Leibniz & Scelling 哲學一智 493032416 潘彥竹

A Strange of My Spring Vacation

During my spring vacation, I bivouacked with my family. In the afternoon, I walked alone the river by my lonesome. Looked at the beautiful sky, the greensward and I enjoyed the forest spa. I thought, Leibniz said, everything in macrocosm is made by atom, include, the sky, the forest, the sward and me. How magical! Then, I walked a long distance gradually.
“That a trouble! I seem away off my tentage and I thirst!” When I thought what should I do, I saw an isba and there were some words,” For those philosophers who never pass away.” And there were some small words under side,” Whether you are thirst, want to take a rest or have any doubt, welcome to my room. There always prepare the coffee for you.” I nosed coffee and muffin fragrance, so I can’t but into there.
There were few people inside and sputtered together. I saw a man sit against the window whom I seem have seen before, so I went there and sat next him.
“Hi! Nice to meet you. Did we meet before? I think you are so familiar.” I said.
“Well, God is giant. The world made by atom, and God is apocalyptic inner man.” He said.
“Oh! I know. You are Leibniz. That great! I have some problem want to ask you for long time.” I said, and I felt inconceivable.
“Ok, it’s my pleasure.” Leibniz said.

Claire: I had read a little your doctrine; can you tell me some about you?
Leibniz: Because of I am a diplomat and contact with many countries of Europe, so my concept is diverse and finding the balance between the antinomy and the polarization. I appreciate eastern philosophy and accomplished a China philosophy author by French.

Claire: Well, What is the theory of atom? Just now, I thought about it.
Leibniz: The macrocosm is made by atom, account of it is the immortal unit, and it can’t divorce, but the corporality has tractility and the corporality staked out a place that can be divorced, atom has no tractility and materiality. Come down to bedrock, the essence and the power compose of the atom, in the other word, God create the world. You see?

Claire: I see. And I had heard about methodology, can you decipher it for me?
Leibniz: First, I mention Harmony: The world seem conflicting and antinomy, in fact, it is just a branch of the big wisdom. So he wants to settlement the encyclopedia.
Second, Symbolic logic: In order to accept the opinions of each other, you must have the implement of communication. It seem difficult to you.

Claire: That’s right. I have some indigestion, but that okay. Then what is the theory of instruction?
Leibniz: To made the truth deoxygenate and generalize. It has two sorts. One is “Truth of Reason.” Another one is “Truth of Fact.”

Claire: Then, what is the theory of abstraction?
Leibniz: The abstraction of pluralism, the macrocosm of bedrock is made by the most immortal unit.

Claire: And what is innate idea?
Leibniz: Get before the experience and it is the truth of pleternities. For example, math and the logic notion.

Claire: What is the big law? I remember it is the fundament of macrocosm based on it.
Leibniz: It has six sorts:
The first is “the Principle of Sufficient Reason.” And the second is “the Principle of Identity.” The third is ”the Principle of Perfection.” The fourth is “the Principle of the Identity of Indisconnibles.” The fifth is “The Principle of Continuity.” And the least is “the Principle of Pre-established Harmony.”

Claire: How is immaterial atom that is the fundament of the material world?
Leibniz: The material staked out a place and can’t intrude. One is “The First res.” The force of passivity. The signalment of the most germinal material. Another one is “The Second res.” The active force. A power that can change formation else.

Claire: For Monotheism, if God is all beginning, where is evil?
Leibniz: There three type. The evil of abstraction and the evil of body. Finally is the ethics of evil.

Claire: Al right, it’s really let me know more. The next question, why being but nothingness?
Leibniz: By simple principle, nothing is simpler than something, so it is the reason why God created the world.

Claire: I remember that you have held up two edifices, can you talk about them?
Leibniz: Ok. The one is optimism; keep orthodoxy, aeriality and superficiality. The second is abstract, method is self-consistent, and there is the logic.

Claire: Talk about this. What kind of Philosophy idea that affected you in Paris?
Leibniz: I have be affected by R'ene Descartes and the materialism of Car Sandi.

Claire: Would you talk about the tractility of your cognizance?
Leibniz: The tractility isn’t a kind of an entity. The mean of the tractility is “pluralism”, which is consisted of many entities. I believe that there are boundless entities, and I named them “atom”.

Claire: I know you regard Descartes very much. What doctrine did your circularize after accepted his doctrine?
Leibniz: I thought of that any two atom didn’t have causation. Didn’t mind “Dynamics”, just noticed about consciousness. I alleged that any atom reflected the cosmos, because I god give its a habitude. A change of an atom and the other atom is called “connate accord”.

Claire: How did you define “connate accord”?
Leibniz: Some people thought of that “connate accord” is too bizarre to believe. I thought of that argued the existence of the god. All atom consisted a system, and some atoms of them can reflected the cosmos clearly. All atom represent blur, and the extensity followed the degree of atom.

Claire: Then, can you expression the “the same of the thing we didn’t see”?
Leibniz: Of course I can. Every foothold is occupied by only one atom. It’s impossible that two atom are same.

Claire: What consideration did you have was same with Thomas Argue?
Leibniz: I thought of that the god can’t do something contravene logic, but the god can do anything if it conform logic.

Claire: What four argumentation did you have to prove that the being of the god?
Leibniz: The first is the argumentation of entity. The second is the argumentation of cosmos. The third is the argumentation of everlasting truth. The last is the argumentation of connate accord.

Claire: By the way, can you express the “The argumentation of entity”?
Leibniz: Any people and anything are real, and they have some habitudes, that cause the essence. But they are not real just because their essence to any entity. I define “have”, it has a fare-thee-well. So “have” is perfect, and real is listed of “have”.

Claire: The final question. Please express the “The argumentation of cosmos”, thanks.
Leibniz: The argumentation of cosmos is better than the argumentation of entity. It is one kind of argumentation of first reason. I thought of that anything is accidental, maybe they were not real. We can use this argumentation for cosmos. I thought that anything of cosmos have reason for being, and these reasons we called “the god”.

“It’s time to go, Miss.” Leibniz said.
“All right. I really happy to talk about philosophy with you.” I said.
“Me, too. Bye.
“Bye.”

After Leibniz left, I still enjoyed my coffee.
Suddenly, a man was sat down in front of me. And he said:
“Hello, Miss, how are you today?”
“Fine, thanks. Did we know?”
“Sure, in the next moment, we will be friends. My name is Schelling, I am a philosopher.”
“You are Schelling? That’s great, I have many problem in philosophy. Can I ask you?”
“Sure, just do it.” Schelling said.

Claire: What is your three parts of argumentation?
Schelling: My major is that find the essentiality of absolute fare-thee-well in myself. And the minor is that to be is the perfection. Then consequent is that the being includes the essentiality of absolute fare-thee-well.

Claire: I understand now. And what are your four doctrines?
Schelling: The first is Naturphilosophie. The second is Transcendental–philosophies. The third is Identitat-sphilosophie. The last is Ethicphilosophie.

Claire: Well, and what faults did you think that Descartes made when he analogizing?
Schelling: Plus in conclusion quam fuerat in praemissis

Claire: What two propositions did you sort out in argumentation of logic?
Schelling: The one is that the argumentation of assumption. (If God is, God is infallibly.) The other one is that the argumentation of affirmation. (God is infallibly.)

Claire: What concept did you construe Kant’s comment?
Schelling: The ens is a predicative but das-was-ist is all concept of concept.

Claire: Then, what did the essence of exist infallibly?
Schelling: Naught is impossible, and the essence of inevitability is blind, in the other word, das blinde Seyende.

Claire: I think so. Then, why did you dictate ens to no proleptic so that compartmentalizes two philosophies?
Schelling: The essence of consequent ens. The conception has some distance to the God essence. Implicate the nature of God, and the nature esteems das schlechthin Seyende.

Claire: How did you delineate God in the rule of “God is the possession of being”?
Schelling: God is the possession of being and being. (Herr des Seyns and Seyn.)

Claire: What did you emphasize in the association of negativphilosophie?
Schelling: The first is the highest essence. The second is the consequential ens.

Claire: The final question. What the association between these two?
Schelling: The highest ens, if it exist, it can only be the aforehand ens, so it should be a consequential ens.

“Today is my lucky day, I run into Leibniz and Schelling. It’s a fortunate thing.”
“Ha, if I can help you, it’s my pleasure. Time is late, I need to go now.” Schelling said.
“Ok, nice to meet you. Bye!” I said.
“Bye” Schelling said.