Abstract This paper explains that Sir Isaac Newton's vast scientific accomplishments and his philosophical views are essentially inseparable. Newton rests the entire foundation of his scientific discoveries on the existence of a moral order in the universe, which he believed was tempered and led by an omnipotent and omniscient force. The author points out that one of Newton's more curious philosophical efforts was to extract scientific information about the universe from the Bible. The paper discusses Newton's conception of the moral hierarchy.
From the Paper "Newton viewed God as the masterful creator of the universe. In the face of the grandeur of all creation, he argued, how is it even possible that man could begin to deny God's existence? God enabled Newton to justify his natural philosophy, thus blurring the line that has traditionally separated science from religion. In explaining his view of astronomy, Newton asserted that it was necessary that there be a force behind it all to make it work."
Tags:astronomycreatorleibnizmillenarians, moral order
Abstract This paper examines the history of science in terms of changes in astronomy from the time of Ptolemy to Galileo, based on the book "Science without Limits" by James Perlman. The writer notes how the ancients saw science as a form of philosophy, while by the time of Galileo, observation was being joined with experimentation to examine concepts and find the truth.
From the Paper "The history of astronomy shows the development of science as a discipline from the ancient world to the Renaissance, from the time of Ptolemy to the time of Galileo. Over that period, astronomy began to shift from a philosophy to a science. Science in the ancient world was not created out of whole cloth and was based on observations and the application of reason. Mathematics were also used to develop ideas about the universe. Mathematics is itself an application of reason, though aspects of mathematics have also been developed through observation and testing. By the time of Galileo, however, science was gaining a more experimental structure, and Galileo himself tested many ideas directly. His astronomy was also based on observations, but he was able to observe more directly and closely with the telescope. Perlman notes that "science in large part . . . is a matter of testing assumptions"."
Abstract In this article, the writer examines the basis of Leibniz's views on evil and its compatibility with God that have been brought forth in this study. By analyzing the Monadology and Theodicy of Leibniz, one can understand the arguments in relation to unity of the universe and why God plays a central role in defining the good in relation to what is evil. The writer points out that also by comparing and contrasting the views of Descartes and Spinoza, one can realize the different forms of causality in relation to creationist ideology and why Leibniz argues for the good of God to superimpose all natural laws or points.
From the Paper "In this philosophical study, the issue of God and the compatibility of evil in the ideology of Leibniz will be examined and analyzed. By realizing the logical omnipotence of God as a being of 'good', one can realize how evil and suffering are compatible in Leibniz's philosophy. By understanding Leibniz's Monadology and Theodicy, the basis for God's existence can be explained through comparing and contrasting Descartes and Spinoza. In essence, Leibniz seeks to make God compatible with suffering and evil in this philosophical analysis. The basis of Leibniz's philosophy in the Monadology is directly related to object that exist within the cosmos. In this manner, Leibniz found that if two comparable objects were the same, they were unified by their defining principles."
Abstract This paper first outlines Baruch Spinoza's argument in Part 1 of the "Ethics" for "substance monism" - the position that there exists only one substance. It then explains how Spinoza's position differs from that of Gottfried Leibniz in the "Discourse on Metaphysics". The paper concludes with the assertion that Leibniz's account for the nature and number of substances is superior since accepting Spinoza's conclusions leads to a number of logically troublesome consequences.
From the Paper "Leibniz's account for the nature and number of substances differs significantly from Spinoza's. For Spinoza, there is only one substance in the world: God. Leibniz essentially agrees that there is only one true substance. However, to Leibniz this substance is the monad, comparable to a soul or spirit, which "is nothing but a simple substance that enters into composites" (Monadology, p. 484). For Leibniz, God exists external to the world of monads, and might be best thought of as a type of "supersubstance" or "supermonad." It was God who set the world in motion; therefore, substances depend on God for their existence. Since Leibniz's God possesses the will to create or destroy substances "in accordance with the principle of the best" (M., p. 487), God is the only necessary being. All other monads, then, depend on Him for their existence, and as such, are non-eternal contingent beings. Spinoza's pantheism forces the conclusion that all substance is eternal; if it were not eternal, then it would have to be created, which would then violate his definition of substance as something "that the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it has to be formed" (E., p. 416)."
Abstract Gottfried Leibniz's philosophical system relied on the foundational principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. The paper shows that in his "Discourse on Metaphysics" (1686), Leibniz argued that the perfection of God was demonstrable through the principle of non-contradiction and that His perfection meant that God's creations must also be perfect. The paper compares this view with that of Baruch Spinoza in whose "Ethics" (1675), the pantheistic argument was that there was but one substance, and that substance was God, which left no room for contingency or free will. In Spinoza's view the impression of contingency was merely created by the inadequacy of the human mind to grasp the completeness of creation.
From the Paper "Spinoza held, therefore, that because God was all-powerful and perfect nothing in his creation could take place without his willing it to be so, which deprived his created things of agency and left them only with its illusion. Leibniz, however, wished to demonstrate how, despite the perfection of God and his complete control over all of his creation, he allowed contingency and free will a role in the universe. Leibniz immediately established, via the principle of noncontradiction, that God was perfection. Anything that is not capable of perfection "in the highest degree" is not perfect (581)."
Abstract Leibniz's explanations regarding the will of God are explores, as well as studying the thoughts of Hume, Augustine, and Aquinas. Due to this, this paper concludes that predestination and free will can, in fact, be very much mutually inclusive. As Leibniz profoundly showed, since man has free will, he is responsible for what he does. God's foreknowledge, therefore, does not, and cannot, impose necessity.
Abstract This paper explains that Locke does not believe human beings can have any access to accurate knowledge of the actually existing reality of things; whereas, Leibniz holds that the way a word is used to refer to an object is part of our understanding of the object's real essence and that its real essence can be understood through its observable properties. The paper states the suggestion that such concepts are acquired only through sense experience, which is Locke's position, thus undermines, not only Leibniz's view of the relationship between the human mind and the external universe, but his interpretation of the role of God in giving existence to the universe through the principle of the First Cause and final sufficient reason.
From the Paper "This is a fundamentally different position from that of Leibniz, who holds that this process does indeed function in human beings as it does in animals ? "men act like the lower animals, resembling the empirical physicians, whose methods are those of mere practice without theory" ? but that this is only part of the explanation for human understanding. The element this empirical explanation disregards is precisely that rational capacity which separates people from animals and makes human nature what it is: ?it is the knowledge of necessary and eternal truths that distinguishes us from the mere animals and gives us Reason and the sciences, raising us to the knowledge of ourselves and of God."
Tags: reality, word, essense, observable, interpretation
Abstract The paper discusses how the basis of the common good in Plato and of God in the philosophy of Leibniz reflect similar ideals about what is good in society for the human race. The deconstruction of Roman Catholic dictates of Original Sin reflect a blessing in the work of Leibniz as Plato dictates the natural order of things in man, explaining ignorance to be a perfection of existence on Earth. The paper discusses that however, mankind has the ability to use reason and rationale in having a choice in either evolving to a higher state or devolving into chaos.
From the Paper "This philosophical study will examine the basis of the common good in "The Republic" by Plato in comparison to the notion of "god", as described by Leibniz in his "Discourse on Metaphysics." By understanding the soul in relation to the religious dictates of Christianity, one can compare Leibniz to Plato in understanding the good in relation to existence. By realizing the nature and imperfections of mankind, Leibniz exacts the same conclusions on the "common good" as Plato depicts in "The Republic." "The Republic" by Plato defines the necessary elements of the just soul in relation the society that is created through this philosophical treatise. The duality of the human nature is divided into the rational and the irrational, which both have a common place in the behaviors that mankind is free to enact."
Abstract A paper which provides a detailed explanation about the term monads. What they are, who named them and the philosophical discussion about their use, meaning and existence. The writer uses several sources to explain what philosopher Wilhoit Leibniz believed to be a sound philosophical reality.
From the Paper "Leibniz believed that no substance had a physical influence on another but he did believe that mental events could have an affect on and influence bodily events. He used this explanation to provide an understanding of why the mind can tell the arm to move and it will. He believed that the individual monads that comprise the body will not act in tandem as they are each independent of each other, but that the mind can command that group to move at the same time, not working as a team but individual units all moving in the same direction as individual units."
Abstract This paper examines the philosophy of Leibniz in terms of how he tried to address the ideas of substance and perception and supported both to a degree.
Abstract Transcendental idealism is founded on the concept of the a priori. Few claims in philosophical history have encouraged as wide and vigourous a debate as this one idea. The a priori nature of causality has been the most cited example, and this paper takes a view of the playing field. Not only is Kant's theory of causality explained with care, but the paper also investigates how Kant stands in reference to traditional ("dogmatic") metaphysics, notably that of Leibniz and also to his powerful contempary, David Hume; with whom Kant had one eye on when writing "The Critique".
From the Paper "Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is largely a response to popular philosophy of the time. This is true of Leibniz (and Wolff?s) "dogmatic metaphysics", but also true of the psychological approach of the British empiricists. The most resolute of these, in Kant's mind, was David Hume, and Kant's response to Hume's treatment of causality is worthy of further examination."
Abstract In this essay on theological philosophy, two of the fine philosophers of old are invoked in order to ponder and define just what evil is. The early Christian thinker, Saint Augustine, is used via his masterpiece "City of God". The seventeenth century philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, is also used, by way of his "Discourse on Metaphysics". Their ideas of evil (and good) are compared and contrasted.
From the Paper "The battle of good and evil: this is a question for the ages. Throughout the annals of philosophy and theology, from Christian-based works and in works from centuries before Christ's followers entered the philosophical and theological fray, the argument of just what such metaphysical, hard-to-grasp ideas such as good and evil are has been at these studies' forefront. What exactly defines true goodness? And thus, what exactly demonstrates or causes pure evil, good's supposed opposite? This quest to define and pinpoint precisely what evil is and why it occurs is the focus of much of the writings of two noted philosophers of the past millennium."
Abstract This paper explores comets; the astronomical bodies made up of frozen gases and dust particles, which orbit the solar system. The author discusses how comets develop, their structure, their volatility, and the important role that comets play in the revolution of astronomy and cosmology. The paper also contains a detailed description of Halley's Comet.
From the Paper "Comet structures are diverse and very dynamic, but they all develop a surrounding cloud of diffuse material, called a coma, that usually grows in size and brightness as the comet approaches the Sun. Usually a small, bright nucleus (less than 10 km in diameter) is visible in the middle of the coma. The coma and the nucleus together constitute the head of the comet."
Abstract A 7-page historical survey of the bond of Astrology and Astronomy and how as the result of the scientific method that bond was broken and how both are still influencing us today.
