Julia Jorati

Three Types of Spontaneity and Teleology in Leibniz

Leibniz holds that all substances possess “spontaneity,” that is, that all states of a given substance originate within it. Several commentators distinguish two kinds of spontaneity. My paper sharpens and expands this distinction by arguing that we need to distinguish not just two, but three types of spontaneity. This in turn sheds light on Leibniz’s otherwise puzzling views on teleology. I show that there is an intimate connection between spontaneity and teleology and that a type of teleology corresponds to each type of spontaneity. Making these distinctions can help us understand, among other things, how Leibniz can account for significant differences between different types of actions while maintaining that all monadic activity is teleological and spontaneous.

The Contingency of Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles

Leibniz’s famous Principle of the identity of indiscernibles (Pii) states that no two things are exactly alike. The Pii is commonly thought to be metaphysically necessary for Leibniz: the coexistence of two indiscernibles is metaphysically impossible. This paper argues, against the standard interpretation, that Leibniz’s Pii is metaphysically contingent. in other words, while the coexistence of indiscernibles would not imply a contradiction, the Pii is true in the actual world because the Principle of Sufficient reason rules out violations of the Pii. God could have created indiscernibles but he did not because he is wise and does nothing without a sufficient reason. Because it is plausible that all Leibnizian possible worlds are unified by a wise plan, this means that the Pii is true in all possible worlds. God could create indiscernibles, but the resulting creation would not be a world. To argue for this conclusion, the paper carefully examines Leibniz’s mature account of metaphysical contingency. it shows that for Leibniz, only states of affairs that imply logical contradictions are metaphysically impossible. next, it argues that the coexistence of indiscernibles would not imply a logical contradiction; it would merely imply what Leibniz calls a “moral absurdity,” that is, a violation of the Principle of Sufficient reason. This means that the Pii is true contingently and— since God can do whatever is metaphysically possible— that God can create two things that are exactly alike.

Leibniz on Causation and Agency

This book presents a comprehensive examination of Gottfried Leibniz’s views on the nature of agents and their actions. Julia Jorati offers a fresh look at controversial topics including Leibniz’s doctrines of teleology, the causation of spontaneous changes within substances, divine concurrence, freedom, and contingency, and also discusses widely neglected issues such as his theories of moral responsibility, control, attributability, and compulsion. Rather than focusing exclusively on human agency, she explores the activities of nonrational substances and the differences between distinctive types of actions, showing how the will, appetitions, and teleology are key to Leibniz’s discussions of agency. Her book reveals that Leibniz has a nuanced and compelling philosophy of action that has relevance for present-day discussions of agency. It will be of interest to scholars and students of earlymodern philosophy as well as to metaphysicians and philosophers of action.

Divine Faculties and the Puzzle of Incompossibility

Leibniz maintains that even though God’s intellect contains all possibles, some of these possibles are not compossible. This incompossibility of some possibles is supposed to explain which collections of possibles are possible worlds and why God does not actualize the collection of all possibles. In order to fully understand how this works, we need to establish what precisely Leibniz takes to be the source of incompossibility, that is, which divine attribute or faculty gives rise to the incompossibility of certain possibles. Different interpretations answer this question in different ways. This chapter explores the role that God’s faculties play on some of the standard interpretations of Leibniz’s notion of incompossibility and argues that we are faced with a dilemma: even though incompossibility must somehow arise from God’s faculties, none of the faculties usually distinguished seems up to the task. To escape this dilemma, we need to revise the traditional understanding of the divine faculties. More specifically, we need to recognize wisdom as an attribute that is distinct from intellect, power, and will and that is the source of incompossibility.

Leibniz's Twofold Gap Between Moral Knowledge and Motivation

Moral rationalists and sentimentalists traditionally disagree on at least two counts, namely regarding the source of moral knowledge or moral judgements and regarding the source of moral motivation. I will argue that even though Leibnizs moral epistemology is very much in line with that of mainstream moral rationalists, his account of moral motivation is better characterized as sentimentalist. Just like Hume, Leibniz denies that there is a necessary connection between knowing that something is right and the motivation to act accordingly. Instead, he believes that certain affections are necessary for moral motivation. On my interpretation, then, Leibniz is an externalist about judgements and motivation: he is committed to a gap between the judgement that something is morally right and the motivation to act accordingly. As a matter of fact, I will argue that there are two gaps. The first and less controversial one has to do with the fact that Leibniz reconciles his psychological egoism with ethical altruism through his account of love. The second gap between moral judgements and motivation is a more fundamental one: Leibniz denies that there are any necessary connections between beliefs and motivation, or even more generally, between perceptions and appetitions.