戈特弗里德·威廉·冯·莱布尼茨的知识领域不能用一个词来概括。在他生命的大部分时间里，他是一名法学家、朝臣、外交官和图书管理员;他还对逻辑学、几何学、物理学、植物学、生理学、语言学，当然还有微积分的研究做出了巨大贡献。然而，他的许多观点对现代读者来说仍然是晦涩难懂的。单子到底是什么?为什么莱布尼茨如此关注所谓的充分理由原则?他怎么能声称这是所有可能的世界中最好的呢?John and Ken discuss the most important philosopher you know the least about with Daniel Garber from Princeton University, author ofLeibniz: Body, Substance, Monad.
约翰和肯指出，虽然大多数人对莱布尼茨知之甚少，但他的影响却非常深远，甚至影响到了硅谷最近的创新。即使他是一个天才，肯发现荒谬的莱布尼茨的想法，这个世界是所有可能的世界中最好的。约翰为莱布尼茨论证的逻辑合理性辩护。肯回应说，仅仅凭经验和常识就能清楚地说明莱布尼茨是错误的，但约翰回应说，我们的经验可能不足以衡量世界的整体美好。
John and Ken invite guest Daniel Garber, Professor of Philosophy from Princeton, and author ofLeibniz: Body, Substance, Monad. Discussing the best of all possible worlds argument, Daniel notes that behind it, there is the assumption that the world has meaning, that there is a reason why the world is the way it is. Ken puts this in the context of the Scientific Revolution, when the world began to be perceived as a mechanism. Daniel agrees on the importance of this context, especially since such a perception of the world jeopardized moral absolutes.
Returning to the best of all possible worlds argument, Daniel explains that it’s a purely logical argument separate from our experiences with the world. Ken asks what does Leibniz mean by good? The criterion is not pleasantness for human beings to live in; that is our parochial perspective. It is good in a much broader, metaphysical sense. This does mean that there is no particular comfort in learning that we live in the best of all possible worlds, which is something that Voltaire missed. Clarifying Leibniz for many of those who are unfamiliar with him, John shifts the conversation the what a Monad is and how it relates to the Cartesian conception of the self.
然后话题转移到我们这个时代是否能有另一个莱布尼茨。丹尼尔认为我们这个时代的个人可能永远不可能像莱布尼茨时代那样，综合不同的思想领域，因为这些思想领域已经变得更加技术化。
最后，丹尼尔评论了莱布尼茨关于空间相对论的早期概念，以及它是如何来自于他对上帝的充分理性原则的理解。此外，丹尼尔提到莱布尼茨可能是第一个关于无意识及其决定人类行为的概念。
Comments(35)
tartarthistle
Monday, June 6, 2022 -- 9:29 PM
"It is good in a much broader“[世界]在更广泛的、形而上学的意义上是好的”(见上文)。
Yes, that's one way to put it. A very abstract, dry, granola way to put it. Sometimes I wonder if philosophers have have lower parts--in the tripartite sense, as in physical bodies with physical body parts.
Just so you know, the world is good, I mean REAL good. Try it sometime. It's way better than bacon....
Daniel
Tuesday, June 7, 2022 -- 8:10 AM
--Then there must be a--Then there must be a sufficient reason for it. Is one discernible here? Do you fear a possible world in which you might be eaten?
tartarthistle
Tuesday, June 7, 2022 -- 11:57 AM
Some people enjoy being eatenSome people enjoy being eaten. I suppose it's one of those things that are relative to those involved. Sort of like, Do you prefer hotdogs or hamburgers? Oysters or clams? (Personally, I enjoy both.) Reason, being in the middle between the extremes of Plato's tripartite division, fits nicely here. Do you like heads or tails? Tops or bottoms?
原因都喜欢。理智有时会或多或少地倾向于任何一方，只是为了瞎胡闹……但大多数情况下都处于两个对立面之间……从中心位置看风景最好。非常有趣。问提瑞西阿斯。只是不要让赫拉听到他的回答。当别人说出她的秘密时，她会很生气....
Daniel
Tuesday, June 7, 2022 -- 2:02 PM
Your account here suggests你在这里的描述表明，最好的世界不包括培根。这是正确的吗?
tartarthistle
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 -- 6:41 AM
Bacon is fine. It's just thatBacon is fine. It's just that the world is better than, not equal to, bacon. Personally, bacon is not my thing. But slapped between two slices, covered in tomatoes, perhaps....
Daniel
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 -- 9:33 AM
--Perhaps it's included--Perhaps it's included because it's fine? Or perhaps it's fine because it's included? Your choice of bacon produces a contingent state of affairs which could have been otherwise. The preference for bacon furnishes a sufficient reason for its existence in the world of its consumer, but not everything that's connected with its existence independent of its consumer, describable as an option chosen by its creator among an infinity of other possible options. What's the sufficient reason in that case? Is it because it was the one which was chosen, or was it chosen because it's the best option even if it wasn't chosen?
Harold G. Neuman
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 -- 2:04 PM
This is an old kerfuffle...This is an old kerfuffle... so old, this tablet does not like kerfuffle. Oh, well. Old news is better than bad news. i guess. Linguists, take a hike...
Daniel
2022年6月8日，星期三——下午5:36
你知道答案吗?When你知道答案吗?当法官裁决时，她/他裁决是因为她/他是公正的，还是仅仅因为她/他裁决?是法官创造了正义的标准，还是她/他被迫服从已经存在的任何正义标准?正如你指出的，这个问题出现在柏拉图的《善论》中，但莱布尼茨也在寻找答案。这在他追求所有可能世界的最好的论点中扮演了一个角色。毕竟，如果上帝能从无限可能的世界中选择一个，那他就不必费心去创造世界了。按照客观标准，这些世界当然是最好的，而不是上帝自己创造的。另一方面，如果神能当场创造一个世界，那么就没有必要回顾所有可能的世界。那么，既然你上面的叙述表明你对这个问题进行了深思熟虑世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区的研究，而且已经排除了纯语言学的解释，那么你对解开这个古老的谜题有什么建议呢?
tartarthistle
Thursday, June 9, 2022 -- 6:56 AM
I suggest unrolling theI suggest unrolling the riddle. Or, better yet, rolling around in the riddle. I love a good roll. I suspect language loves a good roll as well. There are cinnamon rolls, sweet rolls, and rolls in the hay, and then there are the roles we play. Role-play is fun. Let's do that here. What would Leibniz say to the logical positivists, who strictly limited the ability of philosophers to roll around in the hay linguistically with one another? (Talk about a cold shower, that clever Wittgenstein was.) Let's role-play here. Oysters or clams? Or what about that bacon stuff? And tomatoes, let's not forget those pretty pretties...
Daniel
Thursday, June 9, 2022 -- 2:18 PM
The question has to do with问题是我们能做什么，发现什么已经做了。以角色扮演为例。这个角色之所以令人愉快，是因为它被扮演了，还是因为它是令人愉快的?很明显，两者都有。没有被扮演的角色不会对与之相关的愉快体验产生任何因果影响，但如果这是一个人不喜欢的角色，那么尝试扮演它可能会产生相反的效果。但是像正义这样的物体呢?这位在70年代初辞职的美国总统曾说过一句著名的话:“如果总统这么做，那就不违法。”在本体论神学方面，他是对的吗?你与逻辑实证主义的比较提出了一个与柏拉图的答案相反的回答。
tartarthistle
Friday, June 10, 2022 -- 8:12 AM
Or is it pleasant because还是因为人们现在正在玩游戏而感到愉快?Like us two..
点燃一根烟……
P.S. Who was Nixon "doing it" with/to? Perhaps he thought he was "doing it" to someone else and "getting the best" of them but in reality he got played by the actual source of justice and power and all that other good stuff...I wonder what Hera would have to say about all this? Hmm...
Daniel
Friday, June 10, 2022 -- 10:06 AM
"All this" seems to refer to“这一切”似乎指的比一个简单的问题更广泛一些。如果赫拉一直在跟踪这段简短的交流，在我看来，她会和我想的一样。这个问题真的复杂到没有人能给出答案吗?有趣的是，一些对话者，我将以你们的参与为例，似乎被哲学吓坏了，不得不嘲笑它，或者那些认真对待它的人，可能在他们自己的头脑中是一种摆脱义务的方式，去思考那些可能需要一些额外的努力，而不是人们习惯的花费。
As my example here is just of what something seems, not necessarily is, perhaps the question can be phrased in tripartite form (ala Plato), for purposes of clarity:
1) Do cigarettes kill you because you like them, or do you like them because they kill you?
a) Here the answer favors the former.
2) Does wine help your problem with student debt by making you feel better, or does student debt produce your wine problem because you feel rotten?
a) Here the answer favors the latter.
3) If Zeus was arrested for public intoxication and Hera was subsequently angry with him, was she angry because he violated a just law, or was she angry because he didn't have the foresight to make public intoxication legal before he got drunk?
a) Which possibility is favored here?
--Perhaps in this way the question can be fitted into a context in which you've expressed familiarity, so that, in the event of your reply, your readers and by extension the field of philosophy as a whole can be thereby enriched.
Tim Smith
Friday, June 10, 2022 -- 8:11 AM
Leibniz was queer.Leibniz was queer.
His society buried him in an unmarked grave. He wore funny wigs. Only about half his papers are known. The book if there ever is one, is only partially written.
Newton and Leibniz were both queer.
LGBTQ liberation, still more promising than reality today, would have possibly limited the genius of these two “universal” icons. Their incredible output comes from their sexual identities and expression; much is between the lines and not the sheets, as there is plenty of evidence of limited activity.
人类需要超越我们沙漠之父和无名之母的道路吗?我不知道。有时它帮助。它是莱布尼茨生命和遗产的驱动力，也就是你此刻正低头看着的UI。说句感谢的话是应该的，但我们应该推迟聚会。
路德维希和艾萨克都不是“万能”的天才，根本就没有这种东西，在这里谈论这个想法既没有帮助，也没有深思熟虑。丹尼尔·加伯对爱因斯坦的侧写完全是误导。莱布尼茨从未受到过爱因斯坦那样的影响，但如果我们将路德维希的注释归因于仔细审视，那么他的影响将更为重大，无论好坏。这里的病是微妙而方便的。
Semantic knowledge was characterized by Robert Anton Wilson, former editor for Playboy magazine, in Jesus units (the amount of semantic information at ~30AD.) In the time of Ludwig, there were 2 Jesus (unfortunately for his homeland, in a double entendre.) When I was born, there were 64 Jesus, and my back-of-the-envelope calculation says there are well over 3000 Jesus today. Jesuses of semantic information speak to Ken’s point about the specialness of Leibniz’s time. Those, and antiquity to boot, were simpler times that allowed small people to loom large.
他们的父母也抛弃了以撒和路德维希。他们只能从中世纪的学术传统中学习成人的情感，在那个可能比他们取得的成就更多的时代，这些传统养育并误导了他们。
Newton was bitter and small in a way Leibniz’s irenicism couldn’t fathom. Newton burned down the world and took Leibniz’s optimism with him. The fire glints in our modern sensibility that evil is an argument against the existence of God. Ludwig didn’t understand that argument and never lost his faith or fundamental premise that God was great. That ignorance is where Leibniz met Dr. Pangloss. Where Spinoza and Montaigne retreated, Leibniz advanced. It would have been sound to look for monads, and it did happen eventually. We don’t have to travel that path.
莱布尼茨读过安妮·康威夫人的书，他本可以对女性哲学家们更慷慨一些，但他不得不背负十字架。有一个故事说莱布尼茨是一个女性主义流派的代言人，这个流派还在生根发芽，我喜欢这个观点。
Daniel
Friday, June 10, 2022 -- 1:13 PM
With respect to the sixthWith respect to the sixth paragraph, second and third sentences above regarding the relation to Einstein, doesn't Leibniz argue for the relativity of space against Newton's contention that space must be "absolute", that is, identical independent of any particular location? In that case, Leibniz would seem to be a forerunner of Einstein's reinterpretation of cosmological data, once instruments for precision in observation became sufficient for its confirmation. In this respect, at least, your critique of Garber's comparison appears to be in error.
Tim Smith
Sunday, June 12, 2022 -- 11:15 PM
Ken asks Dan for examples ofKen asks Dan for examples of modern-era universal genius, not scions of Leibniz.
与莱布尼茨不同，爱因斯坦在他的时代受到了尊重，超出了他的能力范围，但很难说是这里所使用的那种普遍天才。他没有对许多不同的主题进行深入的探讨，他的兴趣也不广泛。
更重要的是，爱因斯坦像牛顿一样，有一年的奇迹，然后花了十年的时间掌握他的杰作所需的黎曼数学。莱布尼茨三十出头才开始读数学，直到遇到牛顿的小心眼，他才放慢速度，也从未遇到过傻瓜。
My critique is dead on in that respect even while possibly offbase and flat out wrong in others.
Daniel
Monday, June 13, 2022 -- 10:53 AM
But what about the difference但是绝对空间和相对于位置的空间有什么区别呢?莱布尼茨和爱因斯坦不都是后一种观点吗?
Tim Smith
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 -- 10:33 AM
Sorry, Daniel - I gotSorry, Daniel - I got sidetracked. You are on point here regarding Leibniz and Einstein and space. Leibniz was never in one boat or another, a point I have learned reading Garber’s book.
If we were to gift three camping chairs, three fiddles, three cell phones, and a Starlink to Newton, Einstein, and Leibniz, along with a cool summer campfire, all three would agree to the loose concept of relative space by morning.
如果给莱布尼茨几百年的时间来思考，他自己是不可能以半黎曼流形的形式出现在太空中的。在莱曼和恩斯特·马赫的帮助下，爱因斯坦打开了这扇门(其中很大一部分归功于他的第一任妻子米列娃·玛丽克)。
Leibniz pushed back on absolute space in a different context. That pushback alone might have sparked the idea for Einstein to find, I don’t know. Intellectual history is lost in forgotten moments and found in speculative campfires.
Daniel
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 -- 1:13 PM
So where does that leaveSo where does that leave Poincare's 1870 observation that the speed of light-propagation and the propagation of magnetic waves are roughly equivalent? Would that not support Leibniz's view that no two spaces can be exactly the same, and that even the relations between them become internal properties within them?
tartarthistle
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 -- 5:41 PM
Yes, there's only one.Yes, there's only one.
Tim Smith
Saturday, June 18, 2022 -- 2:41 PM
Poincare is to Einstein as庞加莱之于爱因斯坦就像胡克之于牛顿。
It is one thing to suggest an idea. No person is an island in that respect, including Leibniz, who suggests he sprang forth without parentage.
It is a different matter to present a new model. In this case, Poincare suggests and Hooke suggests and Leibniz suggests. The real proof and statement happen when suggestion becomes thesis become models that make predictions.
I could be wrong, I don't think Poincare disavowed Newtonian space nor took relativity seriously in that respect. Nor did Poincare make pointed and testable predictions. Einstein himself credits Poincare, but so did Newton credit Hooke. Doing the work, even if theoretical, is the issue. In these two cases, Einstein and Newton, the work is definitively borne by them and not by Poincare or Hooke.
The nature of light and relativity are getting muddled here. Maxwell and Faraday predate Poincare in the unification of light and electromagnetics. Relativity and space weren't a part of that unification, while the relative speed of light was. Einstein made relativity simple so that anyone who can read his work can understand special relativity, light, time, and space.
Daniel
Tuesday, June 21, 2022 -- 8:42 AM
恰恰相反。Special恰恰相反。狭义相对论是经典相对论，它有一个特殊的参照系。在表达它的吝啬源于所表达的东西，而不需要提及一个单独的研究者。但你说得对，狭义相对论，作为一种理论，不是庞加莱在他的发现中观察到的一部分，因为它是由对应证明的运动定律。作为这样一个更接近于普通直觉的对应的例子，考虑这样一个事实:水在一个特定的温度下沸腾，而在另一个温度下结冰。在任何时候都有可能在冰中从液态转变为固态，在蒸汽中从液态转变为气态。但这两种可能性永远不会同时出现。只有当人们把它们一起解释为属于水的内在属性或永恒的可能性时，人们才能用自然法则来表达这种行为。庞加莱声称观察到的是，在靠近磁铁的铁屑上，力线的因果传递速度等于或非常接近光速。由于这种传输不是发生在某种物质中，而是(原则上)发生在真空中，自然法则可以说是表达了空间相对于物质的行为或粒子的运动。
Tim Smith
Thursday, June 23, 2022 -- 10:59 AM
We would need to agree onWe would need to agree on “classical” here, and we are not.
Einstein was no universal genius, but he was a genius.
光以不同的速度穿过不同的材料，但只有在真空中才能以最高速度穿过。从任何参照系(而不是特权参照系)观察到的最高速度，才是这里的“特殊”之处。
Air viewed as a vacuum is as deceptive as that of space as absolute. I would have to read much more about Poincare to understand Einstein’s debt to his insight, and Einstein did this himself in his later years.
I would not understand space, time, and spacetime without Einstein. Whether others would have made those leaps, I don’t know, but it is likely. Did previous thinkers like Poincare? No, they did not, even as they might have suggested it.
水分子中没有固体、气体或液体。这种转变与其他分子、参照系、环境和涌现有关。
Science is prescriptive on the level of theory and law. Describing any science as parsimonious is emblematic of the conflict between Newton and Leibniz. That this conflict never need have been is as regrettable as using parsimony to explain the theory of special relativity.
Intellectual history, science, and philosophy are three different links in the chain of understanding. Leibniz’s time and gifts are links in that chain, while his scholastic upbringing isn’t so vital.
Daniel
Friday, June 24, 2022 -- 10:40 AM
Poppycock. Occam's razor isPoppycock. Occam's razor is a scholastic principle, and Leibniz arrived at space-relativity in very large part by reducing the number of elements to explain his position to one. Poincare's famous observation showed that light need not be understood in terms of waves, but could be better described by the motions of particles, and therefore doesn't require a medium of transmission, like an aether which fills space. The notion that the speed of causal transmission can be, in the case of light, constant in all directions without reference to the motion of its source, is understood in the context of movement in a vacuum, and has nothing to do with saying air has to be a vacuum also in order to sufficiently demonstrate the premise under terrestrial conditions. But your remarks which are most pertinent to my point occur in the third paragraph from the end. Let's say Leibniz gets caught in the rain on his way to the office, getting his wig wet so that he has to go back to his residence and get a dry one. Are you asserting that this would be a mistake on Leibniz's part, and that his wig never really got wet, because he hadn't read Dalton?
Tim Smith
Monday, June 27, 2022 -- 7:36 AM
You are welcome and欢迎您的意见，我很荣幸。
奥卡姆的剃刀不是用来挂假发的钉子，也不是经院哲学的支柱。相反，它是一种启发式，仅在上下文中有意义，而不是一种信条或信条，无论它是科学的还是学术的，即使剃刀被认为是学者的。选择更简单的道路只是因为它足够好;在科学上，这足以解释观察;在学术界的争论中，根据重新发现的经典文本来解释一种思想、一种信仰或一种学说就足够了。
So now we have to agree on "scholastic" and "classical," we likely will not get to Leibniz at this rate.
What is vital, re: Leibniz, is that he turns from the scholastic to the modern. He doesn't choose a scholastic life. He turns at an early age, and the insights he sets forth and the notation he uses are the vital gifts he bears. Gottfried is not remembered for his defense of Aristotle, faith, or the late scholastic movement. He was capable of pursuing that path, maybe better than anyone in history. Leibniz did defend these views in his only published book in his lifetime, defending God as the creator of the best of all possible mechanisms. But his works in science, math, and logic are what people most cherish. That is what I mean by vital. I mean no slight or underestimation of Leibniz's scholastic upbringing and its influence on his thought. Scholasticism was his lens.
我所说的至关重要是指他的现代观点。
In a blog on Leibniz, discussing the priority of Poincare and Einstein is ironic, given the turns of Gottfried's life. An excellent play or movie could be made of the negativity and wrong done to Leibniz by so many, his tutors, his classmates, his father's school, Voltaire, his mistress - Emilie Du Chatelet, Hooke, and Newton, as well as many others.
I see what you are saying about Poincare. Nonetheless, there is little there to reflect on Leibniz.
I don't want to get sidetracked on phase transitions either (we left out sublimation, no wonder I lose the point.) Let me take that one step elsewhere, that I will regret, and say wetness is not the best example of essential nature. Wetness, too, is an emergent property contingent on perspective, and no consult or divergence to Dalton is required.
I appreciate the points you have made here. Garber's book tells me Leibniz was a constant blaze of thought and change. Saying what Leibniz was need be footnoted to the year and season and can't be captured in a blog post.
You are entitled to your view. I'm not sure about Poincare. The more I read there; it seems like there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. We are back to camping chairs, fiddles, and Starlinked cell phones
Daniel
Monday, June 27, 2022 -- 11:09 AM
It's a fascinating question,这是一个令人着迷的问题，在我看来，它在今天和在17世纪一样重要。莱布尼茨的假发是怎么弄湿的?是水分子的湿润性是其内聚力的一种突现性质，而不属于分子本身吗?还是他返回住所时，雨中出现的彩虹?一方面，有一个关于水是什么的理论，但理论不能把任何东西弄湿。另一方面，有一种颜色现象出现在与雨滴收集有关，而彩虹本身没有通过任何方式传播到假发。说雨滴弄湿了它是没有用的，因为这并不能告诉我们为什么或如何发生这样的转变。在我看来，一个莱布尼兹式的解决方案既简单又优雅:假发永远不会完全干燥。它必须已经湿了才会变湿。湿性必须在假发的创作过程中就已经存在，这是一种潜在的无限可能的假发。 The trick is to say that the change in the object occurs not in itself but in the progress of its entry into explicit perceptual contents. By this, the wig was already wet the moment Leibniz put in on. He just didn't notice it until it started raining. Is this plausible?
Daniel
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 -- 10:34 AM
No. Leibniz's view is thatNo. Leibniz's view is that two different things, including parts of space, can not differ, as he puts it, in number only. And this is based on the principle of Identity of Indiscernibles. Just to review, this is the principle that, if two things share every predicate which applies to them, they are the same thing. With regards to parts of space, then, even if they are empty and the of the same size and dimensions, they must differ at least in their relation to each other, with one above it with regards to a particular location, one below it, one to the side, and so on. While this is clearly contrary to Newton's view of space as "absolute", that is, with all its parts identical regardless of what's in them or from where they're observed, how closely it approximates and/or is compatible with Einstein's is still a bit controversial.
tartarthistle
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 -- 12:20 PM
This sounds like a linguisticThis sounds like a linguistic matter, not a real dispute. "Parts of space" introduces a logical notion of difference that may or may not in fact exist. Einstein's E=mc2 basically translates into Narcissus looking at himself in the water. Are Narcissus and his reflection two different things, two equal things, or the same one thing? We could speak about this subject in all three ways. What's super interesting is the role light plays in this picture scientifically and even symbolically. Light is luminescent energy in science, and it is consciousness in intellectual symbolism. The two things/"things" are intimately related, and yet whenever we try to discuss their interrelation, we stop making logical sense and get into fights (poof gone, sorts of fights). I'll shut up now and be good, so people don't get mad at me and poof me and my naughty words gone...
Daniel
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 -- 12:36 PM
Not if you take into account如果你考虑到观察者位置的话。空间的某一特定部分，或者相反占据它的某物，是否被观察到，并不是决定性的，而仅仅是它在原则上可以被观察到。因此，任何两个空间，甚至所有的空间在一起，必然是不同的，每一个都是不同的，在不同的方式下，每一个都可以从其他空间的位置被观察到。还有另一个有趣的价。设空间b和空间d在所有可以描述它们的东西上都是定性相同的，——在大小、形状、体积等方面相同，设A在空间c中坐在它们之间，因此它们的位置构成了系列bcd。现在让我们假设无限的世界是可能的，但只有一个是真实的，也就是已经存在的，由它的创造者选择的世界。如果空格b和d共享应用于它们的所有谓词，那么系列bcd和另一个系列dcb之间将没有区别。但这意味着，选择一个系列而不是另一个系列可能没有充分的理由，构成了这样一种情况，即创作者缺乏足够的理由来选择第一个系列是正确的，而第二个系列不是，这违反了充分理由原则。在关于相对空间的讨论中，莱布尼茨以一种令人惊讶的系统方式将归于他的三个原则汇集在一起，即不可分辨的同一性、充分的理性和所有可能的最好的世界。
tartarthistle
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 -- 4:21 PM
So it is the presence of a所以是有意识的观察者的存在引入了数字(同一性，某种东西)和差异(分离，虚无)?
Daniel
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 -- 5:40 PM
An observer is not required观察者并不需要空间及其内容的存在，只需要它在原则上是可以被观察到的。伯克利也有同样的想法，但把它与观测本身联系在一起，而不仅仅是它的可能性。因此，对他来说，在感知事物的时候，就需要创造出一种奇迹，确切地创造出他所感知的事物，以保持其可靠的对应关系的真实性。虽然莱布尼茨不需要这样的奇迹，但他确实将空间和其中的一切与感知联系在一起，因为原则上它必须是可感知的。然而，意识是另一回事。例如，从常识上讲，一只蜻蜓会感知它飞行的空间，但它是否在任何明确的意义上有意识就不清楚了。
tartarthistle
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 -- 9:03 PM
是的,不清楚。模糊的。Like是的,不清楚。模糊的。像语言…
Daniel
Thursday, June 16, 2022 -- 11:19 AM
当然可以。But what follows当然可以。但接下来呢?蜻蜓的意识是可能的，但是未知的，因此是模糊的。语言是用来表达这种可能性的，但没有明确的量化就不能完全明确，因此也是模糊的。因此，你引用了两种模糊:一种是可能的对象，另一种是主体的实际表征。你如何区分它们?一个表征对象拥有它的表征的特征，这一事实是否使它仅仅是它的表征?
tartarthistle
Thursday, June 16, 2022 -- 9:10 PM
Nothing follows. Nothing is没有什么是由此而来的。没有什么是真的……
Daniel
Friday, June 17, 2022 -- 1:33 PM
再一次,这是显而易见的。There再一次,这是显而易见的。“nothing”这个词的任何用法都有一个上下文，它本身并不是“nothing”。在这里，它指的是一种对哲学的，毫不罕见的厌恶，类似于《美诺》结尾的安图斯。
然而，这个问题很有趣。这可以追溯到亚里士多德在429a15页的《德阿尼玛》，哲学家想知道灵魂和感知的对象是如何联系在一起的。他拒绝了在它们之间一定有一个媒介的观点，这是笛卡尔的微粒论的预期，因为那时被感知的事物和它的感知者之间不可能有任何接触。相反，他选择了一种米特劳弗的方法，在这种方法中，感知者和被感知的对象同时发生，因此在某种意义上必须是同一件事。从这个推论出发，他进一步以听觉感知为例进行了假设:虽然听觉和被听到的声音一起发生，但听觉作为一种能力存在，即使没有任何声音，但如果没有对听觉能力的作用，声音也不存在。这样，正如亚里士多德所说，灵魂是“潜在的一切”(431b20)。这似乎与莱布尼茨关于物理现象的单论解释的观点非常接近。亚里士多德是否在这里提供了表征模糊性的解释的基础，从而排除了必须使它成为一个介入心灵和潜在知觉意旨之间的对象的要求?
Daniel
Thursday, June 23, 2022 -- 9:00 AM
If nothing exists in the如莱布尼茨所言，如果世界上除了自我断言的事物之外什么都不存在，并且不允许对存在的事物进行外部命名，那么任何被表征为一个延伸的物体(甚至是人自己的物体)在空间中的运动，都是被感知、理解或表征为自身运动的物体的内在属性。因此，说莱布尼茨认为运动不是真实的，或者仅仅是本体来源的现象级副产品是不准确的。相反，运动的存在可以用这样的说法来解释:肉体不会运动，只有心灵才会运动。这似乎是在重申亚里士多德关于“不动者”的观点，但这也可能是一个错误，因为通过简单的观察，人们可以确定心灵很少是静止的。从山上滚下来的巨石看起来不太像一个人自己思想的运动，但从这个观点来看，它应该被认为是类似思想的。
An example of mind-likeness (or, similarity to what minds do in reality) can be taken from visual experience. When one is deprived of sufficient light to see well, as when walking at night in a forest, optic sensitivity is increased as one's eyes become adjusted to a decreased light source. It seems that along Leibniz's lines of reasoning, inanimate objects can be partly explained by analogy to minds which have very little resources from sense-stimulation, but nevertheless are capable of perception in the sense of being affected by all of what's possible to perceive, even if in this case no clear distinctions can be supposed in this affectation. Rocks therefore may not look like a mind, but they must have to be enough of one to reflect all the others by their own internal predicates by what's possibly perceptible, like the sounds of a brook which is not noticed by some adjacent picnickers, without the picnickers.
但是如何描述感知的可能性呢?根据解释元素的简约原则，如果一个元素的工作做得更好，或等于两个元素可以做的，前者应该优先。因此，如果空间和时间可以用一个术语准确地引用，就像空间/时间一样，它应该具有方法论上的优先权。这同样适用于灵魂和肉体的区别。后者是莱布尼茨对机械论者所提出的问题之一，它引起了机械论者之间的对应关系以及自由意志和预先决定之间的二分法这一不可解决的问题。但我们可以谈论身体是心灵的集合体，而不必否认它们的存在。相反，身体与心灵的关系，或者构成它的心灵的体积，就像彩虹与构成它的水滴的关系(莱布尼茨的比喻)。我们看到的是它的彩色系列，但却是水滴造成了在雨中淋湿的效果，因此构成了对它的更准确的描述。这通过将两者结合到一个单一的本体论帐户而免除了心灵/身体二分法。同样地，时间也被认为是占据空间，特别是自己的空间的表象的内在谓词，但它作为知觉的客观内容仍保持着本体论的地位，因而无须把时间和空间作为单独的对象或不同的直观范畴加以区分。 Might one say, then, that Leibniz has made a similar metaphysical adjustment on methodologically deductive and logical grounds as was required by the objects of Special Relativity and non-Euclidean geometry, pre-dating them by several centuries?