Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

All the Forms of Matter: Leibniz, Regis and the World’s Infinity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy

Part of the book series: The New Synthese Historical Library ((SYNL,volume 76))

Abstract

In 1697, the publication of a letter from Leibniz to Bourguet in the Journal des Sçavants prompted a vigorous reply from the Cartesien Pierre-Sylvain Regis, leading to a public exchange between the two philosophers. The controversy ended with a contribution by Regis who seemingly got the final word. The exchange mainly focused on Descartes’s Principles of philosophy, III, art. 47, a text where Descartes held that the world would eventually take all the possible forms it is capable of. While Leibniz maintained that this claim had inescapable Spinozistic consequences, Regis defended Descartes against the accusation. Each position relied on its own distinct conception of the world’s infinity. This chapter follows this controversy step by step. I show in particular that Leibniz, although he did not write it, had a forceful reply to Regis’s final published objections ready at hand, based on his rehabilitation of the notion of actual infinity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I use the following abbreviations: DESCARTES: AT = Œuvres, 11 vols., ed. C. Adam et P. Tannery, Paris: Cerf, 1897–1909.; CSM(K) = The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, ed. and trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, A. Kenny, 3 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991. LEIBNIZ: A = Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1923-; GP = Die philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz, ed. C. I. Gerhardt, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1875–1890. The article includes, in condensed form, analyses also presented in French in M. Lærke, Les Lumières de Leibniz. Controverses avec Huet , Bayle, Regis et More, Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2015, p. 285–312.

  2. 2.

    Leibniz to Nicaise , February 15th, 1697, GP II, p. 562–63.

  3. 3.

    Regis , “Réflexions sur une lettre de Monsieur Leibniz, écrite à Monsieur l’abbé Nicaise dans laquelle il pretend faire voir que les principes de la filosofie de Monsieur Descartes, renferment des consequences contraires à la religion and à la piété,” in Journal de sçavans, n° 23, June 17th, 1687, p. 273–76 [GP IV, p. 333–36].

  4. 4.

    Leibniz, “Reponse aux réflexions qui se trouvent dans le 23 Journal des Sçavans de cette année, touchant les consequences de quelques endroits de la filosofie de Descartes,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 32, August 19th, p. 381–84, and “Suite de la réponse etc.,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 33, August 26th, 1697, p. 384–88 [GP IV, p. 336–42]. It was Leibniz himself who preferred to publish the text in two parts, deeming it “too long for a journal” (GP II, p. 342).

  5. 5.

    P. S. Regis , “Reflexions pour servir de replique à une reponse insérée dans le 32 & dans le 33 journal de l’année présente,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 37, November 18th, 1697, p. 439–442.

  6. 6.

    Descartes, Principia philosophiae, III, § 47, AT VIII, p. 103, trans. CSM I, p. 257–58.

  7. 7.

    AT VIII, p. 102, trans. CSM I, p. 257.

  8. 8.

    Leibniz, Periculosa in Cartesio, 1683–1684/85 (?), A VI, iv, p. 1478.

  9. 9.

    Regis , “Réflexions sur une lettre,” p. 273 [= GP IV, p. 333].

  10. 10.

    For an English translation, see P.-D. Huet, Against Cartesian Philosophy, trans. T. M. Lennon , New York: Humanity Books, 2003. For a commentary, see T. Lennon , The Plain Truth. Descartes, Huet , and Scepticism, Leiden: Brill, 2008.

  11. 11.

    See Leibniz, “Extrait d’une Lettre de M. de Leibnis à M. l’Abbé Nicaise, sur la philosophie de M. Descartes,” in Journal des sçavans 15, April 13th, 1693, p. 163–165. The original letter is dated June 5th, 1692 (A II, ii, 532–538 = GP II, 534–535). For a discussion of this letter, including a complete English translation, see M. Lærke, “Leibniz, Huet , and the Critique of the Cartesian Spirit,” in The Leibniz Review 23 (2003), p. 7–36.

  12. 12.

    Regis , “Reflexions sur une lettre,” p. 274–75 [GP IV, p. 334].

  13. 13.

    Ibid., p. 275 [GP IV, p. 334].

  14. 14.

    It is not a question that arises among our interlocutors. For another analysis that insist on the “deformation” to which Leibniz allegedly submits Descartes’s position, see M. Fichant, “Postface: Plus ultra,” in G. W. Leibniz, De l’horizon de la doctrine humaine, éd. M. Fichant, Paris, Vrin, 1991, p. 188–89, including note 38.

  15. 15.

    See J. L. Marion , “De la divinité a la domination: étude sur la sémantique de capable /capax chez Descartes,” in Revue philosophique de Louvain, 73:18 (1975), p. 263–293.

  16. 16.

    AT VIII, p. 103.

  17. 17.

    Philipp to Leibniz, 7 (17) January 1680, A II, i, p. 786.

  18. 18.

    Leibniz to Philipp , January 1680, A II, i, p. 786.

  19. 19.

    Leibniz, Confessio philosophi, 1672–73, A VI, iii, 128–29, trans. in G. W. Leibniz, Confessio Philosophi. Papers concerning the problem of Evil, 1671–1678, ed. and trans. R. C. Sleigh. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 58.

  20. 20.

    Leibniz, De mente, de universo, de Deo, décembre 1675, A VI, iii, p. 464, trans. in G. W. Leibniz, De Summa Rerum. Metaphysical Papers 1675–1676, trans. G. H. R. Parkinson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992, p. 7.

  21. 21.

    Leibniz, Principium meum est., quicquid existere potest, et aliis compatibile est, id existere, December 12th, 1676, A VI, iii, p. 582, trans. in De summa rerum, p. 105.

  22. 22.

    Leibniz to Fabri, early 1677 (?), A II, i, p. 464.

  23. 23.

    See for example Leibniz to (?), 1679, A II, i, p. 778–779; Leibniz to Philipp , end of January 1680, A II, i, p. 786. See also A VI, iv, p. 1352, 1466, 1478, 1481–82, 1663, etc.

  24. 24.

    See Leibniz, Notata quaedam G. G. L. circa vitam et doctrinam Cartesii, in C. Thomasius, Historia sapientiae et stultitiae, vol. II, April–June 1693, p. 113–22 [= A VI, iv, p. 2057–65].

  25. 25.

    Regis , “Reflexions pour servir de réplique,” p. 439–42.

  26. 26.

    Ibid. p. 439.

  27. 27.

    Ibid. p. 440.

  28. 28.

    Ibid. p. 441.

  29. 29.

    For more on this classic distinction, see the article by A. Schechtman in this volume.

  30. 30.

    See also O. Nachtomy , “A Tale of Two Thinkers, One Meeting, and Three Degrees of Infinity: Leibniz and Spinoza (1675–78),” in British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19:5 (2011), 939–40.

  31. 31.

    See K. Löwith , Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 60–61.

  32. 32.

    On the disputes between Regis and Huet , see P.-D. Huet, Censura philosophiae cartesianae, Paris: Daniel Horthemels, 1689; P.-S. Regis , Pierre-Sylvain, Reponse au livre qui a pour titre P. Danielis Huetii, Censura philosophiae Cartesianae, Paris: Jean Cusson, 1691; P.-D. Huet, Censura philosophiae cartesianae, 4e éd. aucta et emendata, Paris: Joannem Anisson, 1694. For commentary, see T. M. Lennon , The Plain Truth. Descartes, Huet, and Scepticism, Leiden: Brill, 2008.

  33. 33.

    Anon . [in fact: P. Coste], “Discours sur la philosophie, ou l’on voit en abrégé l’histoire de cette science,” in P.-S. Regis , Cours entier de philosophie ou Systeme general selon les principes de M. Descartes, Amsterdam, Huguetan, 1691b, vol. I, not paginated, p. 1r-22v.

  34. 34.

    Leibniz, “Reponse de M. de Leibniz à l’extrait de lettre de M. Foucher Chanoine de Dijon, insérée dans le Journal du 16 mars 1693,” in Journal des sçavans, n° 30, August 3rd, 1693, p. 355–356, here p. 356 [the original letter from around January 1693 can be found in GP I, p. 415–416).

  35. 35.

    See H. A. Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle , Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971.

  36. 36.

    See M. Lærke, “Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (2011), 59–68. On Spinoza, Crescas and infinity, see also M. Lærke, “Spinoza and the Cosmological Argument According to Letter 12,” in British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21:1 (2013), p. 57–77.

  37. 37.

    P. S. Regis , Cours entier de philosophie ou Systeme general selon les principes de M. Descartes, Amsterdam: Huguetan, 1691b, t. II, ii, chap. 4–12, p. 397–424.

  38. 38.

    Ibid. II, ii, chap. 4, p. 398.

  39. 39.

    Leibniz, Principes de la nature et de la grâce, § 7, GP VI, p. 602, trans. in G. W. Leibniz, Philosophical Essays, eds. R. Ariew and D. Garber , Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989, p. 209–10.

  40. 40.

    Leibniz, Periculosa in Cartesio, 1683–1684/85 (?), A VI, iv, p. 1478.

  41. 41.

    Leibniz to Philipp , December 1679, A II, i, p. 767.

  42. 42.

    Leibniz to Verjus , 2 December 1697, A I, xiv, p. 839–40.

References

  • Fichant, M. (1991). Postface: Plus ultra. In M. Fichant (Ed.), Leibniz, G. W. De l’horizon de la doctrine humaine (pp. 125–210). Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huet, P. D. (1689). Censura philosophiae cartesianae. Paris: Daniel Horthemels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huet, P. D. (1694). Censura philosophiae cartesianae, 4e éd. aucta et emendata. Paris: Joannem Anisson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huet, P. D. (2003). Against Cartesian philosophy (T. Lennon, Trans.). New York: Humanity Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lærke, M. (2003). Leibniz, Huet, and the critique of the Cartesian Spirit. The Leibniz Review, 23, 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lærke, M. (2011). Leibniz’s cosmological argument for the existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 93, 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lærke, M. (2013). Spinoza and the cosmological argument according to letter 12. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 21(1), 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lærke, M. (2015). Les Lumières de Leibniz. Controverses avec Huet, Bayle, Regis et More. Paris: Classiques Garnier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G. W. (1989). In R. Ariew & D. Garber (Eds.), Philosophical essays. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G. W. (1992). De Summa Rerum. Metaphysical papers 1675–1676 (G. H. R. Parkinson, Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G. W. (2005). Confessio Philosophi. Papers concerning the problem of Evil, 1671–1678 (R. C. Sleigh, Ed., and Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, T. M. (2008). The plain truth. Descartes, Huet, and Scepticism. Leiden: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Löwith, K. (1957). Meaning in history: The theological implications of the philosophy of history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachtomy, O. (2011). A tale of two thinkers, one meeting, and three degrees of infinity: Leibniz and Spinoza (1675–78). British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 19(5), 939–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regis, P.-S. (1691a). Reponse au livre qui a pour titre P. Danielis Huetii, Censura philosophiae Cartesianae. Paris: Jean Cusson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regis, P.-S. (1691b). Cours entier de philosophie ou Systeme general selon les principes de M. Descartes. Amsterdam: Huguetan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson, H. A. (1971). Crescas’ critique of Aristotle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS, IHRIM (UMR 5317), Lyon, France

    Mogens Lærke

Authors
  1. Mogens Lærke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mogens Lærke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Ohad Nachtomy

  2. Philosophy Department, Fordham University, Bronx, NY, USA

    Reed Winegar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lærke, M. (2018). All the Forms of Matter: Leibniz, Regis and the World’s Infinity. In: Nachtomy, O., Winegar, R. (eds) Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy. The New Synthese Historical Library, vol 76. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94556-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation