Skip to main content
Log in

Chemistry and dynamics in the thought of G.W. Leibniz II

  • Published:
Foundations of Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Is Leibnizian dynamics the New Physics sought in his youth to provide a solution to the problem of body unity/composition? This question can only be answered tentatively. The thesis that I will develop in this second part is that chemical-combinatoria project is not complete without some ideas of dynamics. The idea of form, which since the early Leibniz’s philosophy is projected to give a foundation to the corpuscular theory, only reaches this objective with the theory of conspiring movements that Leibniz develops as the last phase of his dynamics. Within this general objective, this second part develops three secondary issues of importance: Leibniz’s emergent and realistic position, his theory of compounds and the interpretation of the Combinatoria or Characteristica project as a science of forms.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first reference corresponds to the edition of the text in the original, the second to the translation used. For the abbreviations of the original editions see the list of references at the end of the paper.

  2. This merological conception of compounds is found in De Plantis by Gassendi (Wilson 1995, p. 117), an author well known to Boyle (Clericuzio 1990, p. 571) and Leibniz.

  3. For an interpretation of Spinoza that saves this problem see: Matheron 1969 (première partie) and Merçon 2012.

  4. This debate has an added interest for the history and philosophy of chemistry. One of its sources is the problem of the origin and nature of the pharmacological properties of plants and various compounds. These properties were interpreted either following the reductionist option, or the emergent option, or giving them a divine origin. The problem goes back to ancient medicine, but is equally debated between the authors of the Renaissance and early modernity (Blank 2018). The Latin word ‘eductio’ designates in this context the idea of emergence. This idea goes back to Aristotle, Galen and Alexander of Aphrodisias, and reaches modernity directly or through many of their commentators (Caston 1997; Blank 2017). A. Blank argues that this idea of emergence is not present in Boyle’s or Leibniz’s theory of compound bodies (Blank 2017, p. 8). However, Blank does not provide arguments in favour of his thesis, so I assume that he follows the most widespread opinion that identifies Leibniz’s and Boyle’s positions with mechanism in the context of understanding bodies and the origin of their qualities.

  5. Leibniz also speaks on many occasions about these topics. For example, on the transmutation of the salts, the correspondence with J.A. Stisser is interesting (Dutens collects in its edition the most relevant fragments commented by J.A. Schmidii: see Dutens II, pp. 121-127, but these letters are already available in the edition of the Academy: A III, 7 and 8).

  6. This same chemical process is referred to by Spinoza as one of those analyzed by Boyle. Leibniz recounts in another text the different processes of separation of salt and fresh water and their possible usefulness (Dutens II, pp. 108–109).

  7. Something about which no interpreter of Leibniz had ever called attention and which has very significant implications for his ontology.

  8. «Omnis forma est attributum homoeomeres.» (A VI, 4, p. 2016).

  9. See Esquisabel 2008 (I partially follow his interpretation).

  10. This typology of requirements is developed in the ideas of metaphysical point, physical point and mathematical point (see e.g. GP IV, 483).

  11. It behoves us to add that this idea is already present in Bacon, who speaks about consensus (or correspondence, similarity, sympathy) between motions (and schematisms). He gives an example of the consensus existing between tide movements and planetary movements. Just as in Leibniz’s case, Bacon’s intention is to eliminate from the corpuscular theory the idea of determination of the global level by the local one (as atomism does) and to extend the understanding of corpuscular systems through the all-parts or global–local dialectics (on Bacon’s relationship with atomism, see Manzo 2006, 127–161). The strategy of both scholars relies on their interpretation of the notion of texture or schematism, which allows them to explain the relations between micro- and macrocosm.

  12. It appears already in the Essay de Dynamique sur les loix du mouvement, written approximately in 1699 (GM VI, p. 226).

  13. Letters 22, 58, 59 and 108.

  14. And he also says a little further: «And this flow creates a kind of vortex or whirl, related to the patterns we observe around a magnet.» (GP III, p. 520).

  15. For this discussion of living force, see GM VI, pp. 238–239.

  16. Leibniz says that at the moment of composition of forces (conatuses), that is, during change, potency acts upon form (GM VI, pp. 240–241); he also claims that form «can be explained intelligibly by the mere notion of forces (GM VI, p. 242) and that only by introducing a formal principle in masses do we manage to explain «the reasons for the order of things» (GM VI, p. 241). In the discussion he had at the same time with the animist G.E. Stahl, Leibniz defines chemistry as a science not of structures but of masses (Dutens II, p. 139). In this work, Leibniz connects chemistry with medicine and with his conception of the organism. The following works can be consulted on this conception of chemistry: Duchesneau and Smith 2016, Introduction; Carvallo 2010; Smets 2008.

  17. Quoted in Orio de Miguel (2007, p. 718) and his commentary on the same page: «if solidity is to be an explainable quality, it can only be done through motion, because only motion guarantees diversity and heterogeneity of bodies. However, such motion requires an internal force of each particle in order that the parts of matter unite and separate. All movement is, therefore, conspiring in certain mass to the extent that there is a rule or law relating its mobile parts and it is modified in proportion to the rule becoming more complex. We can thus conclude that all bodies have a certain degree of solidity and flexibility (GM II, p. 148).» «[…] What is more, according to the established metaphysical principle, any body or particle can be considered solid, rigid or hard and, at the same time, but from a different perspective, fluid, soft, flexible, depending on the action trying to subdue or divide it […] Matter would thus be heterogeneous and endowed with a perpetual variety, in which we will never find a slightest particle uniform in its parts […] The subtleness and variety increase ad infinitum in creatures, and this is in accordance with reason and order.» (GM II, p. 156).

  18. Vortex’ and ‘tourbillon’ are the words used by Leibniz (see for instance GP III, pp. 505,509,520); they also appear in the discussion with Stahl together with the idea of conspiring motions: «all corporeal nature consists in a certain way of vortexes, both big and small, of fluids; thus, the very firmness of bodies arises from the conspiring motion of fluid bodies, which generates some cohesion, so that a body cannot separate from another one without certain resistance.» (Dutens II, p. 147).

  19. ‘From where [the Law of Continuity] it follows that laws of motion must be formulated in such a way that particular rules for like bodies in rest should not be necessary, but rather they should emerge from the rules for unlike bodies in motion’ (GM VI, p. 249). And also this interesting excerpt: ‘What is more, not only whirlpools or bubbles (once the core is removed), but also all the cohesions of primigenial consistence and, to put it this way, the tissues proper to things and the bases of textures of each mass, are originated by the coordinated reason of movement, and by the formed causes of the first solidity—only then there is also more or less contact of bodies (which already possess certain solidity) given the primary solidity; and therefore, given the cohesion of what offers resistance, we can arrive at proportions. That is to say, motion or, if you prefer, driving force, is the sole thing dividing matter, rendering it heterogeneous, from which, union and disunion being properly continuous and uniform, certain shapes and parts in it cannot be understood differently, whether real or determined in act. And this is the case of the Principle of Cohesion, just as fluidity arises from random movement and firmness from coordinated movement, as we explained on one occasion; or, since nothing is so fluid that it should lack any solidity whatsoever and nothing is so solid that it should not possess any degree of fluidity; this is because nomenclatures are made attending to what is important for the senses.’ (GM VI, p. 198).

  20. Leibniz says that, indeed, if it were the case that the speed or the motion of particles were infinite, the force binding them would be such that we could speak about the existence of physical atoms, that is, perfectly hard bodies; however, since such things do not take place in nature, we have to reject the atomic hypothesis for explaining phenomena. Leibniz refuses to construe his dynamics in terms of a mechanics of solids – from his point of view, in doing so, we would be taking the effect (hardness, cohesion, resistance) for the cause. The error of postulating a primitive hardness, resistance, heat or activity is the main reproach addressed by Leibniz to Hartsoeker (see Letter XVI: GP III, p. 532ff).

  21. Leibniz speaks in such cases of ‘inert matrixes’ or ‘inanimate geometry’ (Dutens II, p. 222).

  22. In Protogaea, Leibniz says: «Every day, I see minerals arising (whether in a natural manner or artificially), that is, traces of different metals {from ‘mother rocks’ and by the ‘action of fire’; see Dutens II, pp. 208,212}; however, I will refrain from any claims concerning these metals, because I do not want to pass judgment on the secrets of nature too hastily» (Dutens II, pp. 210,212). Leibniz adds that nature, just as a chemist, can only make react these species with each other and at most recover them by means of other reactions, but never produce them in the strict sense. However, further on, Leibniz claims: «I shall not put in question that, just as alum and vitriol placed in the same vessel acquire regular forms once a part of the liquid evaporates as a result of heat, we can also see arise many bodies with the hardness of a rock when a solution of completely liquid matter reverts to the solid state when the liquid or the heat are reduced. […] given the crystallisation power of cold, liquid matter immediately acquires forms and angles. However, there are other bodies, which, dissolved (not only through water, but through fire as well) from their liquid state and even from vapour, adopt the form of solid bodies by a natural geometrical artifice» (Dutens II, p. 211). Just as in the case of chemical species, Leibniz delineates in this work a research project capable of shedding light upon these inanimate geometries: «We shall have to examine everything carefully until we determine which phenomena are attributable exclusively to water, which ones exclusively to heat and which ones have to be attributed to both. We shall have to explain whether the phenomenon was produced by fusion or sublimation, whenever we deal with dry works and in case of water dissolution, whether the dominant process was that of precipitation or crystallisation. Sometimes crystals obtained by sublimation are considered results of fusion. I would like to apply to this research project the microscopic discoveries due to Leeuwenhoeg, a wise and diligent philosopher from Delft. I am often outraged by human indolence which does not deign to open its eyes and appropriate the offerings of science, but, if I am not wrong, Leeuwenhoek already has followers.» (Dutens II, p. 214).

  23. Leibniz claims that the integrity of the ‘vital movement’ is due to the relation between organic folds and masses («the principle of movement is comprised in matter through organs») and it is based on this relation that the active unity can increase or reduce energy in an animal body (Dutens II, p. 149).

  24. Deleuze (1988, pp. 13–14).

References

  • Blank, A.: Protestant natural philosophy and the question of emergence, 1540–1615. Magyar Filozófiai Szemle 2, 7–22 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, A.: Sixteenth-century pharmacology and the controversy between reductionism and emergentism. Perspect. Sci. 26, 157–184 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caston, V.: Epiphenomenalisms, ancient and modern. Philos. Rev. 106(3), 309–363 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvallo, S.: Leibniz vs. Stahl: a controversy well beyond medicine and chemistry. In: Dascal, M. (ed.) The Practice of Reason. Leibniz and his Controversies, pp. 101–136. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clericuzio, A.: A redefinition of Boyle’s chemistry and corpuscular philosophy. Ann. Sci. 47, 561–589 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G.: Le Pli. Leibniz et le Baroque. Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris (1988)

  • Duchesneau, F., Smith, J.E.H.: The Leibniz-Stahl Controversy. Yale University Press, New Haven and London (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Esquisabel, O.M.: Leibniz’s science of forms as a structural science and similarity as its central concept. CLE e-Prints. 8(6) (2008). https://www.cle.unicamp.br/eprints/index.php/CLE_e-Prints/article/view/925

  • Leibniz, G.W.: [A] Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Ed. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Akademie Verlag, Darmstadt/Leipzig/Berlin (1923)

  • Leibniz, G.W.: [Couturat] Opuscules et fragments inédits (extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Hanovre). Ed. by L. Couturat. Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim (1966)

  • Leibniz, G.W.: [Dutens] G.G. Leibnitii Opera Omnia. L. Dutens (ed.). 6 vols. Ginebra (1768. Reimpr.: Olms, Hildesheim 1989)

  • Leibniz, G.W.: [GM] Mathematische Schriften. C.I. Gerhardt (ed.). 7 vols. Berlin, (1849–63) (Hildesheim, 1872)

  • Leibniz, G.W.: [GP] Die philosophischen Schriften. C.I. Gerhardt (ed.). 7 vols. Berlin (1875–90) (Hildesheim, 1960–61)

  • Manzo, S.: Entre el atomismo y la alquimia: la teoría de la materia de Francis Bacon. Biblos, Buenos Aires (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Matheron, A.: Individu et Communauté chez Spinoza. Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Merçon, J.: La filosofía de Spinoza y el pensamiento sistémico contemporáneo. Revista de Filosofía (Universidad Iberoamericana) 133, 83–101 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, W.R., Principe, L.M.: Alchemy tried in the fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the fate of Helmontian chymistry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2002)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orio de Miguel, B.: Leibniz. Matemática, Física, Metafísica. vols. I–III (2007). http://www.oriodemiguel.com. Accessed 17 May 2017

  • Smets, A.: The Controversy between Leibniz and Stahl on the Theory of Chemistry. In: Berotomeu-Sánchez, J.R. et al. (eds.) Neighbours and Territories. The Evolving Identity of Chemistry, The 6th International Conference on the History of Chemistry, pp. 291–306. Mémosciences, Louvain (2008)

  • Spinoza, B.: Opera. 4 vols. Ed. by C. Gebhardt. Carl Winter, Heidelberg (1972)

  • Wilson, C.: The invisible world: early modern philosophy and the invention of the microscope. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (1995)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (Grant No. FJCI-2017-33649, PID2019-104576GB-I00 and PGC2018-094692-B-I00), Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (Grant No. FJCI-2017-33649), Eusko Jaurlaritza (Grant No. IT1228-19).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Escribano-Cabeza.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Escribano-Cabeza, M. Chemistry and dynamics in the thought of G.W. Leibniz II. Found Chem 23, 3–16 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-020-09375-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-020-09375-3

Keywords

Navigation