Peer-Reviewed Articles:
This paper argues that Leibniz’s use of the concept of “automaton” to characterize the nature of souls and bodies of living beings constitutes a systematic critique of Descartes’ earlier use of automata. Whereas Descartes conceived non-human animals in terms of mechanical automata, he also denied that the human rational soul can be modeled on the nature of an automaton. In contrast, Leibniz understood living things to involve both an organic body, or “natural automaton,” as well as an immaterial soul, or “spiritual automaton,” that spontaneously produces its own perceptions. In extending the concept of the automaton to souls, Leibniz rejected key Cartesian assumptions about animals and free will and draws on the concept of the automaton to understand a range of cognitive capacities including volition. Leibniz thus occupies a distinctive place in the history of the use of automata to understand the nature of living things.
This paper seeks to highlight the importance of spatial cognition in Bergson’s Données immédiates by engaging with Robert Watt’s reconstruction of Bergson’s argument that every idea of number involves the idea of space. We focus on the second stage of Watt’s reconstruction, where Bergson argues that only space can provide the distinction required for our counting of otherwise identical items. Watt bases his reconstruction on a premise regarding the possibility that identical objects, in the absence of spatial distinction, might remain identical across different “temporal locations”. Our paper raises the prospect that Bergson is committed to a stronger thesis, namely one implying that identical objects would necessarily remain indistinguishable without the intervention of space. The paper thus concludes by emphasizing the indispensability of space for knowledge according to Bergson.
Abstract: In this paper, I compare Leibniz with the twentieth-century German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer and make a case for reading Gadamer as representing a model of a contemporary, post-Idealist, Leibnizian philosopher. By drawing attention to remarks made by Gadamer indicating an affinity between his philosophical hermeneutics and Leibniz’s project of a global philosophical synthesis, I argue that they share an understanding of the truth as distributed between multiple divergent viewpoints. Correspondingly, both develop approaches to philosophy that require engaging in constructive dialogue with others. However, where Gadamer saw Leibniz’s philosophy as aiming to produce a synthesis of finite perspectives converging in a central point of view, Gadamer himself understood philosophy as consisting in an ongoing and open-ended fusion of finite human horizons. By thus eliminating any central organizing perspective, Gadamer’s approach realizes the conciliatory and synthetic spirit of Leibniz’s philosophy in the absence of an infinite mind or perspective.
Click here to view an open-access pdf of the paper
“Immaterial Mechanism in the Mature Leibniz.” Idealistic Studies 49 (1) (2019): 1-21
Abstract: Leibniz standardly associates “mechanism” with extended material bodies and their aggregates. In this paper, I identify and analyze a further distinct sense of “mechanism” in Leibniz that extends, by analogy, beyond the domain of material bodies and applies to the operations of immaterial substances such as the monads that serve, for Leibniz, as the metaphysical foundations of physical reality. I argue that in this sense, Leibniz understands “mechanism” as an intelligible process that is capable of providing a sufficient reason for a series of changes. I then apply these findings to enrich our understanding of Leibniz’s well-known mill argument in Monadology ¶17: although material machines and mechanisms cannot produce perceptions, the perceptual activity of immaterial monads is to be understood as “mechanical” according to this analogical sense.
Click here to view a draft version of the paper.
“Leibniz on the Divine Preformation of Souls and Bodies.” HOPOS Journal 9 (2) (Fall 2019): 327-342
Abstract: For the mature Leibniz, a living being is a created substance composed of an infinitely complex organic body and a simple immaterial soul. Soul and body do not interact directly, but rather their states correspond according to a harmony preestablished by God. I show that Leibniz’s theory faces challenges with respect to the question of whether substances need to possess knowledge of how they bring about their effects, and I argue that to address these challenges, Leibniz turns to a concept of “divine preformation” that he attributes to both soul and body. Insofar as divine preformation provides Leibniz with an explanation for how soul and body can both act without possessing explicit knowledge of what they are doing, it serves a key tool for justifying the theory of preestablished harmony.
Click here to view the final draft version of the paper.
Abstract: The young Spinoza and the mature Leibniz both characterize the soul as a self-moving spiritual automaton. Though it is unclear if Leibniz’s use of the term was suggested to him from his reading of Spinoza, Leibniz was aware of its presence in Spinoza’s Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect. Considering Leibniz’s staunch opposition to Spinozism, the question arises as to why he was willing to adopt this term. I propose an answer to this question by comparing the spiritual automaton in both philosophers. For Spinoza, the soul acts as a spiritual automaton when it overcomes imaginative ideas and produces true ideas. For Leibniz, the soul acts as a spiritual automaton when it spontaneously produces its perceptions according to the universal harmony preestablished by God. Thus, for Leibniz contra Spinoza, the spiritual automaton is a means to render intelligible a providential order in which everything happens for the best.
Click here to view a draft version of the paper.
Abstract: This paper analyzes Leibniz’s use of analogies in both natural philosophical and metaphysical contexts. Through an examination of Leibniz’s notes on scientific methodology, I show that Leibniz explicitly recognizes the utility of analogies as heuristic tools that aid us in conceiving unfamiliar theoretical domains. I further argue that Leibniz uses the notion of a self- moving machine or automaton to help capture the activities of the immaterial soul. My account helps resist the conventional image of Leibniz as an arch- rationalist unconcerned with methods of empirical discovery and contributes to ongoing discussions on the nature of immaterial substance and mind in Leibniz.
Christopher P. Noble 