• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Canadian Research Knowledge Network] 
On:
5 May 2011
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 932223628] 
Publisher
Routledge 
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
British Journal for the History of Philosophy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694220
The problem of
Alloglossia
. Leibniz on Spinoza's Innovative Use ofPhilosophical Language
Mogens Lærke
aa
University of Aberdeen,Online publication date: 21 January 2010
To cite this Article
Lærke, Mogens(2009) 'The problem of 
Alloglossia 
. Leibniz on Spinoza's Innovative Use of PhilosophicalLanguage', British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 17: 5, 939 — 953
To link to this Article: DOI:
10.1080/09608780903135048
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09608780903135048
Full terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 
A
RTICLE
T
HE PROBLEM OF
A
LLOGLOSSIA
.L
EIBNIZ ON
S
PINOZA
’
S
I
NNOVATIVE
U
SE OF
P
HILOSOPHICAL
L
ANGUAGE
1
Mogens Lærke
1. INTRODUCTIONIn this paper, I suggest an explanation of why Leibniz very often discardsSpinoza’s philosophy on the grounds that he finds it ‘obscure’ and doesso by criticizing Spinoza’s use of philosophical language. More precisely,I will point out how Leibniz’s allegations of obscurity against Spinoza’sgeometrical exposition of his philosophy are intimately linked to a philo-sophically motivated dislike of excessive innovations in philosophicalterminology and form of exposition.In Section 2, I discuss Leibniz’s critique of ‘innovators’ in philosophy withspecial attention to linguistic innovators, that is to say, those who inventnew terms and forms of exposition in philosophy. I will point out how,
1
A first draft of this paper was presented at a meeting of an early modern philosophy studygroup in Israel in July 2007. A second draft was presented at the international conference
Leibniz and Spinoza II 
, organized by D. Garber at Princeton University in September 2007. Ithank the participants in these two events for their comments and corrections. Noa Sheinhelped with the English language editing. Parts of the text are based on material contained inmy book in French,
Leibniz lecteur de Spinoza. La gene `se d’une opposition complexe
(Paris:Honore ´Champion, 2008). I use the following abbreviations: A
¼
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.Sa ¨ mtliche Schriften und Briefe
, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1923–[?]. NB: the abbreviation A II-1
2
refers to the new, improved edition of volume A II-1; GP
¼
Die philosophischen Schriften vonGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
, edited by C. I. Gerhardt (Hildesheim/New York: Georg OlmsVerlag, 1978); Dutens
¼
Opera Omnia
, edited by L. Dutens (Gene `ve: Fratres de Tournes, 1768);Grua
¼
G. W. Leibniz. Textes ine´ dits
, edited by G. Grua (Paris: PUF, 1948); Loemker
¼
Phi-losophical papers and letters
, translated by Leroy E. Loemker (Dordrecht: D. Reidel PublishingCompany, 1970); DSR
¼
De Summa Rerum. Metaphysical Papers 1675–76
, translated byG. H. R. Parkinson (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992); CP
¼
G. W.Leibniz,
Confessio philosophi. Papers Concerning the Problem of Evil, 1671–1678
, translated byR. Sleigh, Jr (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2005). For Spinoza, I refer to Gebhardt’sedition:
Opera
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1925). I quote the
Ethics
in Edwin Curley’s translation(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985). I have used the following commonabbreviations for reference: D
¼
Definition, A
¼
Axiom, P
¼
Proposition, D
¼
Demonstration,S
¼
Scholium, C
¼
Corollary. EIP14C2, for example, refers to the second corollary of Proposition 14 in the first book of 
Ethics
. Unless otherwise indicated, translations are my own.
British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17(5) 2009: 939–953British Journal for the History of Philosophy
ISSN 0960-8788 print/ISSN 1469-3526 online
ª
2009 BSHPhttp://www.informaworld.com DOI: 10.1080/09608780903135048
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ C a n adi a n  R e s e a r ch  K n o wl ed g e  N e t w o rk]  A t : 02 :54 5  M a y 2011
 
according to Leibniz, part of the clarity of language resides in its commonusage and therefore linguistic innovation in philosophy always producesobscurity. Excessive innovation is a vice for which he suggests the term
alloglossia
, i.e. to speak in a ‘strange’ or ‘foreign’ tongue. In Section 3, Iconsider some of Leibniz’s comments on Spinoza’s
Ethics
with his critiqueof linguistic innovation in mind. I argue that the notion of 
alloglossia
– along with the notion of 
logomachia
, which is closely related to sophistry – provides an important key in understanding some of Leibniz’s recurrentobjections to specific issues in Spinoza’s metaphysics.Certain restrictions on the scope of this article should be noted. First, Ionly address Leibniz’s philosophy of language to the extent that it helps tounderstand a certain type of objection that he frequently makes againstSpinoza. It is not intended as a complete survey of Leibniz’s theory of correct
usus linguae
. Second, I do not pretend that Leibniz’s entire readingof Spinoza’s philosophy can be reduced to problems of language use,although I do believe that such critiques are more frequent than one mightexpect. Finally, the present article is conceived as a paper exclusively aboutLeibniz and his critique of Spinoza. Thus, I will not give any detailedaccount of Spinoza’s theory of philosophical language or how it compareswith Leibniz’s analysis. I have devoted a volume to a more comprehensivesurvey of the confrontation between Leibniz and Spinoza, where most of theissues mentioned above are addressed.
2
2. LEIBNIZ AGAINST THE LINGUISTIC INNOVATORSWhen we say today about some philosopher that his or her philosophy is‘innovative’, it is most often both meant and received as a compliment. Inthe aftermath of the Reformation, however, the term ‘innovation’ had adistinctly negative ring to it. In fact, by the late seventeenth century,Protestants and Catholics had spent more than a century on controversieswhere they constantly accused one another of ‘innovating’ Christiandoctrine, ‘opposing innovations to innovations’ as Leibniz put it.
3
Thus,the Protestants accused the Catholics of innovating doctrine when theyadded the ‘new’ decisions of the Pope and the ecumenical councils to theoriginal authority of Scripture. The Catholics, on their part, accusedthe Protestants of innovating doctrine when they refused to submit to thechurch traditions.
4
In this respect, Leibniz’s use of the terms ‘innovation’
2
Cf. M. Lærke,
Leibniz lecteur de Spinoza. La gene `se d’une opposition complexe
(Paris: Honore ´Champion, 2008).
3
Cf. G. W. Leibniz to Madame de Brinon, in
Œuvres
, edited by L. A. Foucher de Careil (Paris:Librairie de Firmin Didot Fre `res, 1858–75), vol. I, p. 176.
4
Cf. G. W. Leibniz,
Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain
, IV, xv,
x
6, A VI-6, 459,translated by P. Remnant and J. Bennett,
New Essays on Human Understanding
(CambridgeUP, 1996) 459:
940 MOGENS LÆRKE
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ C a n adi a n  R e s e a r ch  K n o wl ed g e  N e t w o rk]  A t : 02 :54 5  M a y 2011
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...