Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
LEIBNIZ, GOTTFRIED WILHELM (b. Leipzig,
Germany, 1 July 1646; d. Hannover, Germany,
14 November 1716), mathematics, philosophy, metaphysics.
LEIBNIZ: Physics, Logic, Metaphysics
virtual motion, Leibniz explains, the force is as the
velocity but when the body has acquired a finite
velocity and the force has become live, it is as the
square of the velocity. As Leibniz remarked on several
occasions, there is always a perfect equation between
cause and effect, so that the force of a body in motion
is measured by the product of the mass and the height
to which the body could rise (the effect of the force).
Using the laws of Galileo, this height was shown by
Leibniz to be proportional to the square of the
velocity, so that the force (vis viva) could be expressed
as mv2.
Since vis viva was regarded by Leibniz as the
ultimate physical reality,14 it had to be conserved
throughout all transformations. Huygens had shown
that, in elastic collision, vis viva is not diminished.
The vis viva apparently lost in inelastic collision
Leibniz held to be in fact simply distributed among
the small parts of the bodies.15
Leibniz discovered the principle of the conservation
of momentum, which he described as the “quantité
d'avancement.”16 Had Descartes known that the
quantity of motion is preserved in every direction
(so that motion is completely determined, leaving no
opportunity for the directing influence of mind),
Leibniz remarks, he would probably have discovered
the preestablished harmony. But in Leibniz' view, the
principle of the conservation of momentum did not
correspond to something absolute, since two bodies
moving together with equal quantities of motion would
have no total momentum. Leibniz' discovery of yet
another absolute quantity in the concept of action
enabled him to answer the Cartesian criticism that he
had failed to take time into account in his consideration
of vis viva. In his Dynamica de potentia et legibus
naturae corporeae, Leibniz made an attempt to fit this
new concept into his axiomatic scheme.
Although succeeding generations described the
vis viva controversy as a battle of words, there can be
no doubt that Leibniz himself saw it as a debate about
the nature of reality. Referring to his search for a
true dynamics, Leibniz remarked in 1689 that, to
escape from the labyrinth, he could find “no other
thread of Ariadne than the evaluation of forces, under
the supposition of the metaphysical principle that the
total effect is always equal to the complete cause.”17
Scientia Generalis.
According to the usual distinctions,
the position that Leibniz took in physics, as well
as in other fundamental questions, was rationalistic,
and to that extent, despite all differences in detail, was
related to Descartes's position. Evident confirmation
of this may be seen in Leibniz' controversy with Locke;
although he does not explicitly defend the Cartesian
view, he uses arguments compatible with this position.
It is often overlooked, however, that Leibniz was
always concerned to discuss epistemological issues
as questions of theoretical science. For example, while
Locke speaks of the origins of knowledge, Leibniz
speaks of the structure of a science which encompasses
that particular field. Thus Leibniz sees the distinction
between necessary and contingent truths, so important
in the debate with Locke, as a problem of theoretical
science which transcends any consideration of the
historical alternatives, rationalism and empiricism.
Neither an empiricist in the sense of Locke nor yet a
rationalist in the sense of Descartes, Leibniz saw the
refutation of the empiricist's thesis (experience as the
nonconceptual basis of knowledge) not as the problem
of a rational psychology as it was then understood
(in Cartesian idiom, the assumption of inborn truths
and ideas) but as a problem that can be resolved only
within the framework of a general logic of scientific
research. Nevertheless, he shares with Descartes one
fundamental rationalistic idea, namely the notion
(which may be discerned in the Cartesian mathesis
universalis) of a scientia generalis. In connection with
his theoretical linguistic efforts towards a characteristica
universalis, this thought appears in Leibniz as
a plan for a mathématique universelle.18
Inspired by the ideas of Lull, Kircher, Descartes,
Hobbes, Wilkins, and Dalgarno, Leibniz pursued the
invention of an alphabet of thought (alphabetum
cogitationum humanarum)19 that would not only be a
form of shorthand but a formalism for the creation
of knowledge itself. He sought a method that would
permit “truths of reason in any field whatever to be
attained, to some degree at least, through a calculus,
as in arithmetic or algebra.”20 The program of such a
lingua philosophica or characteristica universalis was
to proceed through lists of definitions to an elementary
terminology encompassing a complete encyclopedia
of all that was known. Leibniz connected this plan
with others that he had, such as the construction of a
general language for intellectual discourse and a
rational grammar, conceived as a continuation of the
older grammatica speculativa.
While Leibniz' programmatic statements leave
open the question of just how the basic language he was
searching for and the encyclopedia were to be connected
(the characteristica universalis, according to
other explanations, was itself to facilitate a compendium
of knowledge), a certain ars combinatoria,
conceived as part of an ars inveniendi, was to serve in
the creation of the lists of definitions. As early as 1666,
in Leibniz' Dissertatio de arte combinatoria, the ars
inveniendi was sketched out under the name logica
inventiva (or logica inventionis) as a calculus of
concepts in which, in marked contrast to the traditional