Udoka Omenukor

The Nature and Existence of the External World(Leibniz vs. Berkeley)

Word Count: 4,918

May 6, 2009

Professor Gollop's History of Modern Philosophy

“One Intriguing and One Unappealing”

1. INTRODUCTIONGottfried Leibniz and George Berkeley could not have been any more

different. Even though Berkeley and Leibniz had ideas around the same time

period, Leibniz has a more interesting philosophy. In fact, Leibniz's work in

general shows ideas that might have been ahead of his time. His work seems to

have anticipated later discoveres made in the field of physics, but at the time of

his productions, the ideas were too eccentric (especially when placed in

competition with Newton for dominant theories of physics). Even his theory of

pan-psyche is intriguing when examine from an advanced physics stand point.

Berkeley, on the other hand, has less interesting views of how the world works.

His theor is definitely simpler than Leibniz's “monaology”, and seems to lend

itself to more contradictions. Leibniz's metaphysics is more useful for the

modern times than Berkeley's.

2. LEIBNIZ'S METAPHYSICS

Leibniz's theory may seem to be a contradiction at first or at least a bit

strange. He seems to suggest the world is made up of tiny beings that can

perceive things as if they had a mind of their own. His theory is called

Monadology. The Monadology, written in 1714, is Leibniz's explanation of what

this world is made of. This existence is made up from monads. Monads are the

simplest bits of material. They're unable to be divided into any more parts. Some

liken them to atoms, but the difference between an atom and a monad is that

atoms are thought of as the make up of matter and they themselves are matter

which means they have “extension”, something Leibniz does not believe in. A

better way to think of monads is like a quantum. A quantum is the smallest unit

of measure of a packet of energy. An example would be a photon, an indivisible

packet of energy waves emitted from light. Monads have no space in between

them or around them. In fact, monads are every where. Leibniz explains the idea

of monads step by step. He first asserts that there are monads and monads are

necessary because the world is full of compounds that must be made up of

something. Monads, being totally indivisible, are the simplest substances in

existence. Since monads cannot break down, they cannot cease to exist. That is,

by nature, a monad cannot cease to exist because there is no natural way to

make the monad disappear or dissipate. It would be an unnatural event that gets

rid of a monad. And likewise, it would be an unnatural for a substance to

suddenly come into being. This means no new monads are created and no old

ones are destroyed. Changes in the world are just transformations of already

existing monads. Furthermore, each monad has its own specific qualities. This is

necessary because if monads did not have their own unique qualities, each

monad would be the same and thereby be the same monad by logic of “Identity

of Indiscernibles”. The identity of indiscernibles is one of Leibniz's principles

which is sometimes even referred to as “Lebniz's Rule”. It sttes that two things

are one and the same if they share the same properties in common. He also notes

that in nature, you never see anything that is “perfectly similar to each other”

(118, Leibniz). Imagine the saying “no two snowflakes are alike” or “no two

people are alike”. And even if one were to directly clone a sheep, the new sheep

would still have its own unique properties. By nature, no two things are exactly

alike. The fact that monads are all different also explains Leibniz's views on

motion. He uses an example of ice floating in water. Since the water and the ice

have different properties, one can tell the difference between the two which is

how one is able to tell that the ice is floating and moving in the water. Likewise,

each monad has different properties that enable us to see motion.

Each monad changes, as well. According to Leibniz, all created things are

changing continuously. However, monads have no “windows” (118, Leibniz) from

which external forces could change them. Whatever makes a monad change

comes from within the monad. Change in a monad is “the passing from one

perception to another” (120, Leibniz). They have an “appetition,” an appetite or

desire, which motivates the monads to change their perceptions. This idea seems

very strange, but it is the only explanation Leibniz can find for internal change.

Monads change in a psychological way.

This brings up some conclusions about the nature of the world. First, that

material objects are not real and second, that everything has a mind. Material

objects are sperated by space, however, Leibniz does not believe in space. Space

is just an illusion produced by the perceptions of monads. Since we cannot say

hat anything is spatially extended, the material objects do not really exist. And

contrary to prior belief, the “essence of a substance” (120, Leibniz Descartes?) is

not the extension of it, but the consciousness of it. For Leibniz, reality is an

infinite number of monads and their minds which explains how the world

appears to have space and matter. He compares it to a rainbow. A rainbow looks

like an image of colours in the sky, but in actuality, it's just light passing through

particles of water. The appearances come to be because of pre-established

harmony which means the monad's perceptions have been pre-determined. The

principle of pre-established harmony says that God has created the best world

possible and it is expressed through monads. Monads are a “mirror” of the

universe. A monad will have an infinite number of perceptions. In fact, Leibniz

says:

We have said that the notion of an individual substance includes once and for all

everything that can ever happen to it and that, by considering this notion, one can see there

everything that can truly be said of it, just as we can see in the nature of a circle all the

properties that can be deduced from it (sec.13, Leibniz).

This means that everything has every property that it will ever have already

within it. If one's hair were to turn grey, the colour is not a new property. The

hair has always had that property and the potential of appearing grey. Think of

one of your favourite CDs. The first time you listened to it, it may have been in

your car. The second time may have been on your computer and the third may

have been with your new expensive headphones. Each time, you may think you

hear something different, but that sound that you think is new has been there the

whole time.

Naturally, this strange account of reality is going to be met with opposing

views. Leibniz's theory has a logical flow, but only because it follows his

principles. Another one of Leibniz's principles, the principle of sufficient reason,

is needed for his account of God. With that principle, he is able to say everything

has a cause and explain that the cause of monads is God. With that principle, he

is able to say everything has a cause and so the cause of the Monads would be

God. Also, there must be a cause for the monads to continuously be changing

that is not mechanical force, which allows Leibniz to start giving his theory of

panpsychism as an option. Panpsychism is the view that everything has a mind or

a psyche. The pre-established harmony principle creates a situation where

monads cannot interact with each other. It allows for Leibniz to create a

causation clause that doesn’t interfere with his idea of monads with minds and

no ‘windows’. He uses the principle of indiscernibles to set up his statements of

monads having minds so that they can always be changing and can have different

qualities. Leibniz has set up specific rules that make his argument possible. This

can be problematic because it makes his arguments very biased and they could

possibly over-look things that his rules do not cover. Some people wonder about

the fact that monads are indivisible and infinite. Monads, described in this way,

are likened to mathematical points that cannot be divided and are infinitely

small. Opposers wonder how something indivisible and infinite can comprise

finite objects. Leibniz never discusses this, but it would make sense to put into

consideration that no one said that existence was finite. And if by “finite objects”

they mean for example, a coke bottle, being the definite shape and size that it is,

is a finite object, it would make sense to remember that monads only give the

appearance of the space that makes you think the coke bottle is finitely small,

curvy and plastic. Also, many people find it strange that monads would have

minds. Usually, when we think of minds, we think of living things with brains and

it is common belief that matter begets consciousness. That is, one cannot be a

thinking being without some sort of brain. Monads are exactly opposite of this.

They have no matter whatsoever, and yet they are beings. However, there is one

thing I knew while I was learning about Leibniz that allowed me to not discredit

the theory as total hog-wash like some of my peers did (even my first reaction

was to discredit the theory). I knew that many scientists have noticed that when

they conduct experiments with sub-atomic particles, they get different results

depending on whether they watched the experiment or not. If they were not

looking, they got one result. If they were looking, they got a different result

(results can be tracked and gathered without observation with one's eyes). This

is called the uncertainty principle. I began to wonder if a possible cause could

be due to something that Leibniz was suggesting. I remembered that radical

ideas such as “the world is round” were once thought of as crazy. And its

interesting how Newtonian physics won out (the 1670s seemed to be a

metaphysical competition between philosophers and physicists) and was then

replaced with Einstein. I began to wonder if panpsychicism is a legitimate claim.

I found myself very intrigued by Leibniz in general.

3. BERKELEY'S METAPHYSICS

Berkeley, on the other hand, did not impress me even though his aim was

to connect with people. He wanted his metaphysical theory to make a lot of

common sense. In fact, it was one of the two rules he created. The theory must

not commit one to skepticism, the view that we should doubt everything, because

it is the denial of the reality of sensible things (things that one can immediately

perceive by your senses) and the theory must be cohesive with common sense. In

comparison to Leibniz, he achieves the goal. Berkeley’s theory of immaterialism

and idealism makes a lot more common sense than Leibniz’s theory of

monadology, but when you takes a closer look into Berkeley’s theory, you will find

un-ignorable holes.

To explain Berkeley simply, he believes objects are made up by things that

we sense. My hair band is just the fact that I can sense its shape, colour,

elasticity, etc. And he also believes that these perceptions are relative. What

looks like an adorable pink top to me probably looks like a mediocre brown top to

my dad who’s partially colour blind. That makes sense, but what if we looked at a

piece of paper? A piece of paper, to most people, is smooth and neither course

nor bumpy. However, if you were to shrink down to the size of a baby flea,’ you

would be able to see that paper is in fact course, bumpy and complicated.

Berkeley would say that it is “absurd” for something to be smooth and bumpy at

the same time. Berkeley uses the example of water. If one of one's hands were

warm and the other one was cold, when one dip the two into the same bucket of

water, the water would feel both hot and cold at the same time which seems

paradoxical. To fix this problem, Berkeley says that these sensations are relative

and not a property of the water because it is impossible for an object to have two

opposite properties at the same time. In other words, its all in our heads.

Berkeley also believes that we cannot conceive an object that is outside of our

minds. That is, we cannot say there is a reality that is outside of our minds

because we cannot think of something that is outside our minds. For once we

begin to ponder the thing that is outside of our mind, it is then developed within

our mind. This is Berkeley's idealism and immaterialism which shows that

reality is just the ideas we have in our head while his opponents believe in

material things.

Berkeley shows objecting views through the character of Hylas. Hylas’s

best objection for Berkeley’s mouthpiece, Philonous, is primary qualities. Hylas

says that primary qualities, unlike secondary qualities which are mind

dependent, “exist independently of the mind and form material substances”.

Hylas adds that absolute size, shape, an motion are the primary qualities that we

perceive. Berkeley's Philonous knocks down Hyla's idea, stating that we only

perceive certain instances of size, shape and motion so the idea of having

absolute knowledge of a material object is just as false as having knowledge of

secondary qualities. Berkeley’s point is to show that we cannot have true

empirical evidence of the underlying true nature of an object because the

relativity of our perceptions. Objects are just ideas formed by our senses.

Berkeley's biggest problem that he tries very hard to fix is the fact that his

view sounds a lot like skepticism. Berkeley works very hard to show that his view

is very common sensical. However, there are some things that I do not think

make sense. Berkeley denies the existence of matter because he finds that to be

the only way to make sure the world makes sense. Everything seems to be

relative to Berkeley, however primary qualities such as numbers are not so

relative. Though, it is true that perhaps we invented numbers in our own design,

they have proven to be an effective way to objectively measure the world. For

every person, no matter what, a foot is 12 inches long. There is no way to

perceive a foot as five inches or twenty inches in the same way one can perceive

blue water or green water. It does not seem like Berkeley puts objective things

like that into consideration. He makes it sound as if there are multiple realities

depending on how one views the world because its all in our heads. That sounds

very similar to skepticism to me. Berkeley denies a material reality from fear of

the relativity of perception and thereby does not trust empirical evidences.

He mentions a termite seeing the world differently than a person. A piece

of paper is smooth to a human, but bumpy to a termite and it makes no sense to

be both at the same time, according to Berkeley. However, we experience the

effects of “bumpy” paper every time we use it. Even though our eyes see smooth,

our pens and pencils are able to write on the paper which is indicative of its

actual bumpiness. The paper in actuality is bumpy, but we perceive it to be

smooth. What I'm getting at here is even though everyone can perceive things

differently, there must be a single, actual truth about that object because no

matter how we think a thing looks or feels, we are affected by the thing in the

same way.

For example, if I have a needle, I may perceive it to be sharp. According to

Berkeley, in my reality (in my head), there is a sharp needle. My friend might see

the needle as dull, so for his reality, there is a dull needle. If we both touch the

needle, we would both find that we have pricked ourselves and there is blood

seeping onto our skin. Regardless of how either of us perceived the needle, it

was sharp and it does not bend or change according to how we thought we saw

it.

Also, when we use our objective measuring tools in life, it works for

everyone. The 12 inch foot correctly measures the table for everyone, no matter

if you thought it was a large table or a small table. If I were to adopt Berkeley's

theory, I wouldn't be satisfied until he included something that connected

everyone's perceived world into one theory and admitted that reality is

completely in our heads -- that even the people we talk to aren't actually real.

Preferably, Berkeley should accept that an actual reality that is outside the mind

is what makes the most common sense.

I also feel like Berkeley, or rather Phil, has presented his argument in a

way that makes him the victor. For example, when he mentions that your right

hand can be hot and your left hand can be cold and you put both of them in

water, the water feels hot and cold at the same time. Being hot and cold at the

same time is just, absurd. And when you see the situation in the way that Phil

presents it, you can agree that it is absurd. However, what if Phil had explained

the situation differently? What if he said that one hand is hot, one hand is cold

and when put in room temperature water, it feels hot and cold at the same time.

Then go on to contribute the hot feeling to the hand that is actually hot and the

cold feeling to the hand that is actually cold, instead of attributing both

sensations to the water as if the water is producing the sensations. Ah, things

start to make a bit more sense. This can be shown empirically because you can

take the temperature of one hand and take the temperature of the other. You can

do the math and find the average temperature that you can expect the water to

be. If you take the temperature of the water, it is probably the the mean of the

temperatures of the hands. You'll also see that the water is just one temperature.

Not two different ones as Berkeley seems to assert.

4. LEIBNIZ IS RELEVANT AND INFLUENTIAL

There are a few similarities between Berkeley and Leibniz. They both don't

believe in materialism or the extension of matter, ideas that were firmly held

before their time especially with Locke, but the two philosophers deal with

different aspects of Locke's ideas. Berkeley deals with Locke's differentiation

between material items and ideas while Leibniz deals with Locke's idea of

materialism as a whole. They both incoporate God into their philosophies. God is

always the reason for causation. And they also have a certain belief in relativity,

but the way they apply all these things is very different. The two philosophers

couldn't be any more different. I think the best way to look at them is to focus on

their contributions to modern-day thought.

It is hard to find an modern opinion that can be taken from Berkeley's view

because Berkeley completely rejects materialism and replaces it with idealism.

Leibniz, on the other hand, has some interesting similarities to some modern

thoughts. Leibniz was “ahead of his time” and maybe even head of our time.

Even though his ideas are closely related or similar to ideas we hold as true

theories today, there are some things about Leibniz’s argument that are hard to

understand unless you are akin to advanced information and thoughts in physics,

psychology, and philosophy such as grasping something can have a psyche

without a physical brain or the non-existence of space. It seems as though

Leibniz has made contributions to psychology, philosophy, mathematics (he may

have even been a co-inventor of calculus), and physics. In particular, Quantum

Physics and some new age philosophies. Before discoveries of sub-atomic

particles, Leibniz’s views in general didn’t make any sense. However, he has

made some contributions, opposing Newton, to statics and dynamics in Physics.

Leibniz’s Law, The Identity of Indescrinibles is often used in physics proofs today.

The principle states that an entity must be identical to itself (A=A). In his

monadology, Leibniz mentions that space is just an appearance. Now, we know

that Leibniz was correct. With Newtonian physics, time and space are set in

stone. They are concepts that can be derived from equations as constants. For

example, when calculating the amount of time it would take for a ball to be

thrown at a velocity off a cliff is easy to figure out because acceleration, a

function of time, is a constant. With the arrival of Einstein and his theory of

relativity, we are able to conceptualize the idea of space and time being relative.

For example, if you were to send your twin sister on a trip on a ship that goes as

fast as the speed of light, you might spend the next one minute eating a

sandwich while your sister is aging dramatically. That 1 minute on earth for you

may be more like many, many years for your sister. When she comes back to

earth a minute later, she will have aged and look as she would if she spent 80

years on earth. Another example would be to have your sister on earth and you in

the ship that goes at the speed of light. If your sister dropped to pieces of chalk

at the same time, she would see the two pieces of chalk fall at the same time.

She would see bits of chalk scattered on the floor a bit later. And then she would

see her mom clean it up with a broom. You, in the fast space ship, would see all

of those events occurring at the same time according to Einstein's theory. Leibniz

believes that there is no such thing as chronological time and that every monad

contains all the properties it had and ever will have inside it already. Einstein's

theory allows for this to be a possibility. Every event could be contained in one

entity so that, for example, the accident that scarred your leg as a child of 11

would still be happening as you kiss your new spouse on your wedding day.

Einstein's theory gained popularity in the 1920s. Einstein showed the world

that two events may be simultaneous to one observer, but not simultaneous to

another both by appearance an mathematically. Einstein also created the famous

equation E=mc^2. E stands for energy, m stands for matter, and c is the speed of

light in a vacuum which is the maximum speed any object in nature can move.

The speed of light is a very large number so mathematically, the equation is

saying that a very small amount of matter contains a large amount of energy

which may be emitted as light and the equation is sometimes interpreted to

mean that energy begets matter or even that matter is energy. The idea of matter

and energy being the same thing is championed years later with the arrival of

string theory. String theory was developed in the 1980s and gained popularity in

the 1990s. There are many version of the string theory, but they essentially agree

that everything in life is made out of tiny stretchy “rubber bands” that are made

out of pure energy. This relates to Leibniz because Leibniz does not believe in

matter. He believes everything is made of monads which are comparable to the

photon, the smallest unit of energy in nature. In modern terms, one could say

that Leibniz would agree with string theory – everything is made from these tiny

things of energy.

Even if you can't remove the idea of matter's inexistent from your mind, its

interesting to know that energy at least begets matter. This leads to an

explanation of mindless entities having the ability to think or have a conscious. If

you believe that there must be matter in order for there to be thought (because

you believe that thought can only come from a brain), then keep in mind that

energy begets the matter that begets the thoughts. Also, electricity which is how

energy works in the first place, is needed for a brain to function. So yes, the

brain is what we think of when we think of “thoughts” but the thing that is

actually creating the thoughts or is at least the basis for the brain is energy. With

this in mind, the idea of non-living beings having a psyche is more

understandable. Panpsychism is “the doctrine that mind is a fundamental feature

of the world which exists throughout the universe (Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy).” The philosophy of panpsychism gained a bit of popularity in the

2000s, but was never taken seriously on a large scale to begin with. One of the

few famous figures who alluded to panpsychism was Carl Jung, a prominent

psychologist of the 1930s and a student of Sigmund Freud. He is best known for

this idea of the “collective unconscious,” a part of the unconscious that everyone

has that contains information about religion, science, etc. Jung said that "psyche

and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreover are in

continuous contact with one another", and that it was probable that "psyche and

matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing" (81, Marshall and

Zohar). Panpsychism is also a part of Buddhist and Hindu faiths. For everyone

else, the nature of the mind and physical world were separated. A possible

explanation for the larger acceptance base for panpsychism may be the arrival of

the “wellness” trend that rose in the 2000s. The wellness trend doesn't just

include fast food restaurants suddenly promoting healthy lifestyles or a weekly

dose of yoga. For some people, it includes the idea that the mind and the body

are intertwined. The view is not uncommon and is advocated by famous health

and psychology personalities such as Susan Powter, Dr. Drew, Dr. Mercola, and

many others. There are many scientific and psychology studies and experiments

that support that one's thoughts can (and does) affect one's physical body and

health. Several people have claimed to have even cured their cancer with

laughter. It has gotten to the point that even the Cancer Treatment Centers of

America are proponents of “laughter therapy”. A book, advocated by Oprah

Winfrey, called “The Secret,” published in 2006, tells of a philosophy that is

essentially “mind over matter”. The book proposes that if you think about what

you want, you will get what you want. With Oprah, decidedly the most powerful

woman in history, advocated this book, this “mind over matter” philosophy that

was once only associated with magic and nonsense became more widely

accepted. People now understand the power of consciousness. With this

increasingly public understanding of psychology being intertwined some how

with physical beings and even the physical world around a person,

understanding panpsychism and those who believe in it today becomes even

easier.

5. BERKELEY IS NOT AS RELEVANT, HAILED

Berkeley is one of the first to create a theory of idealism which says that

we cannot say that an object exists, but we can say that we perceive an object to

exist. German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhaue, even claims that Berkeley is

the father of idealism. This general idea of idealism is applied in many view

points in our modern times. However, that is where his major influences stop. His

metaphysical theory is not relevant to the vast number of topics like Leibniz's

theory. Ironically, Berkeley is given a lot of honour in our modern times, despite

his lack of modern relevance. A couple of colleges named some of their buildings

after Berkeley and University of California, Berkeley is named after him, as well.

5. CONCLUSION

The relevance, similarities and influences Leibniz has with modern day

discoveries and thought shows that a seemingly strange and complex theory

could be better than a theory that makes sense at first. Leibniz's monadology is

often met with vehement disagreement, but when further investigated, it is not

as crazy as it seems. Berkeley, on the other hand is not met wish such criticism

and is sometimes even praised, even though he has not contributed much to our

modern ideas. Berkeley's strived to make a theory that had the most “common

sense,” however, his theory doesn't make much sense when further investigated.

Leibniz's theory was the opposite, making more sense when deeply researched.

Leibniz ignites much more intellectual energy and excitement than Berkeley and

Leibniz is much more relevant in general.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Radcliffe, Elizabeth; McCarty, Richard; Allhoff, Fritz; Vaidya, Anand. Late Modern

Philosophy. Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Zohar, Danah; Marshall, Ian. Connecting with our Spiritual Intelligence.

Bloomsbury, 2000.

Downing, Lisa. “George Berkeley.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004.

Stanford University. 1 May 2009.

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/>.

Look, Brandon. “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.” Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. 2004. Stanford University. 1 May 2009.

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/>.

Einstein, Albert. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Henry Holt, New

York, 1920.

Living Reviews in Relativity. 16 April 2009. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 1 May

2009.

<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/>

Burnham. “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) Metaphysics.” The Internet

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006. Staffordshire University. 1 May 2009.

<http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/leib-met.htm#SH8a>

Allen-Hermanson, Sean; Seager, William. “Panpsychism.” Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy. 2005. Stanford University. 1 May 2009.

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#4.1>