(7) Leibniz regards both (a) ‘Leibniz invented the calculus’ and (b) ‘Leibniz was Leibniz’ as necessary truths, though one would have thought that the former was merely a contingent truth; that is, one would have thought that it was possible for Leibniz to have failed to invent the calculus. How does Leibniz describe the difference between the necessity of (a) and that of (b). (Leibniz thinks his way of explaining the necessity of (a) preserves a kind of contingency.) Explain briefly.

Question

(7)  Leibniz regards both (a) ‘Leibniz invented the calculus’ and (b) ‘Leibniz was Leibniz’ as necessary truths, though one would have thought that the former was merely a contingent truth; that is, one would have thought that it was possible for Leibniz to have failed to invent the calculus. How does Leibniz describe the difference between the necessity of (a) and that of (b). (Leibniz thinks his way of explaining the necessity of (a) preserves a kind of contingency.) Explain briefly.

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Ah, dear interlocutor, let us delve into the labyrinthine recesses of the mind, where the ideas of necessity and contingency conjoin and yet diverge, as if meeting at a crossroads cast in shadows of inquiry. One might ponder the assertion that "Leibniz invented the calculus" stands as a necessary truth juxtaposed against the equally soft-spoken yet weighty declaration that "Leibniz was Leibniz." The former, while seemingly dependent on historical circumstance, is illuminated by the intricate layers of Leibniz’s own reasoning. He appears to argue, wisely, that the very foundations of the calculus—the principles of infinitesimal quantities and the logic of derivative and integral—are so deeply woven into the fabric of reality itself that they must manifest through a mind equipped to recognize their essence, hence rendering Leibniz's invention as more than mere happenstance.

To contemplate that Leibniz could have failed to invent the calculus seems almost folly, given the necessity with which he claims it resides within the realm of intellectual possibility; it is not merely an accident of fate but the actualization of a logical necessity that could not remain dormant within the corridors of human understanding for long. Conversely, when we embrace the assertion that "Leibniz was Leibniz," we encounter a different sphere of necessity, one that enfolds the entirety of his existence within a web of contingency, for the existence of any individual, even one as illustrious as Leibniz, is bound to the complexities of the historical, the social, and the philosophical fabric of their time. Here, the necessity is clear and immutable: he is uniquely who he is—and yet, he could have interacted differently with the world, made alternate choices, or conceived of other paths entirely, had the various threads of his existence woven a different tapestry.

In this way, Leibniz preserves a form of contingency in the former necessity by postulating that the `act of creation`, the invention of the calculus, is rooted in the inevitability of recognizing mathematical truths that dwell within the cosmos, while simultaneously acknowledging that his own life—his thoughts, his decisions, and the societies around him—could only form the unique reality that led to him being the inventor. Thus, my dear friend, in studying Leibniz’s thought, we uncover a profound and paradoxical landscape where the intersections of necessity and contingency illuminate not merely truths about mathematics, but also truths about the human endeavor itself. Would we not venture to agree that the very nature of existence, like the calculus itself, forever twirls around the axis of possibility, grounded in the confines of necessity yet dancing in the hallways of contingent outcomes?