The Ethics of Monadic Identity in Leibniz's Thought

IF 0.8 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Marius Cucu, O. Lenţa
{"title":"The Ethics of Monadic Identity in Leibniz's Thought","authors":"Marius Cucu, O. Lenţa","doi":"10.18662/brain/14.1/434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The system of pre-established harmony proposed by Leibnizian ontology gives perspective to a Universe thought of as a perfect machine, or as a \"perfect kingdom, governed by an absolute Prince\". In this „best of all possible worlds”, the occurrence of evil requires an extremely thorough justification. With regard to the prospective motivation and argument in favor of existence of evil in the world, the ethical positioning of the human soul, conceived of as a superior monad, capable of true understanding and a reflection of divine grace, can also be outlined. What place, therefore, does evil occupy in the Leibnizian universal equation and how is it possible to embody it from the perspective of free will? In a system of such predetermined order, what possibility is there for the existence of freedom? In this universal order, what place does absolute necessity, hypothetical necessity and moral necessity occupy? And what is their connection with the essential cosmic logical, geometrical and metaphysical principles? Do reason, will, and power, as absolute features of the Godhead, contribute to guaranteeing the ethical responsibility of higher monads? How does Leibniz bring together the predetermination and typology of fatality expressed through the paradigms: fatum mahometanum, fatum stoicum and fatum christianum? \"Divinity as the first agent and man as the patient and second agent\" - is a Leibnizian interpretation of the relation of predetermination. Evil and free will are recognized only in the framework of hypothetical necessity.  \nSo, therefore, in the present work we will analyze, among other things, the Leibnizian interpretation of the ratio of predetermination, recalling the difference between being inclined and being forced in making a decision.","PeriodicalId":44081,"journal":{"name":"BRAIN-Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRAIN-Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/14.1/434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The system of pre-established harmony proposed by Leibnizian ontology gives perspective to a Universe thought of as a perfect machine, or as a "perfect kingdom, governed by an absolute Prince". In this „best of all possible worlds”, the occurrence of evil requires an extremely thorough justification. With regard to the prospective motivation and argument in favor of existence of evil in the world, the ethical positioning of the human soul, conceived of as a superior monad, capable of true understanding and a reflection of divine grace, can also be outlined. What place, therefore, does evil occupy in the Leibnizian universal equation and how is it possible to embody it from the perspective of free will? In a system of such predetermined order, what possibility is there for the existence of freedom? In this universal order, what place does absolute necessity, hypothetical necessity and moral necessity occupy? And what is their connection with the essential cosmic logical, geometrical and metaphysical principles? Do reason, will, and power, as absolute features of the Godhead, contribute to guaranteeing the ethical responsibility of higher monads? How does Leibniz bring together the predetermination and typology of fatality expressed through the paradigms: fatum mahometanum, fatum stoicum and fatum christianum? "Divinity as the first agent and man as the patient and second agent" - is a Leibnizian interpretation of the relation of predetermination. Evil and free will are recognized only in the framework of hypothetical necessity.  So, therefore, in the present work we will analyze, among other things, the Leibnizian interpretation of the ratio of predetermination, recalling the difference between being inclined and being forced in making a decision.
莱布尼茨思想中的一元同一性伦理
莱布尼茨本体论提出的预先建立的和谐体系,为宇宙提供了一个视角,这个宇宙被认为是一个完美的机器,或者是一个“完美的王国,由一个绝对的君主统治”。在这个“最好的世界”中,邪恶的发生需要一个极其彻底的理由。关于支持世界上存在邪恶的未来动机和论点,人类灵魂的伦理定位,被认为是一个优越的单子,能够真正理解和反映神圣的恩典,也可以概述。因此,邪恶在莱布尼兹的宇宙方程中占据什么位置?从自由意志的角度来看,它如何可能体现出来?在这样一个预定秩序的体系中,自由的存在有什么可能性呢?在这个普遍秩序中,绝对必然性、假言必然性和道德必然性占据什么地位呢?它们与基本的宇宙逻辑、几何和形而上学原理有什么联系?理性、意志和力量,作为神性的绝对特征,是否有助于保证更高的单子的伦理责任?莱布尼茨是如何把宿命的预先决定和宿命的类型学结合在一起的,通过范式来表达宿命:死的宿命,死的宿命,死的宿命和死的宿命?“神是第一施动者,人是病人和第二施动者”——这是莱布尼茨对预定关系的解释。恶和自由意志只有在假设的必然性的框架内才被承认。因此,在目前的工作中,我们将分析,除其他事项外,莱布尼兹对预先决定比率的解释,回顾在做出决定时倾向和被迫之间的区别。
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
自引率
47.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
×
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