history of philosophy-第54章

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！


is　like　that　of　another　of　his　countrymen　who　was　surprised　and　rejoiced　to　learn　that　he　had
talked　prose　all　his　life；　not　having　had　any　idea　that　he　was　so　accomplished。　This　Newton；　like　all
the　Physicists；　indeed；　never　learned；　he　did　not　know　that　he　thought　in；　and　had　to　deal　with
Notions；　while　he　imagined　he　was　dealing　with　physical　facts：　and　he　presented　the　extremest
contrast　to　Boehme；　who　handled　sensuous　things　as　Notions；　and；　by　sheer　force　of　mind；
obtained　entire　possession　of　their　actuality　and　subjugated　them。　Instead　of　this　Newton　treated
Notions　like　sensuous　things；　and　dealt　with　them　just　as　men　deal　with　wood　and　stone。　And　this
is　even　now　the　case。　In　the　beginnings　of　physical　science　we　read　of　the　power　of　inertia；　for
instance；　of　the　force　of　acceleration；　of　molecules；　of　centripetal　and　centrifugal　force；　as　of　facts
which　definitely　exist；　what　are　really　the　final　results　of　reflection　are　represented　as　their　first
grounds。　If　we　ask　for　the　cause　of　there　being　no　advance　made　in　such　sciences；　we　find　that　it　is
because　men　do　not　understand　that　they　should　apply　themselves　to　Notions；　but　make　up　their
minds　to　adopt　these　determinations　without　sense　or　understanding。　Hence　in　Newton's　Optics；
for　instance；　there　are　conclusions　derived　from　his　experience　which　are　so　untrue　and　devoid　of
understanding；　that　while　they　are　set　forth　as　the　finest　example　of　how　men　can　learn　to　know
nature　by　means　of　experiments　and　conclusions　derived　from　experiments；　they　may　also　serve　as
an　example　of　how　we　should　neither　experiment　nor　draw　conclusions；　of　how　nothing　at　all　can
be　learned。　A　miserable　kind　of　experience　like　this　itself　contradicts　itself　through　nature；　for
nature　is　more　excellent　than　it　appears　in　this　wretched　experience：　both　nature　itself　and
experience；　when　carried　a　little　further；　contradict　it。　Hence；　of　all　the　splendid　discoveries　of
Newton　in　optics；　none　now　remain　excepting　one　—　the　division　of　light　into　seven　colours。　This　is
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　seriou