Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: June 10, 2025
The synthesis to which they rose thus became capable of embracing everything. A divine mechanism made the phenomena of thought to correspond to those of extension, each to each, qualities to quantities, souls to bodies. It is this parallelism that we find both in Leibniz and in Spinoza in different forms, it is true, because of the unequal importance which they attach to extension.
Carey the only Sanskrit scholar in India besides Colebrooke The motive of the missionary scholar Plans translation of the sacred books of the East Comparative philology from Leibniz to Carey Hindoo and Mohammedan codes and colleges of Warren Hastings The Marquis Wellesley The College of Fort William founded Character of the Company's civil and military servants Curriculum of study, professors and teachers The vernacular languages Carey's account of the college and his appointment How he studied Sanskrit College Disputation Day in the new Government House Carey's Sanskrit speech Lord Wellesley's eulogy Sir James Mackintosh Carey's pundits He projects the Bibliotheca Asiatica On the Committee of the Bengal Asiatic Society Edition and translation of the Ramayana epic The Hitopadesa His Universal Dictionary Influence of Carey on the civil and military services W. B. Bayley; B. H. Hodgson; R. Jenkins; R. M. and W. Bird; John Lawrence.
Leibniz denied that he invoked God to intervene in nature, or that there was anything arbitrary or artificial about his physical theology. He was simply analysing nature and finding it to be a system of mutual representation; he was analysing mutual representation and finding it to be of its nature intrinsically pre-established, and therefore God-dependent.
Such are precisely the conclusions of a doctrine like that of Spinoza, or even that of Leibniz, and such indeed has been their genesis. Now, if we could prove that the idea of the nought, in the sense in which we take it when we oppose it to that of existence, is a pseudo-idea, the problems that are raised around it would become pseudo-problems.
In 1695 Leibniz was forty-nine years old. He had just emerged from a period of close employment under his prince's commands, and he thought fit to try his metaphysical principles upon the polite world and see what would come of it.
Fénélon, Flechier, and Bossuet, confessedly the ornaments of the Gallican church, lamented it. To the utmost of their power, they prevented the execution of the edict, and lessened its severities, when they could not prevent them. The Correspondence of Bossuet and Leibniz, under the auspices of Lewis the XIVth, for the Reunion of the Lutheran Protestants to the Roman Catholic Church.
It is a natural mistake for the student of seventeenth-century thought to underestimate the tenacity of scholastic Aristotelianism. Descartes, we all know, was reared in it, but then Descartes overthrew it; and he had done his work and died by the time that Leibniz was of an age to philosophize at all. We expect to see Leibniz starting on his shoulders and climbing on from there.
Ideas, on the other hand, have a natural tendency to represent one another, for to be an idea is to be a representation; God is not introduced by Leibniz to make them correspond, he is introduced to work a system in which they shall correspond.
But the really striking fact is surely that Greek mathematics became sterile in a comparatively short time, and that no further advance was made till the days of Descartes and Leibniz, with whom philosophy and mathematics once more went hand in hand. Nor was the effect of this divorce on philosophy itself less disastrous.
As a man with an idea, with a philosophical nostrum, Leibniz may be compared to Bishop Berkeley. There was never any more doubt that Leibniz was a Leibnitian than that Berkeley was a Berkeleian. But there is no comparison between the two men in the width of their range. About many things Berkeley never took the trouble to Berkeleianize.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking