Leibniz and the Baroque - Essay Example

Module Module ID: The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque Gilles Deleuze (2001) has elaborated the Leibniz’s doctrine in his famous fold theory where he defines the Baroque as an operative function that is endlessly producing folds. The operative function, according to him, takes place on two scales, i.e. the pleats of matter and the folds of the soul. (Deleuze, 3) The author finds strong relationship between the two, which includes their constant communication for the collaboration between them. The communication and correspondence also contain further folds, which are based upon the functioning of various physical organs. Leibniz is of the opinion that elastic body contains cohering parts that make chain of folds in their scope. Furthermore, Deleuze appears to be in consensus with Leibniz that matter cannot be dissolved altogether; on the contrary, it turns into small folds and fragments through the division and subdivision paving the way towards the infinity of matter. Consequently, fold maintains imperative significance by linking organisms with the soul for the appropriate functioning of both the two. (Deleuze, 4-5) He also makes the comparison of living matter with endogenous folds, while views non-living things, where the former exceeds mechanical processes because of the very reality that its each and every part is a complete machine in itself. He also compares organic evolution to the growth and development of plants from the seed. Deleuze finds the existence of soul in body; however, since there is no way for the exiting of the same, he justifies the statements made by his predecessor philosophers’ opinions regarding the place of the soul in upper dark chamber of the body, diversified by folds, i.e. the mind. Deleuze also cites Focillon, where he submits to state that the latter viewed Baroque Gothic as the birth of the mystical experience, which is actually the long voyage of the soul within various parts of the vast and endless universe. Hence, body remains confined to one specific zone or area, where it is actually present, while soul seeks no limits and boundaries for travelling and can reach everywhere it wants to move. On the contrary, body remains silent to some extent, and requires permissions and efforts in order to change its place. Deleuze declares Leibniz as the first philosopher to define and elucidate the mystical and mathematical dimensions in his work. He also states that the world is made up of monads and divergent series, which can be compared to the folds. Consequently, it can be examined by keeping in view the infinity of pleats and creases of unified and dispersed matter. Deleuze has also discussed plastic forces in an analytical manner by presenting the examples of organism or living matter, where artificial is always inferior to the real one. It is because of the very fact that plastic cannot perform altogether in such a way as the living matter, though it is more machinelike than mechanical. (Deleuze, 8) He further explains Leibniz’s folding and unfolding theory, which defines the organism’s ability to fold and unfold its parts to a degree of assignment or the scale of capacity attributed to each and every species at large. Hume’s Views on Religion Norton (1993) has critically evaluated Hume’s views on faith and religion in his works. Hume has provided his in-depth views on God, morality, natural belief and others in his Natural History of Religion (1757). He appears to be criticizing the blind imitation of the religious systems, and seeks for the philosophical interpretation of the Scriptures and belief system, so that religious dogmatism could be revealed in its true sense. His severe disparagement of conventional religious practices not only invited the wrath of the Catholic Church, but also caused controversial debate about his actual opinion on following the real Christian teachings. Consequently, he was blamed to be an atheist as well as the rebel of Christian faith. It is therefore Norton finds Hume’s analysis of orthodoxy as damaging one for religion (314). However, he did never renounce himself as non-believer; on the contrary, he appears to be condemning extremist in religion, which actually demonstrates his broad vision and exposure that extremist not only widens gulf between the civilizations, but also turn the societies into deplorable inferno in its wake. Hume has, Norton observes, made distinction between the natural and revealed religions, where the former describes the conclusions about the existence of God, while the latter discusses, within historical perspective, the teachings of different faiths, claimed to be revealed through Scriptures; resurrection and life after death are also part of the same revelation. (Norton, 314-15) Since the revelation about the deity and other religious beliefs are based on historical events and mythology, they cannot be declared as the reliable sources for developing a strong belief in religion. It is therefore he refutes to admit the revealed religious traditions as a sound proof of the existence of God’s providence. Hume views the inclusion of superstitions and enthusiasm in religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as both superstitions and enthusiasm are products of evil, which would corrupt the original teachings presented by religions. Hume also supported the idea of deism, which refutes the possibility of supernatural revelation and submits to state that the Creator has abandoned the universe after creating it; consequently, He has no concern with the same now, and hence He did not send revelation (Norton, 315). Since the argument is absolutely contradictory to the Abrahamic faiths, the church justified in declaring Hume as an atheist. Hume is skeptic regarding the very reality that belief is mere an outcome of blind faith, and no evidence or reason is applied in order to justify the existence of God. It is therefore he frequently applied the term Providence in place of deity or God, which regulates the moral affairs of mankind on the one hand, and physical processes of the world on the other. Instead of seeking any artificial inclusion, Hume finds natural existence of religion in human societies. (Norton, 316) Hence, Hume’s arguments look similar to those presented by Descartes, where he had refused to accept such deity, whose existence could not be proved through logic and evidence, though in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, he does not find any evidence in favor of the providence of God. Norman Kemp Smith: A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason Published in 1781, Kant’s criticism of pure reason looks for suggesting the confinements and limitations the pure reason carries in it. He is of the opinion that pure reason can perform well without seeking support from the faculties, which are materialistic in nature and are made of matter actually. Since soul or mind is superior to matter, it should not seek help from the thing that is inferior to it in nature. Smith is of the view that though metaphysics is more profound in depicting universal phenomena, and hence can be more elaborative in discovering the realities, yet complete and absolute negation of the role played by senses in respect of exploring knowledge cannot be asserted to be accurate one (29). Smith also declares the Critique as unclear and defective one, where application of technical German terminology makes it even more difficult to understand easily. The author also finds contradiction of ideas in every chapter of the work, and hence declares Kantian work as abundant with errors (33). Smith has also criticized the validity of the Kantian arguments by stating that the work seems to be the compilation of some old treatise authored by the philosopher; it is therefore, it cannot be considered as a document making links between different theoretical frameworks. The author also explores the Descartes’ philosophical ideas reflecting in the Critique, which also assert mind as independent and more sublime entity that body. Since Kant notices senses attributed to different physical parts e.g. nose, ear, tongue and eyes, which are inferior to mind, it is therefore they are unable to provide a vivid outlook of the universal phenomena to the mind and the faculty of understanding subsequently (39). Smith also criticizes the Kantian depiction of a priori and posteriori knowledge, where the philosopher has called the former as the one contains without experience, while the latter one has been acquired through experience. The knowledge of mathematics and sciences is priori one in Kant’s eyes, while knowledge about social establishment and universe is dependent of experience and observation. However, Smith is of the view that the knowledge of mathematics and other disciplines also require experience and practice, without which no one can learn the principles of the subjects, though nothing can be learned without applying the sensual attributes for estimating the intellectual as well as fundamental principles attributed to both the disciplines as well as universal realities (55). Furthermore, since a priori knowledge does not require any practical experience for learning, Kant stresses upon the issue that a priori knowledge must undergo the process of analysis in order to estimate the validity of the same. It is partially true to the very reality that posteriori knowledge is dependent of practical experience, on the basis of which idea about some universal phenomena is developed, which in itself is the proof of the validity of the same. Hence, such an effort would eliminate the possibility of contradiction of the statement being made by the individuals while displaying the knowledge about one thing or the other. Somehow, Smith maintains that since priori knowledge is already approved one because of the researches made in the disciplines and information, they are made on the basis of the analysis. Hence, the author partially ratifies the Kantian doctrine of priori and posteriori knowledge. Rae Langton: Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves Derived from the Latin word humilitas, the term humility simply stands for humbleness and meekness the modest individuals observe in their everyday life. The term is opposite of pride, arrogance, vanity and envy, and demonstrates the state of mildness and gentleness the modest exercise while entering into interaction with others. Since, sometimes it is applies to express the state of timidity and lack of courage in humans, it is also taken as a negative characteristic of a personality. Somehow, most of the religious faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism declare it a very positive quality, which paves the way towards the elimination of discriminative behavior from the very face of society. Renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant has also used the notion in an appreciating way, where he declares it to be a meta-attitude that constitutes the moral agent’s proper perspective on himself as a dependent and corrupt but capable and dignified rational agent (Grenberg, 2005:289). Langton (1998) has made a critical appreciation of the Kant’s doctrine under the title Kantian Humility, where he quotes the philosopher’s views about the same. Kant declares everything in human knowledge belongs to intuition, which actually possesses relations, location, extension and motion of intuition (42). However, Kant does not mention about that things that are beyond locations, or have not been mentioned through the relations to intuition. Additionally, mere relations cannot allow the occurring of different things; rather, the external things just represent the relations of objects upon the subjects. Kant also appears to be revealing the human knowledge about relational and intrinsic properties, according to which having acquaintance with relational things keep humans ignorant of intrinsic properties (43). Langton views matter as a substantial phenomenon that cannot be stated as the object of pure understanding. Consequently, Kant’s making distinction between the concept of general understanding and understanding as a faculty of human mind demonstrates his notion of humility, where material object or mind comprehends different objects with the help of human senses. Hence, although all humans contain some level of understanding about various objects, yet application of senses look necessary in order to obtain comprehensive knowledge for the same. Thus, knowledge entirely relies upon synthesis, according to Kant (Langton, 45). Kant also considers human ignorance as an outcome of their dependency on senses for comprehending with the universal objects at large. However, the author asserts trying to understand the world without taking senses into account is quite preposterous, as it cannot be the actually observed in real life, and man has to seek the help of the senses for the acquaintance of information and knowledge about different phenomena at large. Read More