Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leibniz’s Anti-scepticism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scepticism in the Eighteenth Century: Enlightenment, Lumières, Aufklärung

  • 832 Accesses

Abstract

Leibniz never addressed systematically the sceptical issue in its various historical and conceptual dimensions. Nevertheless he progressively met different challenges and arguments throughout his innumerable readings, correspondences and writings displaying different faces of scepticism: the Academic negative meta-dogmatism of Francisco Sanches; Simon Foucher’s middle way; the three related figures of the libertine misosopher, of the fideist after Bayle’s manner, and of a fictitious ‘Sceptician’; and eventually, at the end of his life, Sextus Empiricus’ neo-pyrrhonism. Yet the meaning of his opposition to scepticism is not the same in all those cases: on the one hand, he claims that metaphysical and epistemological sceptical challenges can be refuted by rational arguments; on the other hand, he acknowledges the practical difficulties to overthrow the more dangerous moral and religious scepticism.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Leibniz to Rémond, July 1714: GP III, 620. The following abbreviations have been used for Leibniz’s works: A = Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin und Göttingen (ed.), Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Darmstadt/Leipzig/Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1923ff. References are to series, volume and page; GP = C. I. Gerhardt (ed.), Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz, Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 7 vols., 1875–1890, repr. Hildesheim, Olms, 1978. References are to volume and page; Dutens = L. Dutens (ed.), G. G. Leibnitii Opera omnia, 6 vols., Genève, 1768, repr. Hildesheim, Olms, 1990. References are to volume and page; LBr = Leibniz’s Correspondence, Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz Library, Hanover. References are to file and sheet number; LH = Leibniz’s Manuscripts, Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz Library, Hanover. References are to series, volume, subsection and sheet number. The following abbreviation have been used for Sextus Empiricus’s works: OS = Outlines of Scepticism, translated by J. Annas and J. Barnes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997. The following abbreviation have been used for Descartes’s works: AT = René Descartes, Oeuvres, C. Adam and P. Tannery (eds.) Paris, Léopold Cerf, 1897–1913, 13 vols, reprints Paris, Vrin-CNRS, 1964–1974, 11 vols. References are to volume and page. All translations are mine unless otherwise stated.

  2. 2.

    See Richard H. Popkin, “Leibniz and the French Sceptics”, Revue internationale de philosophie, 76–77, 1966, pp. 228–248.

  3. 3.

    Leibniz to Hansch, July 25, 1707: G. W. Leibniz, Godefridi Guilielmi epistolae ad diversos, Christian Kortholt (ed.), Lipsiae, Breitkopfii, 1734–1742, 4 vols., III, p. 70.

  4. 4.

    See A II, 12, 37; A I, 19, 232; A VI, 1, 87, 90; A VI, 4, 24.

  5. 5.

    A VI, 1, 87, 309. Leibniz bought and read Sanches’s book as early as 1663 (see A VI, 2, 19).

  6. 6.

    Leibniz to Jakob Thomasius, February 26, 1666: A II, 12, 8.

  7. 7.

    Leibniz to Jean Gallois, 1672: A II, 12, 356, 352.

  8. 8.

    Leibniz to Mariotte, July 1676: A II, 12, 421.

  9. 9.

    See A VIII, 1, 541 and A VI, 4, 2715.

  10. 10.

    See the following works by Foucher: Critique de la Recherche de la verité. Où l’on examine en méme-tems une une [sic] partie des Principes de Mr Descartes. Lettre par un Academicien, Paris, Coustelier, 1675; Réponse pour la critique à la préface du second volume de la Recherche de la Vérité. Où l’on examine le sentiment de M. Descartes touchant les idées avec plusieurs remarques utiles pour les sciences, Paris, Charles Angot, 1676; Nouvelle Dissertation sur la recherche de la verité, contenant la reponse de la critique à la critique de la recherche de la verite. Avec une discution particuliere du grand principe des Cartesiens, Paris, La Caille, 1679; Reponse à la critique de la critique de la recherche de la verité sur la philosophie des Academiciens, Paris, 1686–1690; Dissertations sur la recherche de la verité ou sur la philosophie des Academiciens. Livre premier, contenant l’Histoire de ces Philosophes, Paris, Antoine Lambin, 1690.

  11. 11.

    See Foucher, Critique de la Recherche de la verité., op. cit., pp. 17, 18, 31, 94 and 45.

  12. 12.

    Robert Desgabets’s accusation is quoted in Foucher, Reponse à la critique de la critique, op. cit., p. 4.

  13. 13.

    See Foucher, Nouvelle Dissertation, op. cit.

  14. 14.

    Foucher, Dissertations sur la recherche de la verité, op. cit., pp. 2, 13, 27.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., pp. 7, 25, 30. See also Foucher, Critique de la Recherche de la verité., op. cit., p. 7; Foucher, Réponse à la critique de la critique, op. cit., pp. 44–45 and the so-called “Academic laws” in Foucher, Reponse à la critique de la critique, op. cit., p. 146: “1. Ne se conduire que par démonstration, en matiere de Science. 2. Ne point agiter les questions que l’on voit bien ne pouvoir décider. 3. Avouer que l’on ne sçait pas les choses que l’on ignore effectivement. 4. Discerner les choses que l’on sçait de celles que l’on ne sçait pas. 5. Chercher toûjours des connoissances nouvelles”.

  16. 16.

    Foucher, Dissertations sur la recherche de la verité, op. cit., p. 15.

  17. 17.

    A II, 2, 194; Foucher, Dissertations sur la recherche de la verité, op. cit., p. 2.

  18. 18.

    Foucher, Réponse pour la critique à la préface, op. cit., without page number, speaking of the Academy’s “production d’une Philosophie demonstrative également incontestable dans ses principes & dans ses conclusions”. See A II, 12, 387.

  19. 19.

    Leibniz to Foucher, May 23: 1687, A II, 2, 200. See footnote 15.

  20. 20.

    Leibniz to Foucher, August 1686: A II, 2, 91.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., A II, 2, 87. See also A II, 2, 89; 202; 206.

  22. 22.

    Leibniz to Foucher, October 27, 1692: A II, 2, 610.

  23. 23.

    Foucher, Reponse à la critique de la critique, op. cit., p. 150.

  24. 24.

    Leibniz to Foucher, January 1692: A II, 2, 490–491.

  25. 25.

    Leibniz to Foucher, 1675: A II, 12, 387. And again in 1692: A II, 2, 489.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Foucher, Critique de la Recherche de la verité, op. cit., p. 26.

  28. 28.

    Leibniz to Foucher, 1675: A II, 12, 387.

  29. 29.

    Foucher, Réponse pour la critique à la préface, op. cit., pp. 21–23.

  30. 30.

    A VI, 3, 311.

  31. 31.

    See A II, 2, 88–89, 200; Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1005b35ff.

  32. 32.

    Foucher, Critique de la Recherche de la verité, op. cit., pp. 31–32.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, pp. 44–46.

  34. 34.

    Leibniz to Foucher, 1675: A II, 12, 390.

  35. 35.

    Ibid. I follow Garber’s translation, in Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad, Oxford, OUP, 2009, p. 276.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 391.

  37. 37.

    AT VII, 18–19; AT IX, 13–15.

  38. 38.

    AT VII, 89; AT IX, 71.

  39. 39.

    Leibniz to Foucher 1675: A II, 12, 391.

  40. 40.

    See A VI, 4, 1396, 1500ff.

  41. 41.

    This may be compared to Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, § 220–286: “The reasonable man does not have certain doubts.”

  42. 42.

    A VI, 6, 444–445.

  43. 43.

    Ibid. On Leibniz’s conception of madness and his reading of Descartes, see A. Pelletier “Leibniz et la folie”, Philosophie, 103, 2009, Paris, Minuit, pp. 26–50.

  44. 44.

    See A II, 2, 699, 740.

  45. 45.

    See A I, 20, 442.

  46. 46.

    Leibniz to Foucher, May 23, 1687: A II, 2, 201.

  47. 47.

    See Huet, Demonstratio evangelica ad serenissimum Delphinum, Paris, 1679; Censura Philosophiae Cartesianae, Paris, 1689.

  48. 48.

    See Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, t. 2, Rotterdam, Leers, 1697, p. 967; and Bayle to Leibniz, October 3, 1702: GP III, 65.

  49. 49.

    Bayle, op. cit., pp. 965–966; and Bayle to Leibniz, ibid. For Bayle’s discussion in the Theodicy, see below.

  50. 50.

    Popkin, op. cit., pp. 238–239.

  51. 51.

    See Ezequiel de Olaso, “Preliminary considerations on a possible Method for Leibniz’s discussion with the Sceptics”, Leibniz und Europa, Hannover, Leibniz-Gesellschaft, 1994, p. 557; Ezequiel de Olaso, “Leibniz and scepticism”, in R. H. Popkin, E. de Olaso, G. Tonelli (eds.), Scepticism in the Enlightenment, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1997, pp. 114–116.

  52. 52.

    Leibniz to Foucher, June 1693, A II, 2, 710.

  53. 53.

    See Popkin, op. cit., p. 241.

  54. 54.

    See A VI, 4, 485, 973, 2047, 2063.

  55. 55.

    See A VI, 4, 530, 1393ff.

  56. 56.

    Leibniz, Conversation du Marquis de Pianese et du Père Emery Eremite (…) ou Dialogue de l’application qu’on doit avoir à son salut (1679–1681), in A VI, 4, pp. 2245–2283. Page references are now directly given in the text.

  57. 57.

    Both authors are seldom mentioned by Leibniz: see Montaigne’s insignificant mention in A VI, 1, 289; and Le Vayer’s critical mentions in A IV, 6, 713 and A VI, 6, 501.

  58. 58.

    Same themes in A VI, 3, 662; A IV, 4, 614.

  59. 59.

    See Leibniz’s correction of scepticum into misosophum in A VI, 4, 2213. And A I, 14, 196; A II, 12, 675; A IV, 6, 677; A VI, 4, 2344.

  60. 60.

    See Pascal, Pensées, § 233. On Pascal, see A II, 12, 675.

  61. 61.

    See, A VI, 4, 338ff.

  62. 62.

    See Discours preliminaire, § 22–23 : GP VI, 63.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., § 28: GP VI, 67.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., § 29, 33: GP VI, 67, 69.

  65. 65.

    Leibniz, Specimen animadversionum in Sextum Empiricum, percurso libro Pyrrhoniarum Hypothesium (sic) primo datum, (LH IV, 8, f. 96–97), transcription by T. Matsuda in: “A Leibnizian attempt to refute pyrrhonian scepticism in an unpublished manuscript of 1711” (in Japanese), Annual Reports of Humanities and Social Sciences Bunkagaku-Nenpo, Kobe, 20, 2001, pp. 48–52. References to this transcription are now directly given in the text. Ezequiel de Olaso draw first attention to this text in: “Objections inédites de Leibniz au principe sceptique de l’équipollence”, Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1974, pp. 52–59.

  66. 66.

    See A VI, 3, 243; A VI, 4, 378, 1180, 1945, 2466.

  67. 67.

    See Leibniz to Widou, 7 December, 1715, Dutens, V, 472, and 6 October, 1716, ibid., 475.

  68. 68.

    See Popkin, op. cit., p. 244. The correspondence between Leibniz and Johann Albert Fabricius shows yet no trace of such a refutation: see LBr 251a; Dutens V, 420ff.

  69. 69.

    Leibniz to Fabricius, after 11 August, 1711: Dutens V, 424. Leibniz writes exactly the same, in French, to Widou, see Dutens V, 472, 475.

  70. 70.

    See Olaso, Objections inédites de Leibniz, op. cit., pp. 56–57 and OS, I, iv, 10.

  71. 71.

    It must be noted that the vocabulary of equivalence, equipotence, and balance, though absent from the Greek text, is introduced in the Latin translation of the bilingual edition that Leibniz owned, where one finds expressions such as “aequa potentia, aequalitas”, “aequalis ponderis & momenti”, “in aequalia momenta” (Sexti Empirici opera quae extant, Coloniae Allobrogum, Petri & Jacobi Chouët, 1621, 3–6).

  72. 72.

    See A VI, 3, 584.

  73. 73.

    See Leibniz to Gabriel Wagner, January 3, 1697: GP VII, 521.

  74. 74.

    Henri Estienne (1562) first translated the judgment’s suspension by dubitatio; Chouet (1621) translated more literally by assensus retentio.

  75. 75.

    See A VI, 4, 1622, 1648.

  76. 76.

    Leibniz, Breve consilium de Bibliotheca, LH XL, f. 93r (f.103r). Dutens’s anecdote that Leibniz counted Sextus as one of his fountains of knowledge seems, on the contrary, overstated, see Dutens, II, 7–8; quoted by Olaso, Leibniz and scepticism, op. cit., p. 117.

  77. 77.

    LH V, 5, 2, f. 122r (without date, probably 1707): “Vers sur la mort de M. Bayle. / Du celebre Pyrrhon, du grand Diagoras, / De son confrere Protagore, / D’Epicure et d’autres encore / je suivis le projet d’établir icy bas / Cette incomparable science, / Dont apres eux Hobbes, Spinosa, Vanini / Avoient, non sans succés, jetté quelque semence. / L’esprit de leurs leçons muni / j’accumulay doute sur doute, / Animé par la passion / De mettre à la fin en deroute / Et Docteurs et Religion. / J’ay contredit tout à mon aise ; / Et parmy ces doutes divers, / Qui me furent toujours si chers, / il n’en est qu’un qui me déplaise : / La mort m’appelle, et je suis incertain / Du succés d’un si grand chemin. / O quelle incertitude affreuse ! / Jean le Clerc en triomphe, et Jacquelot en rit / Leur victoire est pourtant douteuse. / Si je quitte ces lieux, j’y laisse mon esprit.”

Bibliography

  • Bayle, Pierre. 1740. Dictionnaire historique et critique, 4 vols. Amsterdam: Brunel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1897–1913. Œuvres, ed. C. Adam and P. Tannery, 13 vols. Paris: Léopold Cerf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucher, Simon. 1675. Critique de la Recherche de la vérité. Où l’on examine en même temps une partie des Principes de Mr Descartes. Lettre par un Académicien. Paris: Coustelier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucher, Simon. 1676. Réponse pour la critique à la préface du second volume de la Recherche de la Vérité. Où l’on examine le sentiment de M. Descartes touchant les idées avec plusieurs remarques utiles pour les sciences. Paris: Charles Angot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucher, Simon. 1679. Nouvelle Dissertation sur la recherche de la verité, contenant la reponse de la critique à la critique de la recherche de la verite. Avec une discution particuliere du grand principe des Cartesiens. Paris: La Caille.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucher, Simon. 1686–1687. Réponse à la critique de la critique de la recherche de la vérité, sur la philosophie des Académiciens. Paris: Antoine Lambin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucher, Simon. 1690. Dissertations sur la recherche de la vérité ou sur la philosophie des Académiciens. Livre premier, contenant l’Histoire de ces Philosophes. Paris: Antoine Lambin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber, Daniel. 2009. Leibniz: Body, substance, monad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huet, Pierre-Daniel. 1679. Demonstratio evangelica ad serenissimum Delphinum. Paris: Michallet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huet, Pierre-Daniel. 1689. Censura Philosophiae Cartesianae. Paris: D. Horthemels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G.W. 1734–1742. Godefridi Guilielmi Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, 4 vols. Lipsiae: Breitkopfii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G.W. 1768. Opera omnia, 4 vols. Genève  : de Tournes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G.W. 1875–1899. Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz, 7 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G.W. 1923ff. Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Darmstadt/Leipzig/Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, T. 2001. A Leibnizian attempt to refute Pyrrhonian scepticism in an unpublished manuscript of 1711. Annual reports of Humanities and Social Sciences Bunkagaku-Nenpo, Kobe, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olaso, Ezequiel de. 1974. Objections inédites de Leibniz au principe sceptique de l’équipollence. In Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, 52–59. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olaso, Ezequiel de. 1994. Preliminary Considerations on a Possible Method for Leibniz’s Discussion with the Sceptics. In Leibniz und Europa, ed. A. Heinekamp and I. Hein, 557–564. Hannover: Schlütersche.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olaso, Ezequiel de. 1997. Leibniz and scepticism. In Scepticism in the enlightenment, ed. R.H. Popkin, E. de Olaso, and G. Tonelli, 99–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascal, Blaise. 1963. Œuvres complètes. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, Arnaud. 2009. Leibniz et la folie. Philosophie 103: 26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, Richard. 1966. Leibniz and the French sceptics. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 76–77: 228–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sextus Empiricus. 1994. Outlines of scepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1969. On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Leibniz-Archiv, Hanover, Germany

    Arnaud Pelletier

Authors
  1. Arnaud Pelletier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnaud Pelletier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Sherbrooke, boulevard de l'Université 2500, Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1, Québec, Canada

    Sébastien Charles

  2. , Departamento de Filosofia, Universidade Federal de são Paulo, Estrada do Caminho Velho 333, Guarulhos, 07252-312, Brazil

    Plínio J. Smith

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pelletier, A. (2013). Leibniz’s Anti-scepticism. In: Charles, S., J. Smith, P. (eds) Scepticism in the Eighteenth Century: Enlightenment, Lumières, Aufklärung. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 210. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4810-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation