Organic Monadology in Maupertuis

Maurício de Carvalho Ramos

Departamento de Filosofia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

DOI: 10.4236/ahs.2015.41003                

Abstract

The present paper aims to define the seminal parts in the generation theory in Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis’s System of nature as Leibnizian physical monads of a special type, organic monads, whose main characteristics are: 1) uniting, within the same explanatory system, epigenesis and preformation, following from an interpretation where initial conditions for epigenesis are a homogenous, non-organic seminal matter; 2) having psychic properties which give them a preformational character, allowing seminal parts to display a combination of material and representational morphologies, elaborated from a distinction between the substantial and relational character of chemical affinities proposed by François-Geoffroy; 3) bringing, through the previous two characteristics, the System of nature to intelligibly express preexistence, a concept present in Maupertuis’ conjectures on the origins of the first organisms, where to a strongly naturalistic scenario, a supernatural cause is added—one consistent, within limits, with the natural indestructibility of the physical monad within a panspermic reading of the original Leibnizian monadology. Together, these characteristics allow us to define Maupertuis’s generation theory as an organic monadology, capable of expressing itself in other components of the modern sciences of life and the organic, revealing a historical continuity for the heuristics of Leibniz’s natural philosophy.

Keywords

Organic Monad, Maupertuis, Monadology, Epigenesis, Preformation, Chemical Affinity

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Aristotle (1953). Generation of Animals. London: William Heinemann, The Loeb Classical Library.
[2]	Beeson, D. (1992). Maupertuis: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation at the Taylor Institution.
[3]	Bergman (1788). Traité des affinités chymiques ou attractions électives. Paris: Buisson.
[4]	Duchesneau, F. (1982). La Physiologie des Lumières. Empirisme, modèles et theories. Boston: The Hague.
[5]	Fisher, S. (2006). The Soul as Vehicle for Genetic Information: Gassendi’s Account of Inheritance. In J. E. H. Smith (Ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 103-123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6]	Geoffroy, M. (1770). Table des différents rapports observés en Chimie entre différentes substances. In J. Berray et al. (Eds.)., Collection académique (pp. 149-155). Paris: Pancrouke.
[7]	Hippocrates (1981). On Generation. In I. M. Lonie (Ed.), The Hippocratic Treatises “On Generation”, “On the Nature of the Child”, “Diseases IV”: A Commentary (pp. 1-5). Berlin/New York: Gruyder.
[8]	Hippocrates (1992). The Sacred Disease. In G. P. Goold (Ed.), Hippocrates II (139-183). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, The Loeb Classical Library.
[9]	Homberg, G. (1710). Mémoire touchant les vegetations artificielles. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, 426-438.
[10]	Leibniz, G. W. (1994). Système nouveau de la nature et de la communication des substances aussi bien que de l’union qu’il y a entre l’ame et le corps. In Systéme nouveau de la nature et de la communication des substances et autres textes: 1690- 1703 (pp. 61-90). Paris: Flammarion.
[11]	Leibniz, G. W. (1996). Principes de la philosophie [monadologie]. In Principes de la nature et de la grace, Monadologie: Et autres textes: 1703-1716 (pp. 241-268). Paris: Flammarion.
[12]	Maupertuis, P.-L. M. de. (1965 [1768]). Oeuvres (vol. II). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
[13]	Maupertuis, P.-L. M. de. (1985). El orden verosímil del cosmos. Madrid: Alianza.
[14]	Metzger, H. (1974). Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique. Paris: Albert Blanchard.
[15]	Mocellin, R. C. (2006). A química newtoniana. Química Nova, 29, 388-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-40422006000200035
[16]	Roe, S. A. (l981). Matter, Life, and Generation: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17]	Shank, J. B. (2008). The Newton Wars and the Beginning of the French Enlightenment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226749471.001.0001
[18]	Smith, J. E. H. (2006). Introduction. In J. E. H. Smith (Ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498572.001
[19]	Terrall, M. (2002). The Man Who Flattened the Earth: Maupertuis and the Sciences in the Enlightenment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226793627.001.0001
[20]	Tonelli, G. (1987). La pensée philosophique de Maupertuis: Son milieu et ses sources. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
[21]	Zammito, J. (2006). Kant’s Early Views on Epigenesis: The Role of Maupertuis. In J. E. H. Smith (Ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 317-354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498572.015