgupta—of simultaneously embracing the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and also limiting it so as to avoid certain apparently negative consequences of an unrestricted PSR. I will argue that this strategy of taming the PSR faces significant challenges and may even be incoherent. And for my (nefarious) purposes, I will enlist a generally derided argument by Leibniz for the PSR which will help us to see the connections between the PSR and a radical form of monism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bajo Palabra: Journal of Philosophy is the property of Bajo Palabra: Journal of Philosophy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Logos: Anales del Seminario de Metafísica (1575-6866) is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article challenges the scholarly consensus on Willem Jacob 's Gravesande's philosophy, namely the view that it was predominantly influenced by Newton, Locke, and Descartes. More generally, it opposes the tendency to read the work of eighteenth-century natural philosophers as being part of well-defined strands of Newtonianism. I argue that we will understand the intellectual history of the early eighteenth century better if we let go of essentialist taxonomic views and instead pay attention to the historical trajectories of various actors and ideas. In the case of 's Gravesande (1688–1742), it has often been assumed that he used a particular form of Newtonianism to combat rationalist metaphysics, particularly Spinozism. Here I show that this view is not tenable when we take account of 's Gravesande's metaphysical writings. On topics such as liberty, necessity, and theodicy, these writings deviate from what Newtonianism is usually taken to stand for. Instead, 's Gravesande's views on such matters correspond more closely to certain interpretations of Leibniz's Théodicée. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper deals with Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis’s (1698-1759) writings on the principle of least action (PLA). I discuss Maupertuis’s philosophical interpretation of the PLA by analysing three of his papers (1740, 1744, 1746), in order to assess the overall consistency of his argument. As I shall argue, Maupertuis presents the PLA as a universal principle of nature, this being at odds with the empiricist inspiration of his epistemology. Maupertuis’s attempt to introduce conceptual elements borrowed from the Leibnizian tradition into a Newtonian-inspired framework creates in fact a tension that is difficult to overcome.

This study challenges some interpretative strategies comparing Leibniz's, or even Newton's metaphysics of space to a Cartesian one. Not only did both Newton and Leibniz explicitly oppose Cartesian metaphysics as such, but neither of them had even the slightest intention of separating space from God, although they did not agree on the exact nature of such a space-God relationship. Moreover, it was just a conceptual disagreement, since the identification of space with an attribute of God is to be found not only by Leibniz but also by Newton, as well as by his defender Samuel Clarke. Neither diverge the reasons why Leibniz no more than Clarke eventually argued for the category of modification rather than an attribute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Aufklärung: Revista de Filosofia is the property of Aufklarung: Revista de Filosofia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Laut Leibniz kann sich ein Bauernsohn nicht konsistent wünschen, der Sohn einer Königin zu sein, da die Erfüllung seines Wunsches mit der Aufhebung seiner Existenz koinzidieren würde. Im vorliegenden Aufsatz erörtere ich dieses Argument in Hinblick auf die neuere angloamerikanische Debatte um das Theodizeeproblem. Dafür kläre ich zunächst die metaphysischen Voraussetzungen des Arguments und diskutiere verschiedene Einwände, die vor allem unter Berufung auf das Problem der sogenannten transworld identity gegen Leibniz vorgebracht werden können. In einem letzten Schritt unterscheide ich im Rückgriff auf Überlegungen Robert Adams' zwischen metaphysischer und personaler Identität, um zu zeigen, dass Leibniz' Argument, obwohl die damit verbundene These kontrafaktischer Identität problematisch ist, dennoch einen wichtigen Beitrag zum theologischen Umgang mit dem Theodizeeproblem liefert. Summary: Leibniz famously once argued that a lowborn can't complain that he was not born of a queen, for this would mean that he wishes for someone else to exist in his place. In the present paper I discuss how this argument is closely connected to recent debates on the problem of evil. After introducing Leibniz' argument and the underlying premise, I will present several objections that can be made to refute this argument, primarily refering to the so-called problem of transworld identity. Finally, in adapting an argument put forward by Robert Adams, I try to establish the idea that there is an important difference between metaphysical und personal identity, which allows to consider Leibniz' claim as a valid contribution to theological debates on the problem of evil, while refuting it insofar it involves commitment to an ontological account of counterfactual identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peter van Inwagen (1983 : 202–4) presented a powerful argument against the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which I henceforth abbreviate as 'PSR'. For decades, the consensus was that this argument successfully refuted PSR. However, now a growing consensus holds that van Inwagen's argument is fatally flawed, at least when 'sufficient reason' is understood in terms of ground, for on this understanding, an ineliminable premiss of van Inwagen's argument is demonstrably false and cannot be repaired. I will argue that this growing consensus is mistaken and that a powerful argument relevantly similar to van Inwagen's should still concern us, even when we understand 'sufficient reason' in terms of ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to discuss conditions of rationality for scientific research (SR) where "conditions" are understood as "necessary conditions". This will be done in the following way: First, I shall deal with the aim of SR since conditions of rationality (for SR) are to be understood as necessary means for reaching the aim (goal) of SR. Subsequently, the following necessary conditions will be discussed: Rational Communication, Methodological Rules, Ideals of Rationality and its Realistic Aspects, Methodological and Ontological Conditions (Universality, Rules for Experiments, Causality), and Metaphysical Presuppositions and Extrapolations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the distinction between spiritualism and science was understood affirmatively as a demarcation of true science against pseudo-science, nowadays, after several Science Wars, it is obvious for us that this distinction does not correspond to the actual practices of science but reflects a work of ‘purification’ typical for modernity in the Latourian sense. In the physico-philosophical surroundings of this boundary epistemological foundations are shaped and modern science is constituted as the primary way to knowledge. Referring to studies on the history of the occult in the early modern period, the article shows that in order to understand the stakes of spiritualism and its technical or personal media we should trace back this boundary to a rarely recognized conceptual transformation of the ‘occult’. It shifts between insensible and inexplicable. Following this leading difference, the article traces its function in the emergence of early occultism, the debate between Leibniz and Newton, and the rise of modern spiritualism and its instrumental repertoire.

O presente artigo pretende mostrar uma interpretação do“maravilhoso” à luz da poética dos mundos possíveis. Compreende omaravilhoso, não como um gênero literário, mas como uma noçãoprimitiva de ordem de mundo possível. O mundo ficcionalmaravilhoso é um tipo de mundo possível e sua compreensãodepende da elucidação de sua macroestrutura modal de ordemcomo vamos mostrar.

The paper deals with Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis's (1698-1759) writings on the principle of least action (PLA). I discuss Maupertuis's philosophical interpretation of the PLA by analysing three of his papers (1740, 1744, 1746), in order to assess the overall consistency of his argument. As I shall argue, Maupertuis presents the PLA as a universal principle of nature, this being at odds with the empiricist inspiration of his epistemology. Maupertuis's attempt to introduce conceptual elements borrowed from the Leibnizian tradition into a Newtonian-inspired framework creates in fact a tension that is difficult to overcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay I reply to the comments by Daniel Fairbrother, Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, Chiel van den Akker, Martin Jay, Hans Kellner and Jacques Bos on things I wrote on philosophy of history in the last few decades. The reply's main claim is that not my frequent appeals to Leibniz are surprising, but the total neglect of Leibniz by all philosophers of history since 1945. If only, because in the very first treatise on so-called 'critical philosophy of history' – Chladenius's Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft of 1752 – Leibniz was central already. Think of his notion of the 'Sehepunckt' (point of view) that he had taken from Leibniz. Moreover, each practicing historian will recognize straightaway that the notion of the point of view goes to the heart of his work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his early text, The Limits of State Action, Wilhelm von Humboldt raises the Kantian question of the permissibility and legitimate extent of political and juridical coercion, as his contribution to a debate amongst Kantians launched by the publication in 1785 of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In arguing for a minimal state, concerned exclusively with internal and external security of its members but not at all with their felicity, Humboldt inflects Kantian political thought in the direction of a liberal laissez-faire state, in marked contrast to the strong interventionism that his fellow-Kantian Fichte derived from similar Kantian grounds. The article argues that the underlying conception of the individual retained by Humboldt has markedly Leibnizian traits, namely the notion of freedom as the spontaneous unfolding of a highly personal, monadic developmental trajectory toward perfection, which ought not to be impeded or homogenized by unnecessary state intervention. Humboldt thus represents not only a ‘rightist’ libertarian reading of Kant, but a particular appropriation of significant Leibnizian themes. His combination of these sources is compared with that of other contemporary theorists like Hufeland and Fichte. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present text, we explore the idea of dialogue at the heart and roots of the Leibnizian philosophy and present show its connection with the doctrine of the continuum. We shall argue that a dialogue, political, religious as well as doctrinal, constitutes the starting point of the Leibnizian conciliatory "humanist metaphysical" method of his demonstrationes catholicae. We shall see also that the idea of dialogue constitutes the metaphysical foundation as well as the practical goal of the most famous project by Leibniz, the caracteristica universalis, "Méthode de la Certitude et de l'Art d'Inventer pour finir les disputes, et pour faire en peu de temps des grands progrés". The connecting role of the dialogue within the Leibnizian thought is explained on three levels. First, on the level of metaphysics, we shall analyze from the metaphysical perspective the possibilities and limits of the dialogue in the horizon of human knowledge. Next, on the level of method, we shall discover the function of dialogue in the dynamics of the human invention. Finally, on the level of the drawing on Leibnizian writings, we shall document the virtus of the dialogue, as compared to the geometrical method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Metafísica y Persona. Revista Sobre Filosofía, Conocimiento y Vida is the property of Universidad Popular Autonoma del Estado de Puebla A.C. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Despite the importance of the variational principles of physics, there have been relatively few attempts to consider them for a realistic framework. In addition to the old teleological question, this paper continues the recent discussion regarding the modal involvement of the principle of least action and its relations with the Humean view of the laws of nature. The reality of possible paths in the principle of least action is examined from the perspectives of the contemporary metaphysics of modality and Leibniz's concept of essences or possibles striving for existence. I elaborate a modal interpretation of the principle of least action that replaces a classical representation of a system's motion along a single history in the actual modality by simultaneous motions along an infinite set of all possible histories in the possible modality. This model is based on an intuition that deep ontological connections exist between the possible paths in the principle of least action and possible quantum histories in the Feynman path integral. I interpret the action as a physical measure of the essence of every possible history. Therefore only one actual history has the highest degree of the essence and minimal action. To address the issue of necessity, I assume that the principle of least action has a general physical necessity and lies between the laws of motion with a limited physical necessity and certain laws with a metaphysical necessity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leibniz once argued that scholastic substantial forms do not exist, but he later emphasized that bodies have substantial forms. This implies that he assumed that bodies have intrinsic powers to act by themselves. In order to understand the change of his metaphysics, we need to identify the resources of his motivation to introduce a new view. On the basis of Leibniz's early works in the 1670s and 80s, this paper explores how his discovery of the law that the quantity of force, measured by mv2, is conserved, affected his development of metaphysics, and argues that the discovery actually motivated him to assume that there are enduring substantial forms in bodies, introducing an argument to establish the existence of forms on the basis of an early work. In the final section of the paper, I examine Daniel Garber's interpretation according to which the discovery of the conservation law is largely independent of Leibniz's rehabilitation of substantial forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper intends to shed light on Kant’s conception of judgement as presented in his Nova Dilucidatio. As he will never revise his particular theory of judgment throughout his life, which will become of utmost importance regarding his three Critiques, we maintain that this constant of Kant’s thought predetermines to a large degree his development towards his Transcendental Philosophy. The identification of this core constant of his philosophy allows us to expose the limitations and problems inherent in this specific conception of judgment and thereby to expose the weak point underlying Kant’s thought, showing that a critique of the Critique has to be essentially a critique of Kant’s conception of judgement.

Necessity is a key philosophical notion, which is used in different disciplines from logic to ontology. In the German philosophy of the Enlightenment, this concept was centralto the work of many thinkers. For them, necessity is related not only to logic but rather to the disciplines of general and special metaphysics. It is explained by that the principle of sufficient reason introduced by Leibniz is closely linked to the notion underconsideration. The recognition of this principle as one of the two basic principles of philosophy inevitably raises the question about the necessity of all things, since all that exists has a sufficient reason behind its existence. In this case, any statement, any action, any object would be predetermined by its reason. Such state of affairs excludes any possibility of any accidents or free actions, which undermines the foundation of ethics. Many philosophers tried to avoid such fatalism through expanding and refining the concept of necessity and identifying its different types, for example, conditional and unconditional,absolute and hypothetical, moral, natural and others. The article considers the concept of necessity in the major philosophical works of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Christian Wolff,Immanuel Kant, August Christian Crusius and other authors, as well as their attempts at harmonizing the principle of sufficient reason with freedom. It is demonstrated that, in the 18th century, necessity was understood very broadly, it held a special place in metaphysics in general and, in particular, in such metaphysical disciplines as cosmology, psychology, theology, and also ethics.

In What Is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari attribute to Leibniz and Raymond Ruyer a vitalism of 'a force that is but does not act'. This is a judicious characterisation of Leibniz's vitalism, but not Ruyer's. In The Fold, Deleuze presents Ruyer as a disciple of Leibniz, but if Leibniz's monads have no doors or windows, Ruyer's are nothing but doors and windows, nothing but liaisons actively forming themselves. For Ruyer, there is only one force, a consciousness-force, matter-form in sustained, non-localisable self-formation. In Deleuze's reading of Leibniz's concept of the vinculum substantiale, Deleuze comes close to presenting a notion of force like that of Ruyer's, in that the vinculum inextricably interfolds monads and bodies, but ultimately the separation of the forces of monads from those of bodies prevails in a fashion incompatible with Ruyer's conception of force. Deleuze and Guattari make use of Ruyer's understanding of consciousness and the brain as the auto-overflight of an absolute surface in their concluding remarks on philosophy and the arts in What Is Philosophy?, but they depart from Ruyer in their characterisation of the relation of force to those two domains, ultimately because they reject Ruyer's advocacy of a universal, goal-directed finalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]