Leibniz's Lure: Why is the Subject of Political Action Lost in the Labyrinths of Neomonadology?
Abstract
In this article I ask who is the subject of political action in the modern reception of Leibniz’s metaphysics. A review of contemporary philosophers’ works based on Leibniz shows that they consistently bypass the question of such a subject. Evading the question of the subject has implications for various versions of neomonadology, so this paper clarifies the problematic nature of understanding the subject by analogy with Leibniz’s monads. The analysis of Leibniz’s texts helps to point out the special role of the body (matter), which entails raising the problem of individual bodies’ ontological status. To solve this problem, I propose an analysis of the concept of “substantial bond” (vinculum substantiale) and its role in Leibniz’s system. An analysis of the substantial bond shows that it is impossible to construct a coherent theory of the subject (and, in particular, the subject of political action) on the basis of monadology. To develop and consolidate this thesis, in the final part of the article I examine the work of Agamben, which reveals the implicit aporia inherent in the monadology project.
References
Ankersmit, Franklin (2002). Political Representation. Stanford University Press. Agamben, Giorgio (2011). The Kingdom and the Glory. For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government (Homo Sacer II, 2). Stanford University Press.
Agamben, Giorgio (2013). Opus Dei. An Archeology of Duty. Stanford University Press. Agamben, Giorgio (2015). The Use of Bodies. Stanford University Press.
Benjamin, Walter (1978). Reflections, trans. Edmund Jephcott. Harcourt Brace Jova-
novich.
Elster, Jon (1975) Leibniz et la formation de l’esprit capitaliste. Aubier Montaigne. Harman, Graham (2011). “Plastic Surgery for the Monadology. Leibniz via Heidegger.” Cultural Studies Review 17.1: 211–29.
Latour, Bruno (1988). The Pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John
Law. Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐The-
ory. Oxford University Press.
Lazzarato, Maurizio (2004). Les révolutions du capitalism. Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond, Rubbettiro Editore.
Oleg Goriainov. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1969a). Monadology. Philosophical Papers and Letters, trans. and ed., and with an introduction by L. E. Loemker, 2nd ed. Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1969b). The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason. Philosophical Papers and Letters, trans. and ed., and with an introduction by L. E. Loemker, 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1969c). Consideration on Vital Principles and Plastic Na- tures, by the Author of the System of Pre‐established Harmony. Philosophical Papers and Letters, trans. and ed., and with an Introduction by L. E. Loemker, 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1969d). Reflections on the Doctrine of a Single Universal Spirit. Philosophical Papers and Letters, trans. and ed., and with an Introduction by L. E. Loemker, 2nd ed.Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1969e). Reply to the Thoughts on the System of Pre‐estab- lished Harmony Contained in the Second Edition of Mr. Bayle’s Critical Dictionary, Article Rorarius. Philosophical Papers and Letters, trans. and ed., and with an Introduction by L. E. Loemker, 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (2007). The Leibniz–Des Bosses Correspondence. Yale Uni- versity Press.
Look, Brandon (2000). “Leibniz and the Substance of the Vinculum Substantiale.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 38.2: 203–20.
Look, Brandon (2007). Introduction to The Leibniz–Des Bosses correspondence, by Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz. Yale University Press.
Magun, Artemy (2020). “Civitas Paradoxa or a Dialectical Theory of State,” in The Future of the State. Philosophy and Politics. Rowman & Littlefield.
McGee, Kyle (2011). “Demonomics. Leibniz and the Antinomy of Modern Power” Radical Philosophy 168: 33–45.
Penzin, Alexei (2021). “‘Il faut continuer: Always-on Capitalism and Subjectivity,” in Politics of the Many. Contemporary Radical Thought and the Crisis of Agency, eds. Benjamin Halligan, Alexei Penzin, Stefano Pippa. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Piwowarczyk, Marek (2017). “The Leibnizian Doctrine of Vinculum Substantiale and the problem of Composite Substances.” Roczniki Filozoficzne [Annals of philoso- phy] 65.2: 77–92.
Russell, Bertrand (2005). A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Routledge. Spinoza, Benedict (1996). Ethics. Penguin Books.
Copyright (c) 2024 European University at St. Petersburg
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
