Gilles Deleuze’s research during the 1980s focused on the 17th century German thinker G. W. Leibniz. In 1988, Deleuze published Le Pli, which forms part of a series of works on modern philosophy. This book displays Deleuze’s attention to the interpretations of contemporary commentators on modern philosophy, in this case, on Leibniz. In this context, there occurred a brief and important dialogue between Deleuze and Christiane Frémont, the French commentator and translator of Leibniz, with regard to their respective interpretations of (...) the great German philosopher. This article intends to give an account of the main topics present in that conversation. Firstly, we can say they involve 1) the problem of body and the Leibnizian vinculum substantiale, 2) the question of singularities, 3) the principle of economy and incompossibility, and 4) the Deleuzian concept of vice-diction. Our hypothesis in this study is that the readings made by both authors of the German thinker are mutually involved. It is essential, in order to support this hypothesis, to make precise the demarcations of relations between such readings. For this reason, our research will focus on Frémont’s study Singularités, individus et relations dans le système de Leibniz (2003) and on Deleuze’s work Le Pli (1988). We hope to determine the topics that emerge in the relationship, and to specify convergences and divergences of interpretation. (shrink)

Leibniz, it seems, wishes to reduce statements involving relations or extrinsic denominations to ones solely in terms of individual accidents or, respectively, intrinsic denominations. His reasons for this appear to be that relations are merely mental things (since they cannot be individual accidents) and that extrinsic denominations do not represent substances as they are on their own. Three interpretations of Leibniz''s reductionism may be distinguished: First, he allowed only monadic predicates in reducing statements (hard reductionism); second, he allowed also `implicitly (...) relational predicates'' such as `loves somebody'' (soft reductionism); third, he allowed also `explicitly relational predicates'' such as `loves Helen'' (nonreductionism). Hard reductionism is problematic with respect to Leibniz''s doctrines of universal expression and incompossibility (among other things). Nonreductionism, in turn, faces insurmountable problems with Leibniz''s doctrine of self-sufficiency and internal identification of substances, as well as with that of individual accidents. The remaining option, soft reductionism, standing between the other two interpretations, arguably avoids at least some of their problems. (shrink)

Não há, para Leibniz, separação entre uma esfera ética, na qual seriam consideradas as ações voluntárias dos homens e sua busca pelo bem, e uma esfera epistemológica, pela qual se explicaria a busca pela verdade. Procuramos mostrar, primeiro, em que sentido se pode dizer que o conhecimento é uma ação voluntária; e, segundo, como a ação moral só é verdadeiramente livre se fundamentada no conhecimento do verdadeiro, por isso o modelo de homem livre é o homem sábio.

Peu connue à cause de l’absence d’ouvrage de référence qui la présenterait dans toute son étendue, la pensée politique de Leibniz présente cependant un intérêt non négligeable pour l’histoire de la philosophie politique. En concevant l’homme comme sociable par nature, Leibniz ne fait pas pour autant de l’État l’aboutissement des sociétés naturelles, mais plutôt un moment passager dans la réalisation du monde moral au sein du monde naturel. Dès lors, le meilleur régime pour un tel État, ne résultant pas d’un (...) contrat social bien que sujets et souverain y soient dans un rapport mutuel d’obligation, serait celui qui permettrait d’allier le mieux puissance et sagesse. Refusant tout pouvoir arbitraire, et insistant sur la nécessité de distinguer les pouvoirs, Leibniz considère la monarchie comme le meilleur régime en ce qu’elle serait plus facilement amendable : assisté d’un parlement, le puissant monarque ne pourrait qu’être sage.Little-known because of the lack of a work of reference that would present it in all its extent, Leibniz’s political thought is however of significant interest for the history of political philosophy. By conceiving humans has sociable by nature, Leibniz doesn’t depict the State as the outcome of natural societies, but rather as a passing moment in the realization of the moral world within the natural world. Therefore, the best regime for such a State, not resulting from a social contract although subjects and sovereign are there in a mutual relationship of obligation, would be the one uniting best power and wisdom. Refusing every arbitrary power and emphasizing on the necessity of distinguishing powers, Leibniz considers monarchy as the best regime for it would be more easily improvable: assisted by a parliament, a potent monarch could only be wise[1]. (shrink)

Leibniz propôs que demonstrações fossem reformuladas como deduções a partir de identidades, e que proposições do tipo A = A fossem a fonte única de verdade. Neste artigo, procuro explicar essa teoria da prova (e do conhecimento), assim como seus conceitos elementares, ou seja, os conceitos de identidade, verdade (ou possibilidade) e proposição (inclusive a teoria leibniziana da redutibilidade a proposições sujeito-predicado). Leibniz proposed that demonstrations be reformulated as deductions from identities, and that propositions of the type A = A (...) be the only source of truth. In this article, I aim to explain this theory of proof (and knowledge), as well as its elementary concepts, such as identity, truth (or possibility) and proposition (including Leibniz's theory of reducibility of propositions to subject-predicate form). (shrink)