between the monads, there is a one-one correspondence between the state
of each monad and the pattern formed by all the monads (mirroring the
world). It will be seen that the latter logically implies the former:
if each monad always mirrors the world, each is always in harmony with
every other. Let us take a mathematical analogy: suppose the states of
the monad at a given moment are represented by the numbers:
then there is a one-one correspondence between these states and those
of the monad, which are:
and there is also a one-one correspondence between the states of each
monad and the series:
which may be taken to be the series of monads. Substitute three
continuous co-ordinates for one discrete co-ordinate, and we get a
mathematical representation of Leibniz's world.
The obvious difficulty in this system was that no conceivable reason
could be given for supposing that a monad mirrored the world. Leibniz
himself was one monad, and, on his own theory, would have had exactly
the same life if he had been the only monad, since the monads were
"windowless." He could not therefore give any grounds against solipsism
except some rather far-fetched arguments derived[Pg 159] from theology and
God's "metaphysical perfection." This defect was due to his theory
of causality, which was an outcome of the Cartesian denial that one
substance could act upon another, which in turn was inspired by the
success of physics in establishing purely physical causal laws which
seemed to account for all the motions of matter. In spite of this
glaring defect, I have lingered on Leibniz's system, because I believe
that it contains hints for a metaphysic compatible with modern physics
and with psychology, although of course it will require very serious
modifications.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account