Potentia, actio, vis: the Quantity mv2 and its Causal Role
Abstract
This article aims to interpret Leibniz’s dynamics project (circa 1678–1700) through a theory of the causation of corporeal motion. It presents an interpretation of the dynamics that characterizes physical causation as the structural organization of phenomena. The measure of living force (vis viva) by mv2 must then be understood as an organizational property of motion conceptually distinct from the geometrical or otherwise quantitative magnitudes exchanged in mechanical phenomena. To defend this view, we examine one of the most important theoretical discrepancies of Leibniz’s dynamics with classical mechanics, the measure of vis viva as mv2 rather than ½ mv2. This “error”, resulting from the limits of Leibniz’s methodology, reveals the systematic role of this quantity mv2 in the dynamics. In examining the evolution of the quantity mv2 in the refinement of the force concept (vis) from potentia to actio, I argue that Leibniz’s systematic limitations help clarify dynamical causality as neither strictly metaphysical nor mechanical but a distinct level of reality to which Leibniz dedicates the “dynamica” as “nova scientia”.
Aiton, E. J. 1972. “Leibniz on Motion in a Resisting Medium”. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 9, 257–274.10.1007/BF00327307Search in Google Scholar
–. 1985. Leibniz: A Biography. Bristol/Boston.Search in Google Scholar
Beeley, P. 2004. “A Philosophical Apprenticeship: Leibniz’s Correspondence with the Secretary of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg”. In Leibniz and his Correspondents. Ed. P. Lodge. Cambridge, 47–73.10.1017/CBO9780511498237.003Search in Google Scholar
Bernstein, H. 1981. “Passivity and Inertia in Leibniz’s Dynamics”. Studia Leibnitiana 13, 97–113.Search in Google Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, D. 2002. Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Duchesneau, F. 1994. La Dynamique de Leibniz. Paris.Search in Google Scholar
–. 1999. “Leibniz’s Theoretical Shift in the Phoranomus and Dynamica de Potentia”. Perspectives on Science 6, 77–109.10.1162/posc_a_00545Search in Google Scholar
Dugas, R. 1955. A History of Mechanics. Trans. J. R. Maddox. London.Search in Google Scholar
Elkana, Y. 1974. The Discovery of the Conservation of Energy. Cambridge, MA.10.1063/1.3069145Search in Google Scholar
Erlichson, H. 1997. “The young Huygens Solves the Problem of Elastic Collisions”. American Journal of Physics 65, 149–154.10.1119/1.18659Search in Google Scholar
Fichant, M. 1995. “De la puissance à l’action : la singularité stylistique de la Dynamique”. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 100, 49–81.Search in Google Scholar
Gueroult, M. 1934. Dynamique et métaphysique Leibniziennes. Paris.Search in Google Scholar
Hankins, T. M. 1990. Jean D’Alembert: Science and the Enlightenment. New York.Search in Google Scholar
Huygens, C. 1977. “The Motion of Colliding Bodies”. Trans. R. J. Blackwell. Isis 68, 574–597.10.1086/351876Search in Google Scholar
Iltis, C. 1971. “Leibniz and the Vis Viva Controversy”. Isis 62, 21–35.10.1086/350705Search in Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 1994. La réforme de la dynamique. Ed. M. Fichant. Paris.Search in Google Scholar
Lodge, P. “Force and Nature of Body in Discourse on Metaphysics §§ 17–18”. Leibniz Society Review 7, 116–124.10.5840/leibniz199777Search in Google Scholar
McDonough, J. 2008. “Leibniz’s Two Realms Revisited”. Noûs 2, 673–696.10.1111/j.1468-0068.2008.00696.xSearch in Google Scholar
Boudri, J. C. 2002. What was Mechanical about Mechanics. Trans. s. McGlinn. Dordrecht.10.1007/978-94-017-3672-5Search in Google Scholar
Osler, M. J. 1996. “From Immanent Natures to Nature as Artifice: The Reinterpretation of Final Causes in Seventeenth Century Natural Philosophy”. The Monist 79, 388–407.10.5840/monist199679318Search in Google Scholar
Robinet, A. 1986. Architectonique disjunctive, automates systémiques, et idéalité dans l’œuvre de G. W. Leibniz. Paris.Search in Google Scholar
Szabó, I. 1987. Geschichte der mechanischen Prinzipien. Basel. Third edition.10.1007/978-3-0348-5998-1Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Plato on Incorrect and Deceptive Pleasures
- Potentia, actio, vis: the Quantity mv2 and its Causal Role
- Hume’s (Ad Hoc?) Appeal to the Calm Passions
- Rehabilitating Austin, Reassessing Grice: The Case of Cancellability
- Book Reviews
- Frederick C. Beiser, Weltschmerz: Pessimism in German Philosophy 1860–1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, ix + 301 pp.
- Matthias Wille, Largely unknown. Gottlob Frege und der posthume Ruhm. Münster: Mentis Verlag, 2016, 243 pp.
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Plato on Incorrect and Deceptive Pleasures
- Potentia, actio, vis: the Quantity mv2 and its Causal Role
- Hume’s (Ad Hoc?) Appeal to the Calm Passions
- Rehabilitating Austin, Reassessing Grice: The Case of Cancellability
- Book Reviews
- Frederick C. Beiser, Weltschmerz: Pessimism in German Philosophy 1860–1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, ix + 301 pp.
- Matthias Wille, Largely unknown. Gottlob Frege und der posthume Ruhm. Münster: Mentis Verlag, 2016, 243 pp.
