-
Articles/Ads
Article LEIBNIZ AND SPINOZA. ← Page 18 of 25 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Leibniz And Spinoza.
from the point of an universal Thought , or Contemplation , indifferent to all , is the denial of the activity of spirits . God himself haA'ing no will , no actiAity , no love , no Avisdom , Ave are not to look for these attributes anywhere else , for all spirit is homogeneous ; nor are Ave to look for them in matter ; first , because matter being equally homogeneous with spiritcan be
, proA'ed to be equally inactive ; and secondly , because , in consequence of there being but one substance , matter and spirit may be proved to be the same thing . Thus Pantheism and Materialism together make up something extremely . like Atheism , and it will no longer be a thing to be wondered at that Spinoza should be regarded as an Atheist .
This then is the philosophy of Avhich some have supposed Leibniz to be enamoured ; and it . would seem that this accusation , for such it is , rests on no better grounds than that Leibniz held , as Ave have seen , a kind of fatalism , and that he had had at least one interview Avith Spinoza . Now one of Leibniz ' s most favourite theories was that of a pras-established harmony ; in fact , on that and his monadology he rested his fame as a philosopher ; and had he embraced , at any period , the A'iews of Spinoza , he could only have done so by contradicting all that
he had previously Avritten and taught . There is no evidence in any of his writings that any such change took place ; and now Ave have , evidently mitten when he was quite an old man , a formal and extremely able refutation of the doctrines to which he was imagined to have assented . He had already blamed Spinoza for not haAing , Avith sufficient clearness , defined
Avhat he meant by substance , and haAing exhibited the most pitiful Aveakness in his attempts to prove its unity . He shoAvs that the idea of God does not necessarily include that of extent , and that , therefore , Ave are not to seek for the origin of all things either in matter or in extent . He asserts against Spinoza both the will and the wisdom of the Creator , and refers to
creation for proofs of his poAver , Avisdom , and goodness . In the next place , he maintains the inherent difference between matter and spirit , and points out the superiority of the latter . He brings his theory of monadology into play to prove the reality and individuality of conscious beings ; and Avhile admitting one only absolutely Infinitehe shoAvs a beautiful order and
grada-, tion among created intelligences . In one of his letters to M . Eoucher he speaks thus . ( He is treating of the saying of Dom Robert Desgabets , that " man should be the object of his own inA'estigation ; " or , as our great philosophical poet expresses himself : — " Tlie proper study of mankind is man . " )
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Leibniz And Spinoza.
from the point of an universal Thought , or Contemplation , indifferent to all , is the denial of the activity of spirits . God himself haA'ing no will , no actiAity , no love , no Avisdom , Ave are not to look for these attributes anywhere else , for all spirit is homogeneous ; nor are Ave to look for them in matter ; first , because matter being equally homogeneous with spiritcan be
, proA'ed to be equally inactive ; and secondly , because , in consequence of there being but one substance , matter and spirit may be proved to be the same thing . Thus Pantheism and Materialism together make up something extremely . like Atheism , and it will no longer be a thing to be wondered at that Spinoza should be regarded as an Atheist .
This then is the philosophy of Avhich some have supposed Leibniz to be enamoured ; and it . would seem that this accusation , for such it is , rests on no better grounds than that Leibniz held , as Ave have seen , a kind of fatalism , and that he had had at least one interview Avith Spinoza . Now one of Leibniz ' s most favourite theories was that of a pras-established harmony ; in fact , on that and his monadology he rested his fame as a philosopher ; and had he embraced , at any period , the A'iews of Spinoza , he could only have done so by contradicting all that
he had previously Avritten and taught . There is no evidence in any of his writings that any such change took place ; and now Ave have , evidently mitten when he was quite an old man , a formal and extremely able refutation of the doctrines to which he was imagined to have assented . He had already blamed Spinoza for not haAing , Avith sufficient clearness , defined
Avhat he meant by substance , and haAing exhibited the most pitiful Aveakness in his attempts to prove its unity . He shoAvs that the idea of God does not necessarily include that of extent , and that , therefore , Ave are not to seek for the origin of all things either in matter or in extent . He asserts against Spinoza both the will and the wisdom of the Creator , and refers to
creation for proofs of his poAver , Avisdom , and goodness . In the next place , he maintains the inherent difference between matter and spirit , and points out the superiority of the latter . He brings his theory of monadology into play to prove the reality and individuality of conscious beings ; and Avhile admitting one only absolutely Infinitehe shoAvs a beautiful order and
grada-, tion among created intelligences . In one of his letters to M . Eoucher he speaks thus . ( He is treating of the saying of Dom Robert Desgabets , that " man should be the object of his own inA'estigation ; " or , as our great philosophical poet expresses himself : — " Tlie proper study of mankind is man . " )