The defence of the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation: An example of Leibniz's 'other' reason

British Journal for the History of Philosophy

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 283-309

  Antognazza, Maria Rosa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038443292     PISSN: 09608788     EISSN: 14693526     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09608780110045317     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. H. Schepers, 'Demonstrationes catholicae - Leibniz' großer Plan'. Unpublished paper given at the first plenary session of the Sixth International Leibniz Congress (18 July 1994).
2. G.W. Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Edited by the German Academy of Sciences. Series 1-7 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1923), series VI, vol. 1, p. 495 (hereafter A VI, 1, 495). The letter 'N' followed by an Arabic numeral indicates the number assigned by the editors to the text.
3. Cf. Symbole et Antisymbole des Apostres (1678), in M.R. Antognazza, Tnediti leibniziani sulle polemiche trinitarie', Rivista di Filosofta neo-scolastica 83, 4 (1991): 535-8;
4. E. Bodemann, Die Leibniz-Hand-schriften der Königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover (Hanover, 1895, reprinted Hildesheim: Olms) (1966)
5. partially published in G. Grua (ed.), G.W. Leibniz. Textes Inédits (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1948) vol. I, pp. 69-72, hereafter Grua I, 69-72);
6. Leibniz to Samuel Crell (12 July 1708), LBr 182, Bl. 4-6 (see E. Bodemann, Der Briefwechsel des Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in der Königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover (Hanover, 1889, reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1966)
7. also published in Z. Ogonowski, 'W sprawie korespondencji Leibniza z Samuelem Crellem', Archiwum Historii Filozofii i Myśli Spolecznej 27 (1981): 343-9); Praecipua Capita Christianae Theologiae, in quibus Samuel Crellius à Socino dissentit (1708), LBr 182, Bl. 7 (also published in Ogonowski, 'W sprawie korespondencji Leibniza z Samuelem Crellem', p. 350); Ad Christophori Stegmanni Metaphysicam Unitariorum (1708)
8. in N. Jolley, 'An Unpublished Leibniz MS on Metaphysics', Studia Leibnitiana 7, 2 (1975): 176-89.
9. A systematic and detailed discussion of Leibniz's texts concerning trinitarian polemics can be found in M.R. Antognazza, Trinità e Incarnazione. Il rapporto tra filosofia e teologia rivelata nel pensiero di Leibniz (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1999).
10. Cf. M. Dascal, 'La Razon y los misterios de la fe segun Leibniz', Revista Latino-americana de Filosofla 1, 3 (1975): 193-226 (esp. p. 214);
11. published in English as 'Reason and the mysteries of faith: Leibniz on the meaning of religious discourse', in M. Dascal, Leibniz. Language, Signs and Thought (Amsterdam-Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 93-124.
12. I am grateful to Robert and Marilyn Adams for a stimulating and helpful conversation on the issue of mysteries and presumption. Concerning the fundamental function assumed by the concept of presumption in Leibniz's Ars disputandi, see E. de Olaso, 'Leibniz et l'art de disputer', in Akten des II. Internationalen Leibniz-Kongress Hannover, 17. 22. Juli 1972 (Wiesbaden, 1975), vol. 4, pp. 207-28.
13. A VI.2, 567. On the concept of facilis and its relationship with the notion of probability see M. Dascal, La Sémiologie de Leibniz (Paris, 1978), pp. 83-4.
14. Concerning this kind of argumentation see I. Angelelli, 'The Techniques of Disputation in the History of Logic', The Journal of Philosophy 67 (1970): 800-15.
15. Dascal, 'La Razon y los misterios de la fe segun Leibniz', pp. 193-226, emphasizes the importance of Leibniz's application of the 'strategy of defence' to the case of the mysteries.
16. The presence in Leibniz of 'defensive strategies' is stressed by G. Varani, Leibniz e la Topica" Aristotelica (Milano: IPL, 1995). Varani, who implicitly claims to have been the first to speak of 'defensive strategy' in her unpublished doctoral thesis of 1987-8
17. (cf. Leibniz e la Topica" Aristotelica, pp. 190-1), seems to have overlooked Dascal's important contribution of 1975, the key point of which is precisely the idea of a 'strategy of defence'
18. See Antognazza, Trinità e Incarnazione, pp. 51-89 for a fuller discussion of these two texts. The 'strategy of defence' is also clearly employed in the Theodicy.
19. Cf. A VI,1, 520. On J. Raue see I. Angelelli, 'On Johannes Raue's Logic', in I. Marchlewitz, A. Heinekamp, Leibniz' Auseinandersetziing mit Vorgiingern und Zeitgenossen (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990), pp. 184-90. G. Roncaglia, in his important study of the debates on the nature of the copula in seventeenth-century Germany (Palaestra Rationis. Discussioni su natura delta copula e modalità nella fllosofla 'scolastica' tedesca del XVII secolo, Firenze: Olschki, 1996) points out the originality and interest of Raue's logic (cf. esp. pp. 143-5).
20. Raue, Subita et Necessaria Defensio, p. 127.
21. Cf. J. Raue, Prior Fundamentalis Controversia pro Logica Novissima. Addita sunt et Labyrinthus Logicorum circa hanc praecipue niateriam, et Filum Ariadnaeum (Rostochii: Literis Nicolai Kilii Acad. Typog., 1638), pp. 385-7: 'REGULA I. Ornne Subjectum et Praedi-catian debet ex Adsignificatione temporis tanquam parte materiati constare. Ideoque Copula Praedicati, quae hactenus pro Copula vera et genuina est habita, nullo modo pro Copula haberi debet; sed est materialis pars Praedicati, materialiter, pro Termino scil. accepti. REGULA II. In omni Enunciatione simplici Subiectum et Praedicatum per genuinam et veram COPULAM uniri et componi debet.
22. Cf. Angelelli, 'On Johannes Raue's Logic', p. 188.
23. Roncaglia, Palaestra Rationis, p. 143.
24. Concerning the commune tertium Raue writes (Raue, Prior Fundamentalis Controversia pro Logica Novissima, pp. 166-7): 'Omnis ille, cui attribuitur τò esse philosophum.est idem ille, cui attribuitur to esse naturae consultum. Ubi ilia quae attribuuntur, sunt duo termini et illud cui attribuuntur, est commune tertium. Cui communi tertio propterea attribuitur terminus praedicati quia scilicet attribuatur ei terminus subiecti.'
25. Cf. Raue, Prior Fundamental is Controversia pro Logica Novissima, p. 404.
26. Cf. J. Scharfius, Manuale loglcum (Wittebergae, 1652) (Praecognita de copula propositionis, f. 9v).
27. Cf. Angelelli, 'Techniques of Disputation', p. 808.
28. On this point and, more generally, on the part played by the analogia Trinitatis in Leibniz's thinking, see M.R. Antognazza, 'Die Rolle der Trinitats- und Menschwerdungsdiskussionen für die Entstehung von Leibniz' Denken', Stadia Leibnitiana 26, 1 (1994): 56-75 (esp. pp. 67-75);
29. M.R. Antognazza, 'Immeatio and Emperichoresis. The Theological Roots of Harmony in Bisterfeld and Leibniz', in S. Brown (ed.), The Young Leibniz, and his Philosophy, 1646-1676 (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999), pp. 41-64;
30. and Antognazza, Trinita e Incarnazione, esp. pp. 32-40; 83; 105-16; 181-8: 245-8.
31. On the fundamentum relationis cf. M. Mugnai, Leibniz' Theory of Relations (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992) (esp. chapters II and III).
32. Cf. Remarques sur le livre d'un Antitrinitaire Anglois, in Antognazza, 'Inediti leibniziani', p. 550: Nostre Esprit meme nous donne quelque image de cela, et pour rendre ces notions plus aisées par quelque chose d'approchant, je ne trouve dans les creatures rien de plus propre à éclaircir ce sujet, que la Reflexion des Esprits, lors qu'un même Esprit est son propre objet immediat, et agit sur soy méme en pensant à soy et à ce qu'il fait. Car ce redoublement donne une image ou ombre de deux substances respectives dans une même substance absolue; sçavoir de celle qui entend, et de celle qui est entendue; Tun et l'autre de ces estres est substantiel. Tun et l'autre est un concret individu; et ils different par des relations mutuelles mais ils ne font qu'une seule et meme substance individuelle absolue.