history of philosophy-第60部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


mathematics。　When　the　education　of　his　pupil　was　completed；　and　the　Baron　Von　Boineburg　died；
Leibnitz　went　on　his　own　account　to　London；　where　he　became　acquainted　with　Newton　and
other　scholars；　at　whose　head　was　Oldenburg；　who　was　also　on　friendly　terms　with　Spinoza。　After
the　death　of　the　Elector　of　Mayence；　the　salary　of　Leibnitz　ceased　to　be　paid；　he　therefore　left
England　and　returned　to　France。　The　Duke　of　Brunswick…Lüneburg　then　took　him　into　his　service；
and　gave　him　the　appointment　of　councillor　and　librarian　at　Hanover；　with　permission　to　spend　as
much　time　as　he　liked　in　foreign　countries。　He　therefore　remained　for　some　time　longer　in　France；
England；　and　Holland。　In　the　year　1677　he　settled　down　in　Hanover；　where　he　became　busily
engaged　in　affairs　of　state；　and　was　specially　occupied　with　historical　matters。　In　the　Harz
Mountains　he　had　works　constructed　for　carrying　off　the　floods　which　did　damage　to　the　mines
there。　Notwithstanding　these　manifold　occupations　he　invented　the　differential　calculus　in　1677；　on
occasion　of　which　there　arose　a　dispute　between　him　and　Newton；　which　was　carried　on　by　the
latter　and　the　Royal　Society　of　London　in　a　most　ungenerous　manner。　For　it　was　asserted　by　the
English；　who　gave　themselves　the　credit　of　everything；　and　were　very　unfair　to　others；　that　the
discovery　was　really　made　by　Newton。　But　Newton's　Principia　only　appeared　later；　and　in　the
first　edition　indeed　Leibnitz　was　mentioned　with　commendation　in　a　note　which　was　afterwards
omitted。　From　his　headquarters　in　Hanover；　Leibnitz；　commissioned　by　his　prince；　made　several
journeys　through　Germany；　and　also　went　to　Italy　in　order　to　collect　historical　evidence　relative　to
the　House　of　Este；　and　for　the　purpose　of　proving　more　clearly　the　relationship　between　this
princely　family　and　that　of　Brunswick…Lüneburg。　At　other　times　he　was　likewise　much　occupied
with　historical　questions。　Owing　to　his　acquaintance　with　the　consort　of　Frederick　I。　of　Prussia；
Sophia　Charlotte；　a　Hanoverian　princess；　he　was　enabled　to　bring　about　the　foundation　of　an
Academy　of　Science　in　Berlin；　in　which　city　he　lived　for　a　considerable　time。　In　Vienna　he　also
became　acquainted　with　Prince　Eugène；　which　occasioned　his　being　appointed　finally　an　Imperial
Councillor。　He　published　several　very　important　historical　works　as　the　result　of　this　journey。　His
death　took　place　at　Hanover　in　1716；　when　he　was　seventy　years　of　age。（1）

It　was　not　only　on　Philosophy；　but　also　on　the　most　varied　branches　of　science　that　Leibnitz
expended　toil　and　trouble　and　energy；　it　was　to　mathematics；　however；　that　he　specially　devoted
his　attention；　and　he　is　the　inventor　of　the　methods　of　the　integral　and　differential　calculus。　His　great
services　in　regard　to　mathematics　and　physics　we　here　leave　out　of　consideration；　and　pay
attention　to　his　philosophy　alone。　None　of　his　books　can　be　exactly　looked　on　as　giving　a
complete　systematic　account　of　his　philosophy。　To　the　more　important　among　them　belongs　his
work　on　the　human　understanding　（Nouveaux　essais　sur　l'entendement　humain）　in　reply　to
Locke；　but　this　is　a　mere　refutation。　His　philosophy　is　therefore　scattered　through　various　little
treatises　which　were　written　in　very　various　connections；　in　letters；　and　replies　to　objections　which
caused　him　to　bring　out　one　aspect　of　the　question　more　strongly　than　another；　we　consequently
find　no　elaborated　systematic　whole；　superintended　or　perfected　by　him。　The　work　which　has
some　appearance　of　being　such；　his　Théodicée；　better　known　to　the　public　than　any　thing　else　he
wrote；　is　a　popular　treatise　which　he　drewup　for　Queen　Sophia　Charlotte　in　reply　to　Bayle；　and　in
which　he　took　pains　not　to　present　the　matter　in　very　speculative　form。　A　Würtemberg　theologian；
Pfaff　by　name；　and　others　who　were　correspondents　of　Leibnitz　and　were　themselves　only　too
well　versed　in　philosophy；　brought　it　as　a　charge　against　Leibnitz　—　a　charge　which　he　never
denied　—　that　his　philosophy　was　written　in　popular　form。（2）　They　laughed　very　much　afterwards
at　Wolff；　who　had　taken　them　to　be　quite　in　earnest；　his　opinion　was　that　if　Leibnitz　were　not
perfectly　serious　in　this　sense　with　his　Théodicée；　yet　he　had　unconsciously　written　his　best
therein。　Leibnitz's　Théodicée　is　not　what　we　can　altogether　appreciate；　it　is　a　justification　of　God
in　regard　to　the　evil　in　the　world。　His　really　philosophic　thoughts　are　most　connectedly　expressed
in　a　treatise　on　the　principles　of　Grace　（Principes　de　la　Nature　et　de　la　Grace）；（3）　and　especially
in　the　pamphlet　addressed　to　Prince　Eugéne　of　Savoy。（4）　。Buhle　（Geschichte　der　neuern
Philosophie；　vol。　iv。　section　1；　p。　131）　says：　“His　philosophy　is　not　so　much　the　product　of　free；
independent；　original　speculation；　as　the　result　of　well…tested　earlier”　and　later　“systems；　an
eclecticism　whose　defects　he　tried　to　remedy　in　his　own　way。　It　is　a　desultory　treatment　of
Philosophy　in　letters。”

Leibnitz　followed　the　same　general　plan　in　his　philosophy　as　the　physicists　adopt　when　they
advance　a　hypothesis　to　explain　existing　data。　He　has　it　that　general　conceptions　of　the　Idea　are　to
be　found；　from　which　the　particular　may　be　derived；　here；　on　account　of　existing　data；　the　general
conception；　for　example　the　determination　of　force　or　matter　furnished　by　reflection；　must　have　its
determinations　disposed　in　such　a　way　that　it　fits　in　with　the　data。　Thus　the　philosophy　of　Leibnitz
seems　to　be　not　so　much　a　philosophic　system　as　an　hypothesis　regarding　the　existence　of　the
world；　namely　how　it　is　to　be　determined　in　accordance　with　the　metaphysical　determinations　and
the　data　and　assumptions　of　the　ordinary　conception；　which　are　accepted　as　valid（5）　—　thoughts
which　are　moreover　propounded　without　the　sequence　pertaining　to　the　Notion　and　mainly　in
narrative　style；　and　which　taken　by　themselves　show　no　necessity　in　their　connection。　Leibnitz's
philosophy　therefore　appears　like　a　string　of　arbitrary　assertions；　which　follow　one　on　another　like
a　metaphysical　romance；　it　is　only　when　we　see　what　he　wished　thereby　to　avoid　that　we　learn　to
appreciate　its　value。　He　really　makes　use　of　external　reasons　mainly　in　order　to　establish　relations：
“Because　the　validity　of　such　relations　cannot　be　allowed；　nothing　remains　but　to　establish　the
matter　in　this　way。”　If　we　are　not　acquainted　with　these　reasons；　this　procedure　strikes　us　as
arbitrary。

a。　Leibnitz's　philosophy　is　an　idealism　of　the　intellectuality　of　the　universe；　and　although　from　one
point　of　view　he　stands　opposed　to　Locke；　as　from　another　point　of　view　he　is　in　opposition　to　the
Substance　of　Spinoza；　he　yet　binds　them　both　together　again。　For；　to　go　into　the　matter　more
particularly；　on　the　one　hand　he　expresses　in　the　many　monads　the　absolute　nature　of　things
distinguished　and　of　individuality；　on　the　other　hand；　in　contrast　to　this　and　apart　from　it；　he
expresses　the　ideality　of　Spinoza　and　the　non…absolute　nature　of　all　difference；　as　the　idealism　of
the　popular　conception。　Leibnitz's　philosophy　is　a　metaphysics；　and　in　sharp　contrast　to　the　simple
universal　Substance　of　Spinoza；　where　all　that　is　determined　is　merely　transitory；　it　makes
fundamental　the　absolute　multiplicity　of　individual　substances；　which　after　the　example　of　the
ancients　he　named　monads　—　an　expression　already　used　by　the　Pythagoreans。　These　monads　he
then　proceeds　to　determine　as　follows。

Firstly：　“Substance　is　a　thing　that　is　capable　of　activity；　it　is　compound　or　simple；　the　compound
cannot　exist　without　the　simple。　The　monads　are　simple　substances。”　The　proof　that　they
constitute　the　truth　in　all　things　is　very　simple；　it　is　a　superficial　reflection。　For　instance；　one　of
Leibnitz's　maxims　is：　“Because　there　are　compound　things；　the　principles　of　the　same　must　be
simple；　for　the　compound　consists　of　the　simple。”（6）　This　proof　is　poor　enough；　it　is　an　example　of
the　favourite　way　of　starting　from　something　definite；　say　the　compound；　and　then　drawing
conclusions　therefrom　as　to　the　simple。　It　is　quite　right　in　a　way；　but　really　it　is　tautology。　Of
course；　if　the　compound　exists；　so　does　the　simple；　for　the　compound　means　something　in　itself
manifold　whose　connection　or　unity　is　external。　From　the　very　trivial　category　of　the　compound　it
is　easy　to　deduce　the　simple。　It　is　a　conclusion　drawn　from　a　certain　premiss；　but　the　question　is
whether　the　premiss　is　true。　These　monads　are　not；　however；　something　abstract　and　simple　in
itself；　like　the　empty　Epicurean　atoms；　which；　as　they　were　in　themselves　lacking　in　determination；
drew　all　their　determination　from　their　aggregation　alone。　The　monads　are；　on　the　contrary；
substantial　forms；　a　good　expression；　borrowed　from　the　Scholastics　（supra；　p。　71）；　or　the
metaphysical　points　of　the　Alexandrian　School　（Vol。　II。　p。　439）；　they　are　the　entelechies　of
Aristotle　taken　as　pure　activity；　which　are　forms　in　themselves　（Vol。　II。　pp。　138；　182；　183）。
“These　monads　are　not　material　or　extended；　nor　do　they　originate　or　decay　in　the　natural　fashion；
for　they　can　begin　only　by　a　creative　act　of　God；　and　they　can　end　only　by　annihilation。”（7）
Thereby　they　are　distinguished　from　the　atoms；　which　are　regarded　simply　as　principles。　The
expression　creation　we　are　familiar　with　from　religion；　but　it　is　a　meaningless　word　derived　from
the　ordinary　conception；　in　order　to　be　a　thought　and　to　have　philosophic　significance；　it　must　be
much　more　closely　defined。

Secondly：　“On　account　of　their　simplicity　the　monads　are　not　susceptible　of　alteration　by　another
monad　in　their　inner　essence；　there　is　no　causal　connection　between　them。”　Each　of　them　is
something　indifferent　and　independent　as　regards　the　rest；　otherwise　it　would　not　be　an　entelechy。
Each　of　them　is　so　much　for　itself　that　all　its　determinations　and　modifications　go　on　in　itself　alone；
and　no　determination　from　without　takes　place。　Leibnitz　says：　“There　are　three　ways　in　which
substances　are　connected：　（1）　Causality；　influence；　（2）　The　relation　of　assistance；　（3）　The　relation
of　harmony。　The　relation　of　influence　is　a　relation　pertaining　to　a　commonplace　or　popular
philosophy。　But　as　it　is　impossible　to　understand　how　material　particles