The Young Leibniz and the Ontological Argument

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Osvaldo Ottaviani
{"title":"The Young Leibniz and the Ontological Argument","authors":"Osvaldo Ottaviani","doi":"10.5840/jems20211013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Leibniz considered the Cartesian version of the ontological argument not as an inconsistent proof but only as an incomplete one: it requires a preliminary proof of possibility to show that the concept of ‘the most perfect being’ involves no contradiction. Leibniz raised this objection to Descartes’s proof already in 1676, then repeated it throughout his entire life. Before 1676, however, he suggested a more substantial objection to the Cartesian argument. I take into account a text written around 1671-72, in which Leibniz considers the Cartesian proof as a paralogism and a petition of principle. I argue that this criticism is modelled on Gassendi’s objections to the Cartesian proof, and that Leibniz’s early rejection of the ontological argument has to be understood in the general context of his early philosophy, which was inspired by nominalist authors, such as Hobbes and Gassendi. Then, I take into account the reconsideration of the ontological argument in a series of texts of 1678, showing how Leibniz implicitly replies to the kind of criticism to the argument he himself shared in his earlier works.","PeriodicalId":53837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/jems20211013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Leibniz considered the Cartesian version of the ontological argument not as an inconsistent proof but only as an incomplete one: it requires a preliminary proof of possibility to show that the concept of ‘the most perfect being’ involves no contradiction. Leibniz raised this objection to Descartes’s proof already in 1676, then repeated it throughout his entire life. Before 1676, however, he suggested a more substantial objection to the Cartesian argument. I take into account a text written around 1671-72, in which Leibniz considers the Cartesian proof as a paralogism and a petition of principle. I argue that this criticism is modelled on Gassendi’s objections to the Cartesian proof, and that Leibniz’s early rejection of the ontological argument has to be understood in the general context of his early philosophy, which was inspired by nominalist authors, such as Hobbes and Gassendi. Then, I take into account the reconsideration of the ontological argument in a series of texts of 1678, showing how Leibniz implicitly replies to the kind of criticism to the argument he himself shared in his earlier works.
青年莱布尼茨与本体论论证
莱布尼茨认为笛卡尔的本体论论证不是一个不一致的证明,而只是一个不完整的证明:它需要一个可能性的初步证明,以表明“最完美的存在”的概念不包含矛盾。莱布尼茨早在1676年就对笛卡儿的证明提出了反对意见,并在他的一生中不断重复。然而,在1676年之前,他对笛卡尔的论点提出了一个更实质性的反对意见。我参考了一篇写于1671- 1672年的文章,莱布尼茨在其中认为笛卡尔的证明是一种谬误推理和对原则的请愿。我认为,这种批评是模仿了加森迪对笛卡尔证明的反对,莱布尼茨早期对本体论论证的拒绝必须在他早期哲学的总体背景下理解,他的早期哲学受到了霍布斯和加森迪等唯名论作家的启发。然后,我考虑到在1678年的一系列文本中对本体论论证的重新思考,展示了莱布尼茨是如何含蓄地回应对他自己在早期作品中分享的论证的批评的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania
Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信