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！
partly because the conception of whole and part come into play； and partly from an obdurate
closing of the eyes to the opposite side。 From this empirical method in Philosophy； we shall now
pass on to Leibnitz。
1。 Brucker。 Histor。 critic。 philos。 T。 IV。 P。 2； pp。 731…736； 743…745。
2。 Hug。 Grot。 De jure belli ac pacis； B。 III。 chap。 xi。 § 13…16 （Ed。 Gronov。 Lipsi？； 1758； 8vo）；
pp。 900…905； chap。 iv。 § 10； pp。 792； 793。
3。 Buhle： Geschichte der neuern Philosophie； Vol。 III。 Sec。 1； pp。 223； 224； 227。
4。 Hobbes。 Epistola dedicatoria ante Elementor。 philos。 Sectionem primam （Thom？ Hobbesii
Opera philosophica； qu？ latine scripsit omnia； Amstelod； 1668； 4to）； pp。 1； 2。
5。 Cf。 Brucker。 Histor。 crit。 philos。 T。 IV。 P。 II。 p。 154。
6。 Hobbes； De cive； chap。 i。 § 2； 3 （Oper。 phil。 etc。 Amstel。 1668）； pp。 3； 4。
7。 Hobbes； De cive； chap。 i。 § 4…6； 12…14； pp。 4…8； Leviathan； chap。 xiii。 （Oper。）； pp。 63…66。
8。 Ibidem； chap。 v。 § 6…12； pp。 37…38； chap。 vi。 § 12…14； pp。 44…46。
9。 Buhle： Geschichte der neuern Philosophie； Vol。 IV。 Sec。 2； pp。 519…523； Rixner： Handbuch
der Geschichte der Philosophie； Vol。 III。 p。 29。
10。 Rixner： Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie； Vol。 III。 p。 31； cf。 Puttendorf： De jure
natur？ et gent。 II。 2； § 5…7 （Francof。 ad Moenum； 1706； 4）； pp。 157…161； VII。 1； § 3…7； pp。
900…909。
11。 Buhle： Geschichte der neuern Philosophie； Vol。 IV。 Sec。 1； pp。 107； 108。
12。 Buhle： Geschichte der neuern Philosophie； Vol。 IV。 p。 115； cf。 Newtoni Optices； P。 III。
（Londini； 1706； 4） p。 314。
Section Two： Period of the Thinking Understanding
Chapter I。 — The Metaphysics of the Understanding
C 1。 LEIBNITZ。
As in other respects Leibnitz represents the extreme antithesis to Newton； so in respect of
philosophy he presents a striking contrast to Locke and his empiricism； and also to Spinoza。 He
upholds thought as against the perception of the English school； and in lieu of sensuous Being he
maintains Being for thought to be the essence of truth； just as Boehme at an earlier time upheld
implicit Being。 While Spinoza asserted the universality； the oneness of substance merely； and while
with Locke we saw infinite determinations made the basis； Leibnitz； by means of his fundamental
principle of individuality； brings out the essentiality of the opposite aspect of Spinoza's philosophy；
existence for self； the monad； but the monad regarded as the absolute Notion； though perhaps not
yet as the 〃I。〃 The opposed principles； which were forced asunder； find their completion in each
other； since Leibnitz's principle of individuation completed Spinoza's system as far as outward
aspect goes。
Gottfried Wilhelm； Baron von Leibnitz； was born in 1646 at Leipzig； where his father was
professor of Philosophy。 The subject that he studied in view of a profession was jurisprudence；
but first； in accordance with the fashion of the day； he made a study of Philosophy； and to it he
devoted particular attention。 To begin with； he picked up in Leipzig a large and miscellaneous
stock of knowledge； then he studied Philosophy and mathematics at Jena under the mathematician
and theosophist Weigel； and took his degree of Master of Philosophy in Leipzig。 There also； on
the occasion of his graduation as Doctor of Philosophy； he defended certain philosophical theses；
some of which discourses are still contained in his works （ed。 Dutens； T。 II。 P。 I。 p。 400）。 His first
dissertation； and that for which he obtained the degree of doctor of philosophy； was： De principio
individui； — a principle which remained the abstract principle of his whole philosophy； as
opposed to that of Spinoza。 After he had acquired a thorough knowledge of the subject； he
wished to graduate also as Doctor of Laws。 But though he died an imperial councillor； it was his ill
fortune to receive from the Faculty at Leipzig a refusal to confer the doctorate upon him； his youth
being the alleged reason。 Such a thing could scarcely happen nowadays。 It may be that it was
done because of his over…great philosophical attainments； seeing that lawyers are wont to hold the
same in horror。 He now quitted Leipzig； and betook himself to Altdorf； where he graduated with
distinction。 Shortly afterwards he became acquainted in Nürnberg with a company of alchemists；
with whose ongoings he became associated。 Here he made extracts from alchemistic writings； and
studied the mysteries of this occult science。 His activity in the pursuit of learning extended also to
historical； diplomatic； mathematical and philosophical subjects。 He subsequently entered the
service of the Elector of Mayence； becoming a member of council； and； in 1672 he was appointed
tutor to a son of Von Boineburg； Chancellor of State to the Elector。 With this young man he
travelled to Paris； where he lived for four years。 He at this time made the acquaintance of the great
mathematician Huygens； and was by him for the first time properly introduced into the domain of
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 sens