Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transcendent and Immanent Conceptions of Perfection in Leibniz and Hegel

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transcendence, Immanence, and Intercultural Philosophy

  • 446 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter proposes that Hegel’s theory of modality, found in the “Actuality” chapter of Science of Logic, contributes to an analysis of the incompossibility problem in Leibniz. The incompossibility problem arises in Leibniz from an inconsistency between the immanent character of this compossible world and the transcendent character of alternative possible worlds. On the one hand, this chapter recognizes the reasons why Leibniz would not have accepted the theory that incompossible worlds exist within this world. However, by establishing Hegel’s argument for why all possibilities must exist, through the interaction between two conceptions of possibility, this chapter claims that Hegel’s revision of Leibniz avoids some of the problems that Leibniz’s modal ontology faces.

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 84.99
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.

    I use the following abbreviations: SL for the Miller translation of Hegel’s Science of Logic [21]; DM for the Loptson edition of Leibniz’s Discourse on Metaphysics [28]; PE for the Garber and Ariew translation of Leibniz’s Philosophical Essays [25]; and TH for Theodicy [27].

  2. 2.

    I realize that Spinoza scholars might find this reading of Spinoza to be superficial and in ways inaccurate. My intention is only to present the interpretation of Spinoza that Leibniz and debates about Leibniz have relied upon in order to develop their own arguments and objections. Whether Leibniz has accurately portrayed Spinoza or not goes beyond the scope of this analysis.

  3. 3.

    Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, 662 [24].

  4. 4.

    Russell’s explanation of the distinction between the possible and the compossible is very helpful. See Russell, The Philosophy of Leibniz, 67 [36]. Also see the discussion of Russell’s explanation in Brown, “Compossibility, Harmony, and Perfection in Leibniz,” 177 [5].

  5. 5.

    Leibniz defines world as “the whole succession and the whole agglomeration of all existent things.” TH 132 [27].

  6. 6.

    If all possible relations are compossible, “the compossible relation threatens to become trivial, that is, the individual concepts C1 and C2 are compossible if and only if C1 is possible and C2 is possible, in which case there is only one possible world, a world of maximum disharmony.” Earman, “Perceptions and Relations in the Monadology,” 220 [12]. Also see the discussion of this in Brown, “Compossibility, Harmony, and Perfection in Leibniz,” 180 [5].

  7. 7.

    Brown, “Compossibility, Harmony, and Perfection in Leibniz,” 179 [5].

  8. 8.

    McDonough, “Leibniz and the Puzzle of Incompossibility: The Packing Strategy,” 137–140 [34].

  9. 9.

    As we will see from my claims about Hegel’s revisions of the incompossibility problem, I do not think that the logical interpretation can establish the maximization thesis well either, since it ultimately excludes a huge vista of possibility, that is, the possibility of actualizing contraries.

  10. 10.

    Rescher, On Leibniz, 27–30 [35].

  11. 11.

    Brown, “Compossibility, Harmony, and Perfection in Leibniz,” 195–199 [5].

  12. 12.

    McDonough, “Leibniz and the Puzzle of Incompossibility: The Packing Strategy,” 145–146 [34].

  13. 13.

    McDonough, “Leibniz and the Puzzle of Incompossibility: The Packing Strategy,” 152–153 [34].

  14. 14.

    There are by now many excellent commentaries of Hegel’s “Actuality” chapter [21]. The commentaries that I have found especially helpful include Burbidge’s Hegel’s Systematic Contingency [6], Di Giovanni’s “The Category of Contingency in the Hegelian Logic,” [11] Henrich’s “Hegels Theorie über den Zufall,” [16] Houlgate’s “Necessity and Contingency in Hegel’s Science of Logic,”[21] Lampert’s “Hegel on Contingency, or, Fluidity and Multiplicity,” [23] and Yeomans’ Freedom and Reflection [38].

  15. 15.

    Hegel, Encyclopedia Logic, 220 [15].

  16. 16.

    For an explanation of the “axiom of possibility,” see Hughes and Cresswell, A New Introduction to Modal Logic, 28 [22].

  17. 17.

    Deleuze, Bergsonism, 51–72 [9].

Bibliography

  1. Aristotle. 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: Volume 1. Ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aristotle. 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: Volume 2. Ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blumenfeld, David. 1973. Leibniz’s Theory of the Striving Possibles. Studia Leibnitiana 5(2):163–177.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Borges, Jorge Luis. 1962. Labyrinths. New York: New Directions.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, Gregory. 1987. Compossibility, Harmony, and Perfection in Leibniz. Philosophical Review 96:172–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burbidge, John W. 2007. Hegel’s Systematic Contingency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Cover, J.A., and J. O’Leary-Hawthorne. 1999. Substance and Individuation in Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Deleuze, Gilles. 1990. The Logic of Sense. Trans. M. Lester. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Deleuze, Gilles. 1991. Bergsonism. Trans. H. Tomlinson and B. Habberjam. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Deleuze, Gilles. 1993. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Trans. T. Conley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Di Giovanni, George. 1980. The Category of Contingency in the Hegelian Logic. In Art and Logic in Hegel’s Philosophy, Ed. W. E. Steinkraus. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Earman, John. 1977. Perceptions and Relations in the Monadology. Studia Leibnitiana 9(2):212–230.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fitting, M., and R. L. Mendelsohn. 1998. First-Order Modal Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Hacking, Ian. 1982. A Leibnizian Theory of Truth. In Leibniz: Critical and Interpretative Essays, Ed. M. Hooker. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1991. The Encyclopeadia Logic. Trans. T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting, and H. S. Harris. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Henrich, Dieter. 1971. Hegel im Kontext. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1972. Leibniz on Plenitude, Relations, and the ‘Reign of Law’. In Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays, Ed. H. G. Frankfurt. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1969. Science of Logic. Trans. A. V. Miller. Amherst: Humanity Books.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Werke in zwanzig Bänden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 2010. The Science of Logic. Trans. G. Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Houlgate, Stephen. 1995. Necessity and Contingency in Hegel’s Science of Logic. Owl of Minerva 27:37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hughes, G. E, and M. J Cresswell. 1996. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Lampert, Jay. 2005. Hegel on Contingency, or, Fluidity and Multiplicity. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 51(2):74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1956. Philosophical Papers and Letters. Trans. L. E. Loemker. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1989. Philosophical Essays. Trans. D. Garber and R. Ariew. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1994. Writings on China. Trans. D. J. Cook and H. Rosemont, Jr. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 2007. Theodicy. Trans. E. M. Huggard. BiblioBazaar.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 2012. Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Writings. Ed. P. Loptson. Toronto: Broadview Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Longuenesse, Béatrice. 2007. Hegel’s Critique of Metaphysics. Trans. N. J. Simek. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1936. The Great Chain of Being. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Marcuse, Herbert. 1987. Hegel’s Ontology and the Theory of Historicity. Trans. S. Benhabib. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mates, Benson. 1972. Leibniz on Possible Worlds. In Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays, Ed. H. G. Frankfurt. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McDonough, Jeffrey K. 2010. Leibniz and the Puzzle of Incompossibility: The Packing Strategy. Philosophical Review 119:135–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rescher, Nicholas. 2013. On Leibniz. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Russell, Bertrand. 1900. The Philosophy of Leibniz. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Spinoza, Baruch. 1995. The Ethics. Trans. S. Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yeomans, Christopher. 2012. Freedom and Reflection: Hegel and the Logic of Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

    Nahum Brown

Authors
  1. Nahum Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nahum Brown .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

    Nahum Brown

  2. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    William Franke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brown, N. (2016). Transcendent and Immanent Conceptions of Perfection in Leibniz and Hegel. In: Brown, N., Franke, W. (eds) Transcendence, Immanence, and Intercultural Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43092-8_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation