Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Leibniz, God and Necessity
  • Cited by 4
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
December 2012
Print publication year:
2012
Online ISBN:
9781139022286
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022286
Subjects:
Philosophy of Religion, Religion, Early Modern Philosophy, Philosophy
Information

Book description

Leibniz states that 'metaphysics is natural theology', and this is especially true of his metaphysics of modality. In this book, Michael V. Griffin examines the deep connection between the two and the philosophical consequences which follow from it. Grounding many of Leibniz's modal conceptions in his theology, Griffin develops a new interpretation of the ontological argument in Leibniz and Descartes. This interpretation demonstrates that their understanding God's necessary existence cannot be construed in contemporary modal logical terms. He goes on to develop a necessitarian interpretation of Leibniz, arguing that Leibniz, like Spinoza, is committed to the thesis that everything actual is metaphysically necessary, but that Leibniz rejects Spinoza's denial of God's moral perfection. His book will appeal to scholars of early modern philosophy and philosophers interested in modal metaphysics and the philosophy of religion.

Reviews

'… provides an interesting and thought-provoking revision to the ontological argument, understood not as a logical demonstration but as a search for the (not strictly logical) reasons grounding God’s existence. Griffin’s book is admirably clear and concise and should be accessible to advanced students and scholars of any field.'

Larry M. Jorgensen Source: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Contents

Contents
References

References

Primary literature

Alvarez, Diego. 1610. De Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae et Humani Arbitrii Viribus, et Libertate, ac Legitima Eius cum Efficacia Eorundem Auxiliorum Concordia. Libri Duodecim. Rome: Apud Stephanum Paulinum.
Alvarez, Diego and Bañez Domingo, et al. 1968. “Apologia en Defensa de la Doctrina Antigua y Católica por los Maestros Dominicos de la Provincia de España Contra las Afirmaciones Contenidas en la ‘Concordia’ de Luis de Molina Sobre la Gracia, Praesciencia Divina, Providencia, Predestinacion y Reprobacion.” In Domingo Bañez y las Controversias Sobre la Gracia. Textos y Documentos, ed. Vincente Beltran de Heredia. Salamanca: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 115–378.
Bañez, Domingo. 1934. Scholastica commentaria in primam partem summae theologiae S. Thomae Aquinitatis, ed. Luis Urbano OP. Valencia: Biblioteca de Tomistas Españoles. Reprinted, Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Reprint Library, 1965.
Fonseca, Petrus. 1615. Commentariorum in libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Stagiritae. Cologne, 1615.
Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press.
Molina, Luis. 1935. “De Scientia Dei.” In Neue Molinaschriften, ed. Friedrich Stegmüller. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 32. Münster:Aschendorff.
Molina, Luis 1953. Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione concordia, ed. Johann Rabeneck. Oña and Madrid: Collegium Maximum S. I. English translation of Disputations 47–53: On Divine Foreknowledge. Part iv of the Concordia, ed. Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca, NY and London, Cornell University Press, 1988. (Abbreviated as “Concordia.” Cited by Disputation and section, as given in Rabeneck and Freddoso, or Disputation, part and section, in the case of Disputation 53.)
Suarez, Francisco. 1858a. “De scientia Dei futurorum contingentium.” In Opera Omnia, vol. xi, ed. Carol Berton. Paris: Vivès. (I have corrected some passages by the 1600 Mainz edition: Varia opuscula theologica, Apud Balthasarum Lippium, Sumptibus Arnoldi Mylii.)
Suarez, Francisco 1858b. Opera Omnia, Carol Berton, ed. Paris: Vivès.
Suarez, Francisco 1948. “De scientia conditionalium. Un tratado inéditos de Suárez sobre la cienca media,” ed. Severino González Rivas. In Miscelánea Comillas 9: 59–132.
Suarez, Francisco 2002. On Creation, Conservation, and Concurrence: Metaphysical Disputations 20, 21, and 22. Trans. with introduction by Alfred J. Freddoso. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2002.
Zumel, Francisco. 1597. In primam D. Thomae Partem Commentaria. Venice: Apud Floravantem Pratum.

Secondary literature

Adams, Robert M. 1971. “The Logical Structure of Anselm’s Arguments.” Philosophical Review 80: 28–54.
Adams, Robert M. 1977. “Middle Knowledge and the Problem of Evil.” In Adams, The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 77–93.
Adams, Robert M. 1994. Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York: Oxford University Press.
Adams, Robert M. 2005. “Moral Necessity.” In Leibniz: Nature and Freedom, ed. Jan Cover and Donald Rutherford. New York: Oxford University Press, 181–93.
Anfray, Jean-Pascal. 2003. “God’s Decrees and Middle Knowledge: Leibniz and the Jesuits.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76: 647–70.
Bennett, Jonathan. 1984. A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Bennett, Jonathan 1994. “Descartes’s Theory of Modality.” Philosophical Review 104: 639–67.
Bennett, Jonathan 1996. “Spinoza’s Metaphysics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, ed. Don Garrett. Cambridge University Press, 61–88.
Blumenfeld, David. 1973. “Leibniz’s Theory of the Striving Possibles.” Studia Leibnitiana 5: 163–77.
Blumenfeld, David 1985. “Leibniz on Contingency and Infinite Analysis.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45: 483–514.
Blumenfeld, David 1995. “Leibniz’s Ontological and Cosmological Arguments.” In The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, ed. Nicholas Jolley. Cambridge University Press, 353–81.
Brown, Gregory. 1995. “Miracles in the Best of All Possible Worlds: Leibniz’s Dilemma and Leibniz’s Razor.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 12: 19–39.
Carriero, John. 1993. “Leibniz on Infinite Resolution and Intra-Mundane Contingency. Part One: Infinite Resolution.” Studia Leibnitiana 25: 1–26.
Carriero, John 1995. “Leibniz on Infinite Resolution and Intra-Mundane Contingency. Part Two: Necessity, Contingency, and the Divine Faculties.” Studia Leibnitiana 27: 1–30.
Cover, J. A. and O’Leary-Hawthorne, J. 1999. Substance and Individuation in Leibniz. Cambridge University Press.
Curley, Edwin. 1972. “The Root of Contingency.” In Frankfurt, ed., 438–64.
Curley, Edwin 1978. Descartes against the Skeptics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Curley, Edwin 1984. “Descartes on the Creation of the Eternal Truths.” Philosophical Review 93: 569–97.
Curley, Edwin 1988. Behind the Geometrical Method. Princeton University Press.
Curley, Edwin and Walski, Gregory. 1999. “Spinoza’s Necessitarianism Reconsidered.” In New Essays on the Rationalists, ed. Charles Huenemann. Oxford University Press, 241–63.
D’Agostino, Fred. 1976. “Leibniz on Compossibility and Relational Predicates.” Philosophical Quarterly 103: 125–38.
Davidson, Jack. 1996. “Untying the Knot: Leibniz on God’s Knowledge of Future Contingents.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 13: 89–116.
Della Rocca, Michael. 2002. “Spinoza’s Substance Monism.” In Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes, ed. Olli Koistinen and John Biro. Oxford University Press, 11–37.
Doney, Willis. 1991. “Descartes’s Argument from Omnipotence.” In Descartes: Critical Assessments, vol. iii, ed. Georges J. D. Moyal. London and New York: Routledge, 371–80.
Flint, Thomas. 1988. “Two Accounts of Providence.” In Divine and Human Action, ed. Thomas V. Morris. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 147–81.
Frankfurt, Harry, ed. 1972. Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Frankfurt, Harry. 1977. “Descartes on the Creation of the Eternal Truths.” Philosophical Review 86: 36–57.
Freddoso, Alfred J. 1988. “Introduction.” In Luis de Molina: On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia), trans. and ed. Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1–81.
Fried, Dennis. 1978. “Necessity and Contingency in Leibniz.” Philosophical Review 87: 575–84.
Garber, Daniel. 2009. Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad. Oxford University Press.
Garrett, Don. 1979. “Spinoza’s ‘Ontological Argument.’” Philosophical Review 88: 198–223.
Garrett, Don 1991. “Spinoza’s Necessitarianism.” In God and Nature in Spinoza’s Metaphysics, ed. Yirmiahu Yovel. Leiden: Brill, 191–218.
Geach, P. T. 1977. Providence and Evil. Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, Ian. 1982. “A Leibnizian Theory of Truth.” In Hooker, ed., 185–95.
Hintikka, Jaako. 1972. “Leibniz on Plenitude, Relations and ‘The Reign of Law.’” In Frankfurt, ed., 155–90.
Hooker, Michael, ed. 1982. Leibniz: Critical and Interpretive Essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hunter, Graeme. 1985. “Compossibility, Space-Time and Possible Worlds.” In Early Modern Philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology and Politics, ed. Georges J. D. Moyal and Stanley Tweyman. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 231–64.
Jarrett, Charles. 1978. “Leibniz on Truth and Contingency.” In New Essays on Rationalism and Empiricism, ed. Charles E. Jarrett, John King-Farlow and Francis J. Pelletier, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 4: 83–100.
Kenny, Anthony. 1969. “Descartes’ Ontological Argument.” In Fact and Existence, ed. Joseph Margolis. University of Toronto Press, 18–26. (This book also includes discussion of Kenny’s article by Terence Penelhum, Ernest Sosa and Bernard Williams.)
Knebel, Sven. 1996. “Leibniz, Middle Knowledge, and the Intricacies of World Design.” Studia Leibnitiana 28: 199–210.
Koistenin, Olli and Repo, Arto. 1999. “Compossibility and Being in the Same World in Leibniz’s Metaphysics.” Studia Leibnitiana 31: 196–214.
Kripke, Saul. 1971. “Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic.” In Reference and Modality, ed. L. Linksy. Oxford University Press, 63–72.
Laerke, Mogens. 2011. “Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93(1): 58–84.
Lewis, David. 1979. “Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow.” Noûs 13: 455–76. Reprinted in expanded form in Conditionals, ed. Frank Jackson. Oxford University Press, 1991, 46–75.
Lewis, David 1986. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Loewer, Barry. 1978. “Leibniz and the Ontological Argument.” Philosophical Studies 34: 105–9.
McDonough, Jeffrey. 2010. “Leibniz and the Puzzle of Incompossibility: The Packing Strategy.” Philosophical Review 119: 135–63.
Mann, William E. 1972. “The Ontological Presuppositions of the Ontological Argument.” Review of Metaphysics 26: 260–77.
Margolis, Joseph, ed. 1969. Fact and Existence. University of Toronto Press.
Marion, Jean-Luc. 2003. “The Idea of God.” In The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, vol. ii, ed. Michael Ayers and Daniel Garber. Cambridge University Press, 265–304.
Mates, Benson. 1972a. “Leibniz on Possible Worlds.” In Frankfurt, ed., 335–64.
Mates, Benson 1972b. “Individuals and Modality in the Philosophy of Leibniz.” Studia Leibnitiana 4: 81–118.
Mates, Benson 1986. The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mates, Benson 1989. “Leibnizian Possible Worlds and Related Modern Concepts.” In The Leibniz Renaissance, ed. Centro Fiorentino di Storia e Filosofia Della Scienza. Florence: Olschki, 173–90.
Messina, James and Rutherford, Donald 2009. “Leibniz on Compossibility.” Philosophy Compass 6: 962–77.
Miner, Robert C. 2002. “The Dependence of Descartes’ Ontological Proof upon the Doctrine ofCausa Sui.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 58: 873–86.
Mondadori, Fabrizio. 1973. “Reference, Essentialism and Modality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics.” Studia Leibnitiana 5: 74–101.
Mondadori, Fabrizio 1993. “Some Disputed Questions in Leibniz’s Metaphysics.” Studia Leibnitiana 5: 153–73.
Mondadori, Fabrizio 1994. “Leibniz against the Society: Futurabilia without Scientia Media.” In Leibniz und Europa: VI Internationaliter Leibniz-Kongreß, ed. Albert Heinekamp. Langenhagen: Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz Gesellschaft, 495–504.
Murray, Michael. 1995. “Leibniz on Divine Foreknowledge of Future Contingents and Human Freedom.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55: 75–108.
Murray, Michael 2005. “Spontaneity and Freedom in Leibniz.” In Leibniz: Nature and Freedom, ed. Jan Cover and Donald Rutherford. New York: Oxford University Press, 194–216.
Nachtomy, Ohad. 2007. Possibility, Agency and Individuality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Normore, Calvin. 1982. “Future Contingents.” In The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, ed. Anthony Kenny, Norman Kretzmann and Jan Pinborg. Cambridge University Press, 358–80.
Normore, Calvin 1985. “Divine Omniscience, Omnipotence and Future Contingents: An Overview.” In Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy, ed. Tamar Rudavsky. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 3–22.
Normore, Calvin 1986. “Meaning and Objective Being: Descartes and His Sources.” In Essays on Descartes’ Meditations, ed. Amélie O. Rorty. Berkeley: California University Press, 223–42.
Normore, Calvin 1991. “Descartes’s Possibilities.” In Descartes: Critical Assessments, vol. iii, ed. Georges J. D. Moyal. London and New York: Routledge, 68–83.
Parkinson, G. H. R. 1965. Logic and Reality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rescher, Nicholas. 1967. The Philosophy of Leibniz. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Humanities Press.
Rescher, Nicholas 1981. “Leibniz on the Creation and Evaluation of Possible Worlds.” In Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Nature, ed. Rescher. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1–19.
Rescher, Nicholas 1996. “Leibniz on Possible Worlds.” Studia Leibnitiana 28: 129–62.
Robinson, H. M. 1992. “Varieties of Ontological Argument and Kant’s Objections.” Annales 24: 57–76 (an updated version of the paper is forthcoming in the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion).
Russell, Bertrand. 1937. Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz, 2nd edn. London: Allen and Unwin.
Rutherford, Donald. 1995. Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Secada, Jorge. 1990. “Descartes on Time and Causality.” Philosophical Review 99: 45–72.
Shields, Christopher. 1986. “Leibniz’s Doctrine of Striving Possibles.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 24: 343–59.
Sleigh, Robert. 1982. “Truth and Sufficient Reason in the Philosophy of Leibniz.” In Hooker, ed., 209–42.
Sleigh, Robert 1990. Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on Their Correspondence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sleigh, Robert 1994. “Leibniz on Divine Foreknowledge.” Faith and Philosophy 11: 547–71.
Sleigh, Robert 1996. “Leibniz’s First Theodicy.” Philosophical Perspectives 10: 481–99.
Sleigh, Robert 1999. “Leibniz on Freedom and Necessity: Critical Notice of Robert Adams, Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist.” Philosophical Review 108: 245–77.
Sleigh, Robert 2009. “Moral Necessity in Leibniz’s Account of Human Freedom.” In Metaphysics and the Good, ed. Samuel Newlands and Larry M. Jorgensen. New York: Oxford University Press, 252–71.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. “A Theory of Conditionals.” In Studies in Logical Theory, ed. Nicholas Rescher. Oxford: Blackwell, 98–112.
Wilson, Catherine. 1989. Leibniz’s Metaphysics: A Historical and Comparative Study. Manchester University Press.
Wilson, Catherine 2001. “Plenitude and Compossibility in Leibniz.” Leibniz Review 10: 1–20.
Wilson, Margaret. 1979. “Possible Gods.” Review of Metaphysics 32: 717–33.
Wilson, Margaret 1982. Descartes. London: Routledge.
Wilson, Margaret 1999. Ideas and Mechanism: Essays on Early Modern Philosophy. Princeton University Press.
Wippel, John. 1981. “The Reality of Nonexisting Possibles According to Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, and Godfrey of Fontaines.” Review of Metaphysics 33: 729–58.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.