TY - JOUR
T1 - Panentheistic, monistic, non-necessitarian
T2 - Leibniz’s view of the relation between God and nature in 1675–1676
AU - Robert, Gastón
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 BSHP.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Discussions of Leibniz’s view of the relation between God and nature in 1675–1676 has split commentators into two competing camps. According to some scholars, Leibniz was a pantheistic substance monist in these years. However, other scholars think that he was neither a substance monist nor a pantheist. This paper advocates a middle ground between these two interpretations. With scholars in the first camp, it is argued that Leibniz was a substance monist in 1675–1676. However, it is also argued that he was not a pantheistic substance monist, but rather a panentheistic one. This interpretation has at least a twofold virtue vis-à-vis the anti-monistic and pantheistic readings. For one thing, unlike the anti-monistic reading, the panentheistic interpretation is in keeping with the weight of textual evidence, which strongly indicates that in 1675–1676 Leibniz did embrace, and actually argue for, the idea that God is the only substance. For another, unlike the pantheist interpretation, it can accommodate the fact that, while endorsing monism in 1675–1676, Leibniz at the same time rejected necessitarianism.
AB - Discussions of Leibniz’s view of the relation between God and nature in 1675–1676 has split commentators into two competing camps. According to some scholars, Leibniz was a pantheistic substance monist in these years. However, other scholars think that he was neither a substance monist nor a pantheist. This paper advocates a middle ground between these two interpretations. With scholars in the first camp, it is argued that Leibniz was a substance monist in 1675–1676. However, it is also argued that he was not a pantheistic substance monist, but rather a panentheistic one. This interpretation has at least a twofold virtue vis-à-vis the anti-monistic and pantheistic readings. For one thing, unlike the anti-monistic reading, the panentheistic interpretation is in keeping with the weight of textual evidence, which strongly indicates that in 1675–1676 Leibniz did embrace, and actually argue for, the idea that God is the only substance. For another, unlike the pantheist interpretation, it can accommodate the fact that, while endorsing monism in 1675–1676, Leibniz at the same time rejected necessitarianism.
KW - Leibniz
KW - monism
KW - necessitarianism
KW - panentheism
KW - pantheism
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147272901&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09608788.2022.2163374
DO - 10.1080/09608788.2022.2163374
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85147272901
SN - 0960-8788
VL - 31
SP - 448
EP - 468
JO - British Journal for the History of Philosophy
JF - British Journal for the History of Philosophy
IS - 3
ER -