Justin E. H. Smith

A. W. Schlegel, On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians

From August Wilhelm Schlegel, Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, Heidelberg, 1808. [Click on 'continue reading' below to read the original German. Expanded translation and explanatory notes to follow]

Pantheism is the system of pure reason, and to this extent it already brings about the transition from Oriental to European philosophy. It flatters the self-obscurity of man, as well as his indolence. As soon as this great discovery is made --this all-encompassing, all-denying, and yet so simple system of knowledge and rational wisdom--, that all is one, then no more seeking and inquiring is needed; everything that others know or believe by other paths is simply error, fallacy, and weakness of the understanding, just as all change and all life is empty appearance.

Of course, if power and depth of feeling are still present, and the doctrine is truly put forth in full seriousness, then it takes on another, wholly different and fruitful character: there then appear those men, not uncommon in India, and so hard to comprehend by cold observers, the martyrs of the yogis and the sannyāsis, who destroy their own spirits of their own free will, setting up the goal of self-annihilation as their highest good. For colder or more weakened natures, however, this leads on the contrary to the conviction that all evil is only fallacy, and that everything, to the extent that it is One, is also entirely equal, a conviction that brings with it a false appearance of exhiliration and contentment.

Perhaps however it was only in China, where pantheism arose long before the religion of the Buddha was introduced, that something of the sort was adopted. In other lands we find much in the generally very mixed doctrine that comes from the worship of Śiva; hitherto the more horribly distorted image of a terrible and destructive divinity has been noticed among the Buddhist Tatars. In Tibet, Turner found celebrations of Kali, the adoration of Kārthikeya and Gaṇeśa: the entire entourage of Śiva...

If pantheism is not merely thought and disposition, as with many yogis and sannyāsis, but rather comes forth as a more or less scientific system, then it is never anything more than... a game of combination, which advances according to a mere mechanism of reason, from a positive and a negative [principle], which is fundamentally better represented by a number symbolism such as [Chinese numerology] than words are able to do. Now since this is found in this most ancient form of pantheism [i.e., that of China], it is very possible that this itself arose out of dualism, through later reinterpretation and elaboration. As soon as the doctrine of the two principles was no longer religion, but rather system, the thought of the two basic powers could be united in something higher...

That the spirit of the Sāṃkhya teachings is thoroughly pantheistic can at least not be doubted from the Bhagavad Gītā... In the Bhagavad Gītā, as presumably in all of the works attributed to Vyāsa, it is the doctrine of Vedānta, of which he was the founder, that prevails. Thus it is this that we know best of all Indian philosophies.

That it is nothing other than a pure, perfect pantheism can easily be seen by anyone from the translation [contained in this volume]. In the philosophical determinateness of the original text many passages are even stronger. Yet it was, as the name 'Vedānta' [i.e., 'appendix to the Vedas'] shows, simply a reinterpretation of the old Indian system that had been worshipped in the Vedas.

The old text will thus leave the old conception standing, yet with the new sense inserted, to the extent possible, and everything referring back to that great One --the highest, Brahmā, or the object of knowledge-- which here is defined as indifference between being and non-being, between sat and asat. Yet there are also many passages that go fairly clearly against the Vedas. From the immoderate praise that the author everywhere gives to the Sāṃkhya philosophy, there seems to emerge a true agreement in the manners of thinking [between the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gītā]. 

Some authors, meanwhile, maintain that Sāṃkhya is the physics, as Mīmāṃsā is the moral teaching, and Nyāya the dialectics, while others in contrast describe them each as different philosophies and systems, in which connection Nyāya deserves particular attention, which along with Mīmāṃsā is alone mentioned in Manu's Book of Laws,and along with it is classified among the Upangas. The moral spirit of Mīmāṃsā, and the speculative consistency of Sāṃkhya, agree with the place that we have ascribed to them in the ordering of the systems. Soon a more certain determination will be able to be made, as we come to learn of more original Indian texts. For now it is already a great deal that we know the oldest Indian beliefs, which underlie the entire corpus, fairly comprehensively from Manu's Book of Laws, and we know sufficiently the doctrine of Vedānta, which finishes off the entire system as the most recent branch of Indian literature, and determines the fundamental character of the Bhagavad Gītā.

In general we can divide the entirety of Indian literature, for the sake of easy overview, preliminarily into four epochs: the oldest epoch includes the Vedas and what follows immediately after these, such as Manu's Book of Laws. That the Veda's were here and there falsified through particular additions is strongly confirmed by the fact that so long ago there were already dictionaries to aid in the comprehension of the Vedas. To the Rig Veda and the Yajurveda, which are written in prose, is ascribed variously a cosmogonical, a magical, and a liturgical content; to that of the Sāmaveda, which is written is verse, is ascribed a moral content, though presumably with many mythical and historical admixtures...

Another great epoch is constituted from all of those works that are attributed to Vyāsa: the eighteen Purāṇas, the Mahābhārata, and the Vedānta philosophy. Although there are more works here than a single person could ever possibly touch, all of themare characterized by the same doctrines and beliefs, and give no sign of differences of style, though theirs is already so different from that of Manu's Book of Laws.  

Crime, Torture, Witchcraft, and Confession at the MIWHP! Tuesday, February 16, 6-8 PM, UQAM

The Montreal Interuniversity Workshop in the History of Philosophy is pleased to announce a special session on early modern jurisprudence and its application to the 'exceptional crime' of witchcraft:

Andreas Blank (Universität zu Paderborn)
"Presumption, Torture, and the Controversy over Exceptional Crimes, 1580-1632"

The meeting will take place on February 16, 6-8PM at the Department of Philosophy of UQAM, Pavillon Thérèse Casgrain (W), Room W-5215, 455 boulevard René Lévesque, East.

You will find an abstract of the presentation below.

*

Le Séminaire interuniversitaire montréalais en histoire de philosophie est très heureux d'accueillir Professor Andreas Blank pour une réunion spéciale sur la philosophie du droit à l'âge classique et le 'crime exceptionnel' de sorcellerie:

Andreas Blank (Universität zu Paderborn)
"Presumption, Torture, and the Controversy over Exceptional Crimes, 1580-1632"

La communication sera en anglais; la discussion qui suivra sera en français et en anglais.

La séance aura lieu le 16 fevrier, 18-20h, au département de philosophie de l’UQAM, Pavillon Thérèse Casgrain (W), salle W-5215, 455 boulevard René Lévesque est, 5ème étage.

Veuillez trouver un résumé de la communication ci-dessous.

*
 
Presumption, Torture, and the Controversy over Exceptional Crimes, 1580-1632

How should a legal system deal with crimes that are perceived as threatening the very existence of a state and the security of its citizens? Obviously, such crimes pose practical problems concerning suitable investigative methods. But they also pose problems concerning the question of how to evaluate evidence, once it has been obtained. Typically, acts of treason or terrorism are planned secretly, such that many usual procedures of collecting and evaluating evidence are not available. Investigating such crimes, hence, might invite modifications both in the methods of obtaining evidence and in the standards of evaluating it. These problems are far from being novel (even if some of the types of crime associated with them are). In early modern legal thought, they were discussed under the category of “excepted crimes” (crimina excepta). Some early modern thinkers (including Jean Bodin) maintained that excepted crimes such as witchcraft warrant a dramatic lowering of the standards of juridical evidence, some others (including Friedrich Spee) opposed this view. In this paper, I will be particularly concerned with the role of the methodological concept of presumption in their discussion of the role of evidence in cases of excepted crimes. Presumptions are beliefs that are held to be true (or even certain) until and unless contrary evidence forces us to revise them. They are tools for arguing and acting rationally in situations of uncertainty. Obviously, excepted crimes are fraught with uncertainty: Conclusive evidence about who has done what is seldom available, and seldom do we know how best to protect the public from the effects of such crimes. Presumptive reasoning is inevitable here, and hard choices have to be made. And one such hard choice for which presumptions are relevant concerns the permissibility and usefulness of torture.

Nature, Human Nature, and Human Difference: Early Modern Natural Philosophy in Global Context, 1500-1750

[Proposal for Membership at the School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, 2010-11]

Modern natural philosophy has often been characterized as taking shape in large part out of the rediscovery of certain legacies of ancient thought, particularly the atomism and incipient materialism of Epicurus and his follower Lucretius (see, e.g., Wilson 2008). But this rediscovery of the legacy of antiquity occurred simultaneously with the geographical discovery of what is too often bracketed by historians of science and, more grievously, by historians of philosophy, as ‘the rest of the world’. In the book I am currently researching, I intend to present an interpretation of the impact of this latter discovery on early modern natural philosophy, and also to show why its impact on natural philosophy is relevant to the emerging understanding of human nature (or the absence of it) over the course of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.

Though seldom noted by historians of philosophy, interest in the world beyond Europe’s boundaries was omnipresent in early modern natural-philosophical texts. To cite a particularly vivid example, William Harvey, as reported by George Ent in the epistle dedicatory to the former’s Anatomical Exercitations concerning the Generation of Living Creatures of 1653, believes that

the whole earth now lies open before us, and the zeal of our travellers has made us familiar not only with other countries, and the manners and customs of their inhabitants, but with the animals, the vegetables, and the minerals also that are met with in each.  And, indeed, there is no nation so barbarous which has not discovered something for the general good that had been overlooked by more civilized countries. But whall we imagine that nothing will accrue to science from such advantages as we now possess, or that all knowledge was exhausted in the earlier ages of the world? If we do, the blame most certainly attaches to our indolence, nowise to all-bountiful nature.

I will be focusing upon three distinct elements of Harvey’s rich observation: (i) the animals, vegetables, and minerals discovered over the course of the first few centuries of European exploration, as well as other features of the natural environment; (ii) the idea that no nation is ‘so barbarous’ that it ‘has not discovered something for the general good’; and (iii) ‘other countries, and the manners and customs of their inhabitants’. These correspond respectively to the three three major parts of the book, which I have labelled ‘Nature’, ‘Natives and Nature’, and, finally, ‘Human Nature and Human Difference’.  

Scottish Seminar in Early Modern Philosophy

5-6 March 2010 

Divinity School Library, University of Aberdeen 

Keynote Speakers: 

Catherine Wilson (University of Aberdeen)

Pauline Phemister (University of Edinburgh) 

Organisation: 

Mogens Lærke (University of Aberdeen)

Stephen Gaukroger (University of Aberdeen/Sydney University) 
 

Program 

Friday, March 5^th 

9.30-10.00 Welcome 

10.00-11.00 John Whipple (University of Illinois at Chicago), “Malebranche and Descartes on Mind-Body Distinction” 

11.00-12.00 Delphine Kolesnik (École Normale Supérièure-Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Lyon), “What does it mean to study man ‘as a physicist?’ Regius and Descartes” 

12.00-14.00 Lunch at Zeste 

14.00-15.00 Justin E. H. Smith (Concordia University, Montreal), “Leibniz’s anti-vitalism” 

15.00-16.00 Martine Pécharman (CNRS, Paris), “The Moral Psychology of Ralph Cudworth: What Place for Sympathy?” 

16.00-16.30 Coffee 

16.30-17.30 Keynote speaker. Catherine Wilson (University of Aberdeen), “Metaphysics and the sciences of life: Descartes and Leibniz” 

Saturday, March 6th 

10.00-11.00 Angelica Nuzzo (City University of New York), “The relation between body and mind in Spinoza’s ‘Intellectual love of God’ (Ethica V P33-39)” 

11.00-12.00 Julie Henry (École Normale Supérièure-Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Lyon), “How does a child become a man? Descartes, Spinoza” 

12.00-13.30 Light Lunch 

13.30-14.30 Ohad Nachtomy (Fordham University, New York), “Uniqueness, Unity and Infinity in Spinoza and Leibniz” 

14.30-15.30 Laurence Devilllairs (Centre Sèvres, Paris), “To know and to understand. The Knowledge of God in Cartesian Metaphysics” 

15.30-16.00 Coffee 

16.00-17.00 Keynote speaker. Pauline Phemister (University of Edinburgh), TBA 
 

Лейбниц и Ньютон в русском Просвящении

[Outline of a research project to be carried out on the invitation of the Mechanico-Mathematical Faculty of Moscow State University, Summer, 2010. Second Draft!]

В моем актуальном исследовании российской науки первой половины XVIII века я интересуюсь сложной историей распространения лейбницианства с одной стороны, и  ньютонианства с другой.

Хорошо известно, что уже начиная с конца XVII века, немецкий философ и математик Готфрид Вилгельм Лейбниц стал заниматься планом для основания Академии Наук в Санкт-Петербурге, а в 1712 году был назван тайным юстиц-ратом на службе Петра Великого, чтобы "науки Iискуства вншεмъ гдрствѣ вящεи цвѣтъ произошли употрεбить."

Влияние Лейбница на математику и на философскую мысль в России, да и в самой Академии, не просуществовало долго, несмотря на то, что мечта Лейбница об основании Академии исполнилась в 1724 году, 8 лет после смерти философа.Сам Леонард Эйлер, выдающийся математик и физик в ранней истории петербуржской академии, был строгим критиком мировозрения Лейбница. Как объяснить исчезновение немецкого философа, любимого Петром Первым со сцени русской философии?

Бесспорно, что в какой-то мере это связанно с введением в Россию ньютоновской физики, особенно в результате перевода на русский язык в 1717 году книги голландского астронома Христиана Гюйгенса, "Мiрозрѣнiя или мнѣнiе о небесноземныхъ глобусахъ", в которой находится первое объяснение ньютоновской теории тяготения на русском языке. Как пишет Т. П. Кравец в его замечательной книге "От Ньютона до Вавилова" (1967),"Невозможное и невероятное осуществилось: в России заговорили о "Невтоне" и его творениях, стали спорить об их значении, сомневаться в них, и, в конце концов, убеждаться в их всепобеждающей мудрости."

На самом деле, введение ньютоновской космологии не может полностью объяснить отказа от лейбницевской философии в тот же самый период, так как большинство русских ученных радикально отказывалось от теории тяготения, которая была краеугольным камнем всей ньютоновской системы. Сам Ломоносов, будучи под влиянием ученика Лейбница, Христиана Вольффа, пишет в своем "Рассуждении  о твердости и жидкости тел" (1760) о том, что Ньютон не мог действительно верить в тяготение как в реально существующую силу, а верил лишь как в эмпирическое данное.

Я полагаю, что до второй половины XVIII века Лейбниц играл более важную роль в этом подозрении к ньютоновской системе, чем признают исследователи.  Для того, чтобы поддтвердить эту гипотезу, мне нужно будет прочитать как неопубликованные письма и документы русских корреспондентов Лейбница в Императорских Архивах, так и Архивы Российской Академии Наук. Больше всего я интересуюсь ролью советника Петра Великого, Якова Вилимовича Брюса, шотландского дворянина, который был досконально знаком с разносторонней научной полемикой Лейбница и Самюэля Кларка по поводу реальности тяготения как силы природы, с которым Лейбниц имел неисследованную пока переписку.

Я надеюсь, что в России мне возможно будет разгадать несколько загадок для нашего понимания Лейбница не только как мыслителя, но и деятеля на международной сцене раннего Просвящения. Чтобы это достичь, мне надо будет полностью принять во внимание важную роль его русских корреспонденций в формировании лейбницевского наследства XVIII века. 

Библиография

Valentin Boss, Newton and Russia: The Early Influence, 1698-1796, Harvard University Press, 1972.

Я. В. Брюс, Приемы циркуля и линеики или избраннейшое начало во математических искуствах, Москва, 1709. 

В. И. Герье, Сборникъ писемъ и мемориаловъ Лейбница относящихся к России и Петру Великому, Санкт-Петербург, 1873.

М. В. Ломоносов, Полное собрание сочинений, Москва и Ленинград, 1950-1957.

Moritz Posselt, Peter der Grösse und Leibniz, Tartu, 1848.

В. Л. Ченакал, Научные связы русских и английских  астрономов в XVIII в., in Вопросы истории физико-математических наук, изд. К. А. Рыбников, Москва, 1951, 1083-1101. 

Leibniz on the History of Nations and the Theodicy of Cultural Difference

[Abstract submitted for the Theodicy anniversary conference at Notre Dame, Fall, 2010]

Leibniz composed the Theodicy at the very peak of his activity as a historian. Contrary to widespread belief that he undertook this activity only grudgingly, in fact he pursued his historical research with great interest (even if he did it more slowly than his employer would have liked), and even saw it as inseparable from his broader intellectual project-- his philosophy, if you will. Thus he complains to Nicolaes Witsen in a letter of 1698 that "people criticize me when I attempt to take leave of the study of mathematics, and they tell me that I am wrong to abandon solid and eternal truths in order to study the changing and perishable things that are found in history and its laws" (Ger'e 1873, No. 36). And in a 1708 draft of a proposal to Peter the Great for the classificatory system to be used in the eventual library of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Leibniz identifies history, alongside mathematics and physics, as one of the three ‘Realien’ or distinct domains of science, namely, the one that "involves the explanation of times and places, and thus of singular things" including "the descriptions and attainments of kingdoms, states, and peoples" (Ger’e 1873, No. 73).

But what are the laws of the study of res singulares? And do these laws cover all human affairs, or only a certain subset of them? There is a commonplace of later German philosophy of history, extending at least from Kant to Marx, according to which history just is European history, since only Europe had succeeded in initiating the process of global change that alone makes human life more than static, and thus, by implication, more than animal. Thus Kant thought that the inhabitants of undiscovered South Sea islands are no more the subjects of history than are sheep, while Marx maintained that the British imposition of industrial weaving equipment in Bengal had been a blessing to those upon whom it was imposed, since it is only through technological change that cultural change can happen, and history just is cultural change. The distinction that Marx would later make in terms of technology was made by Leibniz, mutatis mutandis, in terms of religion: only those who have been absorbed into the "true doctrine of the unity of God and the immortality of souls" (Theodicy, Preface) may be considered as having lived, as Kant would later put it, a life worth living, and it's only a life worth living that is a life worth writing down, which is to say a historical life.

For at least the early Leibniz, there is no hierarchy of races (pace Fenves 2005), but only a basic distinction between barbarians on the one hand and children of God on the other. This dichotomy comes out very vividly in, for example, an early text such as the Method for Insituting a New, Invincible Militia of 1671, in which he proposes that "slaves captured from all over the barbarian world will be brought [to an island such as Madagascar], and from all of the wild coastal regions of Africa, Arabia, New Guinea, etc. To this end Ethiopians, Nigritians, Angolans, Caribbeans, Canadians, and Hurons fit the bill, without discrimination. What a lovely bunch of semi-beasts!" (A IV i, 408-10). In an important sense, it is true that what Leibniz is proposing is 'without discrimination': the people he proposes to treat in this horrific way are suitable subjects of such treatment because they lack knowledge of what Leibniz would call in the Theodicy the 'true doctrine'; if they had this knowledge, their Ethiopian or Canadian origins would immediately become irrelevant to their moral status. Leibniz's conception of how one might come to hold this true doctrine, moreover, changes dramatically over the course of his career. In 1671, he probably held that baptism alone could suffice; by the time of the Theodicy, in contrast, the paths to the true doctrine are many. One such path is Islam: Mohammed, he writes, "showed no divergence from the great dogmas of natural theology: his followers spread them abroad even among the most remote races of Asia and of Africa, whither Christianity had not been carried; and they abolished in many countries heathen superstitions which were contrary to the true doctrine of the unity of God and the immortality of souls" [Theodicy, Preface, 51]. By the time of the Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese, composed in 1715-16, Leibniz no longer requires even a genealogical connection to the Abrahamic tradition and its revelations in order for a people, such as the Chinese, to come to knowledge of the true doctrine of God. Thus the clear distinction of the 1671 New Method between us and them begins to collapse, as the possibility opens up that the semi-beasts might simply happen upon knowledge of the true doctrine by means of an innate, or natural, theology.

Already, we have ample material to ask a number of Theodicy-inspired questions about Leibniz's conception of the histories of nations, and his conception of the nature of human cultural difference. Does Leibniz have any sort of account of the conditions under which a community, such as the Chinese, might arrive unaided at the sort of natural theological knowledge that moves one out of the barbarian's world? Is there moreover any deep reason, motivated by Leibniz's abiding commitment to the harmony of the world order, and the explanation of degrees of perfection in terms of God's choice of the best --because most plenitudinous-- order, why there should be barbarians at all? That is, can we ask in the conceptual terms provided for us in the Theodicy, why there are barbarians in the same way that we are already familiar with asking, and with answering by means of tools the Theodicy gives us, the question as to why there are mosquitoes or earthquakes?

I will argue that we in fact can approach the question of cultural difference in terms of the basic argument of the Theodicy, and indeed that Leibniz believes, notwithstanding his explicit disdain for barbarianism, that cultural diversity is good when considered in a holistic way. Evidence that this is in fact what he thinks can be discerned, I will argue, in much of his work, contemporary to the Theodicy, on the ancient history of preliterate Eurasian peoples such as the Scythians and the Huns, and on their languages as the sources of modern living languages. In this respect, Leibniz's mature conception of history is much more capacious than that of Kant or Marx: it includes everyone, and it includes the entire span of human existence, even what would later come to be called 'prehistory'. 

Finally, I will argue that, for the reasons already spelled out, Leibniz's philosophy of culture and of cultural difference places him in a lineage that will later include not Kant and Marx, but rather the communitarian thinker Johann Gottfried Herder: Leibniz and Herder both believe that cultural distinctness is rooted in linguistic community, that the cultural identity preserved by language is one that is more deeply rooted than the written records of history conceived as the sequence of recorded events, and that, ultimately, distinct cultures cannot be measured against one another, but rather each has its place in the whole order of human culture, and each is in the end, in spite of the superficial uniqueness of its cultural forms, an expression of the same underlying human reality.

*
Select Bibliography

Peter Fenves, “Imagining an Inundation of Australians; or, Leibniz on the Principles of Grace and Race.” In Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, edited by Andrew Valls, pp. 73-89. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.

Stefano Gensini, Leibniz: L'armonia delle lingue. Bari: Biblioteca Universale Laterza, 1995.

V. I. Ger’e (Ed.), Sbornik pisem i memorialov Leïbnitsa otnosiashchikhsia k Rossii i Petru Velikomu. Saint Petersburg, 1873.

Schulenburg, Sigrid von der, Leibniz als Sprachforscher. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1973.  

MIWHP / SIMHP Programme, Winter / hiver, 2010

WINTER SEMESTER/SEMESTRE D’HIVER:

Tuesday, 19 January / mardi, 19 janvier
Ursula Goldenbaum (Emory University),

"Spinozism in 18th-Century Germany and the Question of Jewish Emancipation"

Friday, 22 January / vendredi, 22 janvier, 10:30-12:30
Daryn Lehoux (Queens University, Department of Classics)
"Of Miracles and Mistaken Theories"
(co-sponsored by McGill History and Philosophy of Science)

Tuesday, 26 January / mardi, 26 janvier, au département de philosophie de l'université de Montréal

Syliane Malinowski-Charles (Bishop's University)
"L'argument de la finalité divine dans les premières réfutations de Spinoza"

Tuesday, 9 February / mardi, 9 fevrier, at the Department of Philosophy, UQAM
Kenneth Winkler (Yale University)
"Locke on Essence and the Social Construction of Kinds"

Tuesday, 16 February / mardi, 16 fevrier
Andreas Blank (Universität zu Paderborn),
"Jean Bodin and Friedrich von Spee on Exceptional Crimes, Torture, and Presumption"

Thursday, 4 March / jeudi, 4 mars
Martha Bolton (Rutgers University)
Title TBA

Monday, 22 March / lundi, 22 mars
Sarah Burges Watson (McGill University, Department of Classics)

"Apollo and Dionysos in Plato's Republic"

Monday, 6 April / lundi, 6 avril, in the Social Studies of Medicine Building, McGill University
William R. Newman (HPS, Indiana)
 "The Place of Chymistry in Isaac Newton's Early Theory of Light and Color"

(co-sponsored by McGill History and Philosophy of Science)

*

Unless otherwise indicated, meetings will take place at the Thomson House of McGill University, Tuesdays, from 6-8 PM.

Sauf exceptions, les réunions auront lieu dans la Thomson House de l'université McGill, les mardis 18h-20h

*

Pour plus d'informations, veuillez contacter / For more information, please contact:

Daniel Dumouchel (daniel.dumouchel@umontreal.ca

Carlos Fraenkel (carlos.fraenkel@mcgill.ca) (On sabbatical, 2009-10)

Sara Magrin (magrin.sara@uqam.ca)

Dario Perinetti (perinetti.dario@uqam.ca)

Justin Smith (justismi@alcor.concordia.ca)

PHIL 226: Mind and Action

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY

Winter, 2010
M-W 13:15-14:30
SGW H- 439    

Professor Justin Smith
justismi@alcor.concordia.ca

OFFICE HOURS: MW 12-1
OFFICE LOCATION: PR-402 (2100 MACKAY STREET)

COURSE DESCRIPTION

What is the difference between my doing something, and something merely happening? Or, to cite a famous formulation of this problem, what is left over when, from the fact that I raise my hand, I subtract the fact that my hand goes up? What if there is no difference, and in fact everything we as humans 'do' is just as much a part of the deterministic natural order as, e.g., the orbit of the planets or the coming and going of the tides? If there is no difference, then does this mean that we are not free? If we are not free, then how can we possibly justify praising and blaming other people (and ourselves) for what we 'do'? Is it my soul or mind that causes my body to do things? Can bodily changes bring about changes in my soul or mind? How do these two interact, given that they appear to be different from one another in so many respects? In this class, we will investigate these and related questions, drawing upon a number of classic texts in philosophy from the past four hundred years or so.

REQUIRED TEXTS:

Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins, Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Hackett, 2009). ISBN-10: 0872209784; ISBN-13: 978-0872209787.

Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, tr. Maudemarie Clark and Alan Swensen (Hackett, 1998).

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (State University of New York Press, 1999) ISBN-10: 0791442020; ISBN-13: 978-0791442029

In addition, there will be a packet of required readings available at Copies Concordia, on de Maisonneuve between Mackay and Guy.

PHIL 339: Aesthetics

PREREQUISITE:    THREE CREDITS IN PHILOSOPHY, OR PERMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT.

WINTER, 2010
MW 16:15-17:30
SGW H- 459

PROFESSOR JUSTIN SMITH
JUSTISMI@ALCOR.CONCORDIA.CA

OFFICE HOURS: MW 12-1
OFFICE LOCATION: PR-402 (2100 MACKAY STREET)

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

Classical aesthetics is the philosophical study of beauty. It seeks to answer questions such as: What is beauty? What is it that all beautiful things have in common? What are the standards of judgment by which the beauty of a work of art may be determined?  In recent history, philosophers have begun to treat the question of the nature and ontology of works of art as distinct from the problem of beauty, since it is no longer at all clear that in order for a work to be a good work of art, or to be a work of art at all, its creator must seek to make it an instantiation of the Beautiful. Indeed, today some artists consciously aim to create revolting and ugly works.  In this course, we will, in the first half, focus on the classical aesthetic question of the nature of beauty in art, and in the second half we will focus on one of the most important works in the history of philosophical aesthetics, namely, Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment. 

REQUIRED TEXTS:

Steve Cahn and Aaron Meskin (Eds.), Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology (Blackwell Publishing, 2008).

Immanuel Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment, Ed. Paul Guyer, Tr. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

In Kind: Species of Exchange in Early Modern Science and Philosophy

Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities

Cambridge University

18-19 June, 2010

Organisers: James Delbourgo (Rutgers), Sachiko Kusukawa (Cambridge), Justin E. H. Smith (Concordia)

SUMMARY: This workshop explores the relations among philosophies and practices of species designation in the decades around the turn of the eighteenth century, when long-distance exchange furnished compelling new objects for taxonomic contemplation, confronting philosophers and naturalists with puzzling varieties of vegetables, minerals, animals, artifacts and humans. The etymology of ‘species’ relates to the identification of kinds, types and varieties; appearances, forms and likenesses; specimens and portions, either exemplary or rough and incomplete; and spices and drugs. All these definitions imply skills and systems of assembling, inspecting and judging. The phrase ‘in kind’ (also ‘in specie’) describes exchanges in which equivalence or agreement is established between parties to mutual satisfaction, while ‘specie’ has more specifically denoted the basis of economic exchange in terms of intrinsic rather than symbolic worth. ‘Species’ thus connects a number of domains through the identification of kinds; an ideal of self-evident credibility; and the forging of relations and exchanges out of potentially incommensurable varieties.

This workshop proposes to interrogate the relations among philosophies and practices of species designation in the decades around the turn of the eighteenth century. Well-known controversies over the character of such designations achieved prominence at this time. John Locke’s scepticism about the possibility of discerning essential natural kinds, and John Ray’s debate with Augustus Rivinus and Joseph Pitton de Tournefort over whether the process of determining botanical species could be philosophical rather than pragmatic, are merely two of the period’s best-known interventions. Locke’s profile is nonetheless ideally suggestive for the re-assessment we propose: the species sceptic who also argued against the existence of an essential human nature kept his own herbarium of exotic plants, and enjoyed important links to the Royal Africa Company, the Council of Trade and Plantations and the colonization of Carolina. In other words, long-distance exchange relations furnished compelling new objects for philosophical contemplation, confronting philosophers and naturalists alike with puzzling varieties of vegetables, minerals, animals, objects and humans.

Our aim is to examine the question of species designation both in philosophical systems and quotidian practices. What methods, resources and exchanges did designation projects involve? How did practical techniques – especially manual and visual – intersect with the articulation of philosophical accounts of the designation of kinds? To what extent were reckonings of plant, animal and human variation (understood either physically or culturally) related concerns in larger programmes of natural history and natural philosophy? Our hypothesis is that before more celebrated episodes in global histories of Enlightenment classification, ethnographic encounter and racial reckoning (in particular, Linnaean systematics and the Pacific voyages and comparative anatomy projects of the later eighteenth century), travel, commerce and colonization raised pressing questions about the very possibility of contriving reasoned mechanisms of equivalence, discrimination and taxonomy. These questions invite a sustained interdisciplinary assessment to shed light on the early modern functioning of global information systems, resource networks, and philosophies of natural order.

SPEAKERS AND PROVISIONAL TITLES:

Peter Anstey, Philosophy, University of Otago

‘Essentialism and Baconian natural history in the late seventeenth century’

 

Brian Ogilvie, History, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

‘Order of Insects: Insect Species from Jan Swammerdam to John Ray’

  

Alix Cooper, History, SUNY, Stony Brook
‘Dealing in Difference: Commerce and Natural History in Early Enlightenment Danzig’

James Delbourgo, History, Rutgers University
'Species of Mobility: 'Sir Hans Sloane's Milk Chocolate' and 'the Whole History of the Cacao''

 

Kelly Whitmer, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin

‘Gathering kinds, assembling models: Pietist philanthropy's global enterprises, 1700-1730’

 

Justin E. H. Smith, Philosophy, Concordia University
"National History and Natural History in Leibniz"

Daniel Carey, National University of Ireland
"Locke's Money Problem: Of Species and Specie"

Staffan Müller-Wille, Sociology and Philosophy, University of Exeter
"Taxonomic Wars: Seventeenth Century Debates from the Point of View of
Linnaeus"

From a Letter to Peter the Great on the Division of the Sciences

[From V. I. Ger'e, Сборник писемъ и мемориаловъ Лейбница относящихся к России и Петру Великому, Saint Petersburg, 1873, No. 244 § XV. Includes note: Оригиналъ написанный не рукою Лейбница хранится въ Моск. Арх. И. Д. Напеч. у Поссельта въ: "Pet. d. Gr. und Lb.," p. 226, i.e.: "The original, not written in Leibniz's own hand, is located in the Moscow Archive I. D. Printed in Posselt, Peter der Grösse und Leibniz, Tartu, 1848." MS undated. Trancribed here only in part. To read the original German, click 'keep reading' below.]

*

Creatures are either pure spirits, which are investigated by

Pneumatica

or they are spirituo-corporeal, or merely corporeal. Spirituo-corporeal creatures are either: I myself, or other people. I can only recognize myself through soul and body. The soul has two principal powers, namely, understanding and will. Now what the understanding is, what its errors are, and how it is to be improved, how I am to investigate the truth and communicate it to others, is taught by

Logica.

The evil of the will, its nefarious inclinations, and how to set it right is taught by

Ethica.

Knowledge of my body, with respect to its temperament, conservation, and structure, is taught by

Medicina et Chirurgia.

Other people are either dead or living. Knowledge of the dead, and of what they accomplished during their life is shown by

Historia.

Knowledge of those still living makes it possible for me to give to others what they are owed, and to conduct myself wisely with them; this is shown by

Jus naturae et Politica.

Bodily creatures are either above me in the heavens; knowledge of these is taught by

Astronomia;

or they are alongside me on the earth; knowledge of these is taught by 'earth-description' or

Geographia.

Construction, both of ships as well as of houses and settlements, is taught by the building art or

Architectura.

The art of determining the dimensions of such things is the 'measuring-art', or

Geometria,

whose ground and foundation is the reckoning art, or

Arithmetica.

And that people may be comfortable in their houses and on their property and in their ships, to this contributes

Mechanica.

On land and in the water, as well as in the air, there are all sorts of creatures, whose species and characteristics are taught by

Physica.

And the dissolution of these creatures is shown by the art of separation or

Chymia.

And so that men do not grow tired as a result of their continual labor, they are able to refresh themselves by means of the art of tones or

Musica.

If, now, a man wishes to communicate what he has learned to others, he needs to know a number of tongues, and if they are properly taught in a very short time he will have mastered [these]

Linguae.

Letter to Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Iavorskii, 22 November, 1712

[From V. I. Ger'e, No. 183. Stefan Iavorskii (1658-1722) was the Metropolitan of Ryazan and a graduate of the Kiev-Mogyla College, from which the great Ukrainian philosopher Hryhorii Skovoroda would issue in the following century. Iavorskii composed at least one major philosophical work, which I have yet to locate, entitled Философское состязание [A Philosophical Contention], presented to the Kiev College in 1693-94. According to the Большая Энциклопедия Русского Народа, in this work Iavorskii defends a version of 'Second Scholasticism', which recognizes matter and form as two equal principles of created beings, in contrast with Thomism's absolutization of form. For Iavorskii, form, which is understood as the idea and possibility of a thing, exists in matter itself and is dependent on it. Iavorskii was suspected by many of being a secret convert to Catholicism, and of being a member of the Jesuit order. This may be in part due to his early life in Galicia. It is not clear whether Leibniz knew of Iavorskii's philosophical work when he wrote this letter. What is clear is that Leibniz considers it expedient to flatter Iavorskii and to lavishly praise the Orthodox church in order to advance his true interest, which is to obtain samples of the various minority languages of the Russian empire. For the original Latin, click 'continue reading' below.]

*

To the most worthy Metropolitan of Ryazan.

Most Illustrious and Venerable Sir,

As I understand that you are prominent no less for your erudition than for your authority in the Russian Empire, and, at the command of your great monarch, I think of you, Sir, not so much in connection with the promotion of the sciences, as with the illustration of the histories and antiquities of the Russians, I hope to gain acquaintance with, and presume to take recourse to, your work, to the extent that you are in possesion of either published works or ancient manuscripts, whence your ancient histories derive their certainty. One of the more ancient of your books, called the Paterikon, has been mentioned to me, and in it the ancient ecclesiastical history of the Russian people is touched upon. I hope by your generosity both to come to know [better] and to be able to obtain this book and others of this sort.

I do not doubt moreover but that in the renowned monasteries of Russia there exist many excellent codices of the Greek fathers, nor yet but that there exist printed works and other literary works that are too little known in our Europe, which in the interest not only of your glory, but also of the public utility, must not remain hidden forever, but one day should be brought to light. Thus I write for the purpose of obtaining the indices of the pubished books and manuscripts that you have, but, what's more, I imagine it will be of worth to come to know [your] living libraries,[and] the men enlightened by learning in your nation or your region.

I dare moreover to reveal to you, eminent Sir, another wish of mine, which pertains to knowing the origins of peoples, but also, moreover, to the propagation of the true faith among men, and to the exaltation of divine glory, and in this respect it may be hoped that you will be glorified the more. It is known that in your great empire, and within its most extensive boundaries, there are many languages that are entirely different from Slavonic. To have specimens of each of them will be useful, and for it to be indicated where [each] nation has its base, and where its boundaries are, whether they be rivers or otherwise.

The origins and migrations of nations is first of all, of course, known by nothing more clearly than by languages, and great Scythia, the greater part of which belongs to the Russian ruler, is known to have given rise to the ancient Yakutians [Sacas], Parthians, Gets, Massagets, Alans, Huns, Khazars, Bulgarians, Cumanians, and the Hungarians themselves. And I understand now that there even exist regions of your empire in which the Hungarian language flourishes, not only this side of the Caspian Sea, as is commonly supposed, but also towards it. Moreover, the more useful specimens of the language will be the Catechisms, which at the same time will be able to push the peoples along towards the true faith and piety that are being taught, as well as the Decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, and the Apostles' Creed; these are to be written in the language of the people who are to be converted, with each language [also] written in Russian characters, and with a Russian version inserted between the lines, which allows [for it to be read] word for word.

These specimens from the Catechism will, rightly, lead to [the composition of] a concise dictionary in which the most frequently used nouns and verbs of a language, as well as numbers and similar elements, will be included. And all such dictionaries should be easily produced both in the Russian capital, Moscow, as well as in the principal cities of the provinces, and in distant places through the work of interpreters and of other experienced people, and they will make a step towards the conversion of [these] nations, while moreover teaching us about their origins and about the relations between them.

That these [proposals] are approved by your Great Monarch, I have been given to know as if by the oracle of a first-hand report, I therefore expect that you, who are solicitous of God's glory and of the salvation of the people, will be in agreeement.

...

Farewell, and may you continue to excel in your work. Sent

22 November 1712.

On the Declination of the Magnet and the Determination of Longitude

[From a 1716 letter to Peter the Great, in В. И. Герье, Сборник писемъ и мемориаловъ Лейбница относящихся к России и Петру Великому (Санкт-Петербург, 1873), No. 239. Includes note: "Оригиналъ хранится въ Моск. Арх. И. Д. Напечатанъ у Поссельта въ: "Peter d. Gr. und Lb.," p. 214," i.e.: "The original is kept in the Moscow Archive I. D. Printed in Moritz Fedorovich Posselt, Peter der Grösse und Leibniz (Tartu, 1843), 214. To read the original German, click 'keep reading' below.]

*

It is well known that in most places the magnetic needle does not face the North, but rather generally tends somewhat to the East or the West, and does so to differing degrees in different places.

One also finds a variation such that the declination [of the magnet] changes everywhere to some extent from year to year, and thus must be observed anew from time to time.

Now many such observations have been made made at sea, as well as on land, now and again, in France, England, Germany, and Italy, and this work is being continued. But such observations are still lacking of the northern locations in Europe and Asia, [and these] gaps could be filled in by instituting [observations] in the great Russian Empire. 

If, now, your Great Majesty the Tsar should wish to permit these to be carried out, they would bring about a great contribution to the improvement of seafaring, and would be of help to all maritime voyagers.

Those who would carry out the investigations of the declination of the magnet could at the same time undertake other investigations which could contribute to the description of the geography and of the natural features of the regions, and to divide up the provinces [by means of surveying]. 

If by bringing together the observations of the declination of the magnet in most places, made at sea and on land in various nations at a given time, as for example in the year 1718, one could plot these on a globe and on maritime maps, and could draw the magnetic lines, so that a line goes through all of the places of a [single] declination, with the result that now the magnet will not decline at all to the East or the West, or will so so only by one or two degrees.

Whoever is at sea and makes two observations, first of all of the Latitude or height of the pole, and then of the declination of the magnet, would only have to look for the line on the magnetic globe where the magnet has the relevant declination, and to follow the line to the place where it comes underneath the present elevation of the pole, in order to determine his location. 

This could then serve, by repetition, [to determine] Longitude, for although the declination changes, nevertheless, if, by the implementation of a program by Your Great Majesty the Tsar, as well as by the leaders of England, Holland, and France, such observations could be made anew from time to time, then new magnetic maps or globes would only need to be made every 5 or 6 years, which could then serve for as long a time. And thus it would be just as good as if the secret of longitude were revealed. And just as the calendar is of use for only a year, such maps would give satisfaction for 5 or 6 years.

And there is no doubt that, with time, a certain order will become apparent in the variation itself, and posterity will finally arrive at a greater knowledge of this mystery, so that new observations will no longer have to be made so frequently, but instead the variation will be able to be seen in advance, in which case the long-studied problem of Longitude would have its much sought-after solution.

Finally, since the parliament of Great Britain has recently adopted a certain resolution concerning the matter of Longitude, perhaps it would be useful to effectuate a certain arrangement with his Royal Highness of Great Britain, which, should it be in keeping with the most worthy intentions of His Great Majesty the Tsar, could, through the intermediation of the Secretary of State Mr. Stanhope, who presumably will be in contact with his Royal Highness, be brought about by me.

From the Correspondence between G. W. Leibniz and Nicolaes Witsen, 1698-99

From V. I. Ger'e, Sbornik pisem i memorialov Leïbnitsa otnosyashchikhsya k Rossii i Petru Velikomu, Saint Petersburg, 1873. Nos. 34-39. To read the original French, click 'keep reading' below.

*

Leibniz to Witsen, 13 July, 1698

What do you have to say, Sir, of the voyage of the Tsar of Muscovy, and of the grand plan he has to de-beard his nation? Is this not something quite extraordinary?

*

Leibniz to Witsen, 27 December, 1698

People criticize me when I attempt to take leave of the study of mathematics, and they tell me that I am wrong to abandon solid and eternal truths in order to study the changing and perishable things that are found in history and its laws.

*

Leibniz to Witsen, 14 (24) March, 1699

The Tsar is without a doubt a great prince, and it is a great pity that domestic strife has recently forced him to resort to such terrible executions. It is reported that his principal aides, both ecclesiastical as well as secular, were obligated to take a direct part in the execution of some criminals. This is a custom that still retains a bit of the Scythian, and I am surprised that this does not put the churchmen in that country out of sorts. But this hardly matters; what I am afraid of is that such tortures, far from squelching the animosity, will in fact only sharpen them by a sort of contagion. The children, parents, and friends of those executed are left with a wounded spirit, and it is a dangerous maxim that says: oderint, dum metuant. I greatly hope that God will protect this prince and that his heir will achieve what he has begun, namely, to civilize the nation.

*

Witsen to Leibniz, Amsterdam, 9 April, 1699

It is true, Sir, that the Tsar is a great warrior, and that he prefers to continue to make war rather than to make peace with the infidels. He was even not very happy with me, because I encouraged making peace with the Turks. It is certain that the domestic strife was very great during his absence, and that he was obligated to take a direct part in the execution of criminals. But there is nothing to fear from the friends of those executed, for the custom is to send the wives, children, and even all of the relatives of those who have been tortured to death to Siberia, or to some other far-away country. I learned many things about what happened in Moscow recently, and I believe, Sir, that you are also well informed. 

I believe that it is true that His Majesty the Tsar, when in Vienna, agreed to give the German Jesuits open passage to China across his territory; but I doubt, as you do, as to the outcome of this. 

*

Witsen to Leibniz, Amsterdam, 5 July, 1699

Regarding what you said, Sir, about a certain Muscovite custom that reeks a bit of the Scythian, I cannot refrain from telling you that I recall being in a certain place, not far from the city of Novgorod in Muscovy, where I came across a mountain called Cholobgora, which is to say Slave Mountain, and at the foot of this mountain a small river called Cholobreca, or Slave River. And when I inquired as to the origin of this name, the inhabitants related that, a long time ago, the men of this place had left in order to make war in distant lands, and that after a long absence the women, having befriended the slaves and servants of their husbands, attempted to prevent the return of these latter into their own country. But the husbands beat and chased away these sevants using no other weapons than their whips. In a word, they related to me the whole story that we find in Justin about the Scythian slaves who fought against the return of their masters into their country. However, it must be noted, Sir, that these people understand neither Greek nor Latin, having no knowledge of antiquity. From which I conclude that this region around Novgorod was part of ancient Scythia, as you have remarked. 

G. W. Leibniz, "A Note on the Origins of the Slavic Tribes"

[from V. I. Ger'e, Sbornik pisem i memorialov Leibnitsa otnosyashchikhsya k Rossii i Petru Velikomu, Saint Petersburg, 1873. No. 144, pp. 210-213. To read the original German, please click 'keep reading' below.]

1712

I have recently investigated in depth the origin and the antiquity of the Slavonic peoples, and I find that in this task one has two means available: the languages that the people speak, and the old histories that are available about them. From the languages, one sees that the entire North, to the extent that it is known to us, can be divided into four principle groups, namely, the Tartars, the Sarmatians, the Finns, and the Germans.

Among the Tartars I include the Mughals, the Kalmucks, the inhabitants of ancient Turkey, Turkestan or Bukhara, the ancient Cumanians, and similar groups.

Among the Sarmatians I include all Slavonic peoples, who were called Sarmatas by the ancients, before anything was know of the Slavinis or Slavis. And ages ago they spread from the Volga and the Ob' almost all the way to the Vistula.

Among the Finns I include the Lapps, who were called Scritofinnos by the ancients, and other peoples of the same origins who extend to the North. 

Finally, the Germans have filled Sweden, Norway, and Denmark with their colonies, for the languages of such peoples are in fact certain dialects of the German language.  

Where these peoples, and particularly the Sarmatian peoples, come from goes beyond all [written] histories and it is difficult to say how they can be derived from the descendants of Noah. Learned people have indeed let their thoughts run freely on this subject, but it is no use dweling on all-too uncertain conjectures.

Homer, who is the most ancient pagan author we have, mentions the Cimmerians who live on the Black Sea. Herodotus mentions the Cimmerians, the Scythians, the Sarmatians (or Sauromats) Issedonus and Arimasporus, and other peoples from whose location and circumstances one could make all sorts of observations that might serve to clarify the origins of the Slavonic peoples. This will be handled more extensively elsewhere.

In the Roman period we gain more light [on the subject], and see that the Sarmatians were already at that time neighbors of the Germans, and that they extended far into Asia, as we gather from Tacitus, Ptolemy, and others.

It was indeed a group of Germans from the Baltic Sea or Prussia (which in Tacitus's time was the home of the Goths) that went throughout the land of the West Slavs (or the Antes) and Poland all the way to the Black Sea, and settled between the Don, the Dniepr, the Dniestr, and the Danube. They were however soon driven out by the Huns, in the time of Constantine the Great, compelled to cross over the Danube and to go over to the Roman Empire, as the Visigoths were invading France and Spain, and the Ostrogoths Italy. The power of the Huns reached its peak under Attila, who brought almost everything between the Caspian Sea and the Rhine under his authority. And one sees from the account given by Priscus, who lived at his court along with the embassy from Constantinople, that this was no brute, but a very reasonable ruler.

There are many arguments to show that the Huns are a Sarmatian, or, as is said today, a Slavonic people.

1) They moved over the Don towards the Dniepr, and so in fact inhabited [what is today] greater Russia.

2) There is today in Slavonic the word Huni, or Chuni in some old texts, which means 'rider', and it is known that the Sarmatians and the Huns were always on horseback.

3) There were only two languages at Attila's court, as Priscus relates: Gothic (that is, German) and Hunnic. If Hunnic had been something different from Slavonic, surely Slavonic would also have been noted, for at the time Attila was surrounded by Slavonic peoples. 

4) There are many words known to the ancients that were attributed to the Huns, and that are easy to understand in Slavonic.

5) The Huns who remained in Pannonia after Attila's time and who were first tempered by Charles the Great were a Slavonic nation, according to [?] Methodius, a Pannonian bishop who without doubt spoke Slavonic. Thus almost all of Upper Hungary and a great part of Lower Hungary spoke Slavonic, since after the invasion of the Hungarians (an entirely different nation that comes from deep within Tartary) under Emperor Arnulphus and his son, a great part of the remaining inhabitants preserved the Slavonic language.

After the Goths and the Huns, the so-called Slabini or Slavonians began to spread out in Europe during the time of Emperor Justinian I and later. They came from Poland and Russia, adopting mostly the lands that had been left by the Germans between the Elbe and the Eastern Sea, as well as Moravia and Bohemia, and extending into Croatia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, the Windic March, and all the way to the Adriatic Sea, and the Khazars are also to be included among the Slavonic peoples.

Finally, the Bulgarians (who come from the Volga region) [also] belong among the Slavonic peoples, as their language is spoken not only in Bulgaria, between Serbia and Thrace, but also a number of words from the ancient Bulgarians remain [in the Volga region [?]], such as Bogomili, who were a certain group of heretics, so called by the Bulgarians because they were always saying "God help us."

Last of all, in the ninth century of our era the Russians, who are presumably the ancient Roxolani (so powerful that they too besieged Constantinople), make their appearance. In order to be able to better judge from the ancient histories, one would have to have the ancient book that they possess called paterikon, as well as other monuments.

Various Remarks by Leibniz concerning Russia

From V. I. Ger'e (Guerrier), Sbornik pisem i memorialov Leibnitsa otnosyashchikhsya k Rossii i Petru Velikomu. Saint Petersburg, 1873. (Ger'e does not give a date of composition, but from the content this piece can be placed roughly between 1705 and 1712. Explanatory notes to follow soon.)

No. 42.

A thing of great curiosity is the Mammatovoi Kost [mammoth bone], which was dug out of the earth in Siberia. The inhabitants tell remarkable tales about it; in fact they say that they are the bones of an animal that dwells beneath the earth, and that surpasses in size all the animals that live above the earth.  In medicine they use it for the same purposes as that which is called the horn of the unicorn. A morsel was given to me which seemed to be genuine ivory, and those who are more experienced believe it to be elephant tooth, so that in the universal deluge, the teeth were carried there, and it is necessary that for a great period of time they become more and more woven into the earth.

Likewise the Adamovoi Kost or Adam's wood is obtained from the bowels of the earth on the way towards Arkhangelsk. It is blackish in color, like a stone in hardness, and with respect to its shape and its veins it recalls the branches of a tree. And the common opinion is that it is a petrified stone.

There is in Russia a fruit called a Naliva, which does not delight the appetite so much by the sweetness of its taste, but is greatly alluring to the sight, for it is translucent like woadstone. 

The root of the famous kidney vetch has been observed in Russia, growing in Siberia, as well as the Voltschnoi Koren, which is called [in Latin] the lupina radix [or wolf root], which is said to have the greatest [medicinal] virtue in healing wounds, and some claim that it is beneficial to chew it for the healing of wounds.

Among fish the sturgeon stands out, [as it is] considered among the Russian delicacies.  The head and the tail are so long that the body itself makes up barely half of the fish. It lacks scales, but is provided with a skin akin to that of an eel. Those sturgeons are most prized the interior of whose skin is golden.

The vichochol is a large aquatic mouse that gives off a pleasant odor. Its furs are placed in the case in which linen garments are kept, thanks to which they acquire their odor.

In Slavonic the word Scorbuti is a sort of illness kat' exochen, for in the Slavonic tongue Scorb means 'illness'. The Russians have a truly peculiar term for designating scurvy, which they call tsinga.

The city of Yaroslavl' is celebrated above all for its manufacture of marroquin rouge.

Because the Armenians are able to easily transfer goods obtained in Holland from the Baltic Sea, along the Volga, and into Persia, henceforth the Russians allow this route to no one, unless they are travelling from Persia through Russia to the Baltic Sea.

Previously bananas from India came as far as Moscow; now it is not permitted to transport them beyond Astrakhan.

From China they bring an artificial product, which is golden in color, aromatic, and similar to chalk in texture, [and] which is called Temzui, and reputed to be an excellent medicine for many illnesses.  The Bukharan Muslims, whose capital city is Samarkand, frequently go to Tobolsk, the capital of Siberia.  The Kalmuk Tatars lead horses to Moscow to be sold around the beginning of autumn. A herd of horses, called a tabun, can consist in 6, 8, or 12 thousand. They also sell their children to the Russians. Their religion is the same as that of the Mughal Tatars.

*

"Request of the Dogs" (A I 3, N. 67)

[This is a satirical request written by G. W. Leibniz in early 1680 to his employer, the Duke of Hannover, ostensibly on behalf of the dogs residing at the royal court. Leibniz is responding to news of the invention, by Denis Papin, of the pressure cooker, which has been described as being capable of reducing even bones to a soft state in which they can be consumed by humans. For Papin's description of the machine, in the form of a report to the Royal Society of London, see A new digester or engine for softning bones containing the description of its make and use in these particulars: viz. cookery, voyages at sea, confectionary, making of drinks, chymistry, and dying: with an account of the price a good big engine will cost, and of the profit it will afford, by Denys Papin, London: Printed by J.M. for Henry Bonwicke, 1681. For the original version, please click "continue reading" below.]

*

Request of the Dogs, presented to Mr. ..., French Agent General of Cuisine, and Secretary of State of this body for foreign affairs, currently located in his professional capacity at the court of Hannover.

We, the undersigned Dogs, the bloodhounds, greyhounds, the sleuth-hounds, the lapdogs, and other dogs, large and small, humbly beg your highness to hear, and to make to hear, our reasons for this important grievance.

Your Highness will no doubt recall, having read so widely and gained such fine knowledge, that the great Diogenes, called the Cynic or the 'canine' in view of the affection that he gave us, had the custom of declaring loudly that there was sometimes a greater difference from one dog to another, than there is between certain men and certain beasts.  Nevertheless, notwithstanding this great diversity among dogs, which makes them seem almost of different species, the entire body [of dogs] is now united in order to defend one of the most glorious rights our nation has ever had, and which they now wish to steal from us in an undertaking that will have very dangerous consequences. For we have learned from our correspondents, that a certain quidam [i.e., Papin] claims to be able to make bones soft and suitable for being eaten by men, without thereby spoling the flesh at all, and that said quidam wishes to send his cooking pots and his entire apparatus to the Court of Hannover so that they may be tried out there.  To which we have deemed it necessary to voice our opposition in a timely fashion. For although we can hardly believe it, and we should take it all for so much fanciful dreaming, nevertheless some malign demon of the canine race or of the human race, wishing to distrub the good understanding that has existed for all time between dogs and men, might have given the idea of this secret to this man, just as another demon no doubt gave the idea of gunpowder to a monk.  There is no room for wondering whether one might be able to call into question the right that we have to the bones that have been stripped of flesh, which have belonged to us since time immemorial without any man or beast undertaking to disturb us in our possession [of them]. Homer and the most ancient authors spoke in explicit terms; and the Scripture, when it says that one must not take bread away from children to give it to the dogs, did not however say such a thing about the bones, which they well knew to belong to us since the flood, that is to say since men began to eat the flesh of animals. And although we have relinquished the marrow to men for love of peace, this was only in order to better preserve for ourselves our right to the bones themselves, which was moreover only strengthened by this arrangement. Good God, how far does the covetousness of men reach, who sometimes do not content themselves with eating all that they have, but also have no shame in devouring our portion. But this gluttony might be punished severely by the guardian gods of our species, and by the great Sirius, or the celestial dog, who merited a place among the stars, [and who] will no doubt plead our cause before Jupiter, if men refuse to do us right. But Sirius himself could avenge the injustice of men for us by intensifying the heat of the dog days, of which he is the master, as you know in view of the great knowledge you have of astronomy. What's more, this new dish could have ill effects among men, and could turn them all into cynics, seeing that they are already today inclined towards impudence. 

After much reflection, we leave it to your prudence to consider whether it should be safe and advantageous to forever cut off ties in such a way with the dogs. You know (you who have read so much history) that a certain king, chased from his land, was brought back in the escort of two hundred dogs, who laid waste to the rebels. [You know too] that dogs have saved the lives of their masters, and that other dogs have avenged their masters' deaths. Finally, there are today cities that are guarded by dogs that would in the future be abandoned along with many others, if we are deprived of the better part of our salary. Hunting dogs will no longer attack, and will not pursue any beast; the other dogs will abandon their homes to the thieves, and the sheep to the wolves. And we little dogs of Boulogne, we will abandon our mistresses to the lovers who pursue them, and we will no longer bark at whatsoever they might undertake. And finally, there will be much disorder in the kitchens, and all you messieurs les chefs, you will often be left wanting for so much as a morsel of lamb: in denying us the bones, you will lose them along with the meat. This is why it is up to you others above all, as much as it is up to the meat carvers, whose art would be useless, if one were able to cut through the meat without concern for the bone, as one cuts through butter. For these reasons, we beseech Your Highness, upon much reflection, to deliberate in the General Assembly upon a matter of such importnce, and to despatch far away this innovator with his whole apparatus, and to forbid him from entering into all kitchens. And as for you, Monsieur, in particular, you will be so kind as to prevent him from meddling in the kitchen at Hannover. We, with all the respect of which dogs are capable,

the most humble sleeping dogs
of Your Highness:

for the hunting dogs, Lelaps

for the guard dogs, Mopse

for the lapdogs, Amarille

Premier séminaire québécois de philosophie moderne

PROGRAMME

16 octobre 2009

Premier atelier Université de Sherbrooke, Salon du Carrefour de l'information Présidence : Sébastien Charles
14 h 45 - 15 h 00		Accueil des congressistes et ouverture du séminaire
15 h 00 - 16 h 15		Jay Mikelman (Boston University), « Electing the Leviathan »
16 h 15 - 16 h 30		Pause
16 h 30 - 17 h 45		Tinneke Beeckman (Fund for Scientific Research Flanders), « Quand le vice devient vertu: la radicalité de la philosophie politique de Spinoza »
Premier conférencier invité Bishop’s University, McGreer 100 Présidence: Syliane Malinowski-Charles
18 h 15 - 19 h 45		Roger Ariew (University of South Florida), « The Cogito in 1634-1635 »

17 octobre 2009

Deuxième atelier Manoir Hovey, salle Abénaquis Présidence : Sébastien Charles
9 h 30 - 10 h 45		Andrew R. Platt (University of Delaware), « The Evolution of the Concept of an Occasional Cause: Clauberg and La Forge on ‘Occasions’ for Sensation »
10 h 45 - 11 h 00		Pause
11 h 00 - 12 h 15		Justin E. H. Smith (Université Concordia), « De la mécanique tractorique à la pyrotechnie: le modèle leibnizien de l’animal-machine »
Troisième atelier Manoir Hovey, salle Abénaquis Présidence: Syliane Malinowski-Charles
13 h 45 - 15 h 00		Graeme Hunter (University of Ottawa), « Tournament of Champions: Pascal Against Traditional Philosophy »
15 h 00 - 15 h 15		Pause
15 h 15 - 16h30		Justin Steinberg (Brooklyn College, CUNY), « Sympathy, Representation, and Humanity in Spinoza’s Ethics »
Deuxième conférencier invité Manoir Hovey, salle Abénaquis Présidence: Sébastien Charles
17 h 30 - 19 h 00		Denis Kambouchner (Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne), « La transition Descartes-Spinoza en psychophysiologie »

18 octobre 2009

Quatrième atelier Manoir Hovey, salle Abénaquis Présidence: Syliane Malinowski-Charles
9 h 30 - 10 h 45		David Raynor (University of Ottawa), « The Intentionality of Perceptual Consciousness: Hume and Kant »

Peter the Great's Decree Appointing G. W. Leibniz to the Rank of Russian Privy Council (from the Slavonic)

I, Peter the Great, Tsar and Protector of All Russia, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, have in good favor chosen the Privy Council of the Elector and Prince of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, in view of the good qualities and accomplishments of his that have been communicated to me and that I have confirmed, to serve also as my Privy Council, that he may contribute to the advancement of the mathematical and other sciences, and be of service to the investigation of history and to the undertaking of studies in general. It is my intention that he will contribute to the flourishing of the sciences and arts in our state, and for the above-mentioned rank of Privy Council I wish to offer him an annual salary of 1000 talers, which should be paid to him yearly on my behalf, and for which I shall place the requisite orders, beginning from the date indicated below. In testimony whereof I give my signature, together with our state seal, in Karlsbad, 11 November, 1712.

*

Мы пεтръ пεрвыï Цръ и самѡдεржεцъ всεросиïскиï: Iпротчая ипротчая ипротчая; изобрѣли мы заблго всемилтивѣйше кȣрѳирстского икняжаго браȣнщвигъ люнѣбȣргъ таиного юстицъ рата готѳрида вилгεлма ѳонъ леïбница. Заεто намъ выхвалεнныя иот насъ изѡбрѣтεнныя изрядныя достоинства I искȣства тамождε внаши таиныя юстицъ раты опрεдεлить иȣчрεдить. Что намъ помεжε мы извεстны. Что ѡнъ поȣмножεнию матεматичεскихъ Iиныхъ искȣствъ ипроизыскиванью гисторεи ïкприрашεнию наȣкъ много вс'помоши можεтъ. Его поимεющемȣ нашεмȣ намѣрεнию что наȣки Iискȣства вншεмъ гдрствѣ вящεи цвѣтъ произошли употрεбить. Имы для вышεпомянȣтого εгѡ чина ншεго таиного юстицъ рата годовоε жалованьε потысячи ефимковъ опрεдεлить изволили, которыя εмȣ отнасъ εжεгодно исправно заплачεны быть имѣютъ инчεму мы налεжащи Указы дать изволимъ. Аεто слȣжба начичаεтца снижεписанногѡ числа; воȣвεрѣние того сие заншимъ собствεннымъ рȣкопописаниεмъ игдрствεнною ншεю пεчатью Дано в Карлсьбадε [11 ноября] въ 1712 году.