MATHESIS AND ANALYSIS: FINITUDE AND THE INFINITE IN THE MONADOLOGY OF LEIBNIZ

There is an infinity of figures and of movements, present and past, which enter into the efficient cause of my present writing, and in its final cause, there are an infinity of slight tendencies and dispositions of my soul, present and past. 1     

NATURALIZING TRANSCENDENCE IN THE NEW COSMOLOGIES OF EMERGENCE

Abstract. Recent discourse on emergence within the natural sciences offers a superior alternative to traditional notions of transcendence. Emergence is a term of common parlance in the natural sciences. It designates moments when various systems develop an internal dynamic that generates an entirely new level of complexity, a qualitatively different mode of existence that cannot simply be reduced to its constituent parts. To the natural scientist, emergence is an expression of transcendence without reference to final causality or central organizing principle. Autopoietic emergence is more congruent with contemporary understandings of the universe than the traditional anthropomorphizing concept of teleological design. In this article I offer both an interpretation of emergence as a new category for the interpretation of divinity and an explanation for traditional anthropomorphism rooted in contemporary cognitive sciences.     

PHILOSOPHY AND SALVATION: THE APOPHATIC IN THE THOUGHT OF ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER

The mystical apotheosis of Schopenhauer's thought is intimately connected to his immanent definition of philosophy. An analysis of the philosophical progression to salvation via aesthetic contemplation, compassion, and asceticism, illuminates Schopenhauer's advocacy of Eckhartian‐style mysticism. Schopenhauer's mysticism, like Eckhart’s, relies on the structures of negation facilitated by a particular metaphysics. Both therein transcend the tradition of theological discourse which holds it possible to construct propositions that express the essence of the divine. That has led to both being associated with atheism. However, in tracing the mechanism by which Schopenhauer's philosophy reaches its mystical apotheosis, it becomes apparent that it would be mistaken to charge him (and Eckhart) with atheism on the basis of an alleged inability to distinguish between an “atheistic non‐existence of God” and a “hyper‐thingness of God”. Rather than attack Schopenhauer in this manner, and hence also Eckhart, it is more appropriate to target their underlying metaphysical preconceptions, which in the case of Schopenhauer, is to take issue with his Critical conception of philosophy.