Celibacy 03
Philosophers' Celibacy (3) - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
If you are good at mathematics, you may be familiar with formulas of differentiation and integration. In parallel with Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727), Leibniz is credited as the co-inventor of calculus.
Philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716)’s mathematical legacy is foundational to modern science. Leibniz independently co-invented infinitesimal calculus and introduced standardized notations called Leibniz’s notation, still used today, such as the integral sign and dx, dy for differentials.
Moreover, Leibniz developed the binary number system that powers ALL modern digital computers, and invented the first mass-producible mechanical calculator.
In personal life, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz lived a life of lifelong celibacy and never married. While Leibniz was a prominent figure in 17th-century intellectual life, his personal life was entirely dedicated to his work, and he remained single throughout his 70-year lifetime.
Leibniz's Celibate Life
According to French philosopher Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle, at the age of 50, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz proposed marriage to a woman for the first time. But the woman responded to ask for time to reflect on his proposal.
Her hesitation gave Leibniz time to reflect as well. However, after she took too long to make a decision, Leibniz lost enthusiasm, changed his mind, and withdrew his interest. This shows that, perhaps, his own determination was NOT driven by a strong desire for marriage.
“Is it not clear that there would be no sense in this discourse: because since my self is necessarily a particular individual nature, which is the same thing as having a particular individual concept, it is as impossible to conceive of contradictory predicates in the individual concept of myself as to conceive of a variety of myself different from me. From this one must conclude, I think, that since it is impossible that I should not always have remained myself, whether I had married or lived in celibacy, the individual concept of myself contained neither of these two states; just as it is well to conclude: this square of marble is the same whether at rest or in motion; so neither rest nor motion is contained in its individual concept.” (VI, 13 May 1686, The Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence, Antoine Arnauld)
In response to Catholic theologian Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz completely rejected Arnauld's assumption. Leibniz argued that individuals are bound to their specific possible worlds.
According to Leibniz’s letter X (14 July 1686), if the individual we call "Arnauld" had married, the entire history of the Universe would have to be slightly different. Therefore, a ‘married Arnauld’ would NOT be this actually celibate Arnauld at all, but rather a completely different possible person whom God chose NOT to create.
For Leibniz, every single detail about us, even down to what we ate for breakfast today…, is permanently baked into our unique individual concept by God.
 |
| Leibniz calculator (Technische Sammlungen Dresden) |
Leibniz's Philosophy of Celibacy
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s philosophy of celibacy is derived from his reflection on personal freedom and identity within his unique, broader metaphysical framework of “possible worlds.”
Leibniz’s philosophy of celibacy can be mainly seen in his correspondence with French Catholic theologian Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694).
 |
| Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) |
Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence
In the intellectual discussion exchange known as the “Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence” between 1686 and 1690, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Jansenist theologian Antoine Arnauld did NOT plainly discuss a moral or theological philosophy of celibacy as a main theme.
Instead, they used their own bachelorhood as a logical thought experiment centered on Leibniz’s radical metaphysical theory of Complete Individual Concepts from the opposite perspective.
In the correspondence, Antoine Arnauld confronts Leibniz, fearing Leibniz’s deterministic views, which imply a terrifying, un-Christian fatalism. Countering that, Leibniz discusses his life choices around celibacy and marriage.
 |
| Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694) |
The Predicate-in-Notion Principle – Complete Concept Theory
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz suggests that for every true proposition, the predicate is contained within the subject. Applied to human beings, this means that God possesses a priori complete concepts of every individual substance.
Before the Universe was created, God's intellect surveyed an infinite number of possible people. For any person to be themselves, each complete concept MUST include every single detail, event, and choice of their entire life a priori throughout past, present, and future.
Antoine Arnauld was deeply alarmed by Leibniz’s doctrine. Countering Leibniz’s logic, Arnauld argued that if everything a person does is already baked into their concept from eternity, then human freedom should be an illusion, and God has NO choice but to create things exactly as they are from the beginning…
“So I shall simply state the difficulties I still find about this proposition: ‘The individual concept of each person contains once for all everything that will ever happen to him.’
It seemed to me to follow from that, that the individual concept of Adam contained the consequence that he would have so many children, and the individual concept of each of these children everything that they would do and all the children they would have, and so on. From which I thought it could be inferred that God was free to create or not to create Adam; but that supposing he wished to create him, everything that has happened since to the human race was and is obliged to happen through a fatal necessity; or at least that there is no more liberty for God regarding all that, supposing he wished to create Adam, than not to create a nature capable of thought, supposing he wished to create me.” (VI, 13 May 1686, The Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence. Antoine Arnauld)
Why did Antoine Arnauld, a prominent leader of the Jansenist movement, react with horror to Leibniz’s philosophy?
To understand Arnauld’s panic and criticism, let's take a look at how Jansenism viewed the delicate balance between divine omnipotence, human free will, and the accusation of fatalism. It will also be a key to carving out Leibniz’s philosophy.
Jansenism vs. Fatalism
Jansenism was a Catholic theological movement based on the posthumous book “Augustinus” (1640) by Cornelius Jansen (1585–1638). Its central doctrine was a radical interpretation of Saint Augustine’s views on grace and original sin.
Jansenism believes that original sin fundamentally corrupted human nature. Fallen humans are completely deprived of the natural capacity to choose the spiritual good.
In the view of Jansenism, salvation is entirely dependent on efficacious grace (grâce efficace)(or irresistible grace), which God grants arbitrarily to ONLY the elect (chosen elite). If God grants this grace, the person chosen will do good and be saved. Otherwise, if God withholds the grace, that person can NOT do good and will even damn themselves.
God has already decided, from eternity, who will receive this grace and who will NOT. Therefore, ONLY a chosen few are predestined for salvation.
 |
| Cornelius Jansen (1585–1638) |
Since Jansenism stripped human beings of the ability to save themselves without divine intervention, theological rivals, primarily the Jesuits, constantly accused Jansenism of teaching Calvinist predestination and fatalism as heresies that completely destroyed human free will.
Antoine Arnauld spent his entire life fiercely defending Jansenism against these accusations. Arnauld insisted that Jansenism did NOT imply fatalism. Because…
(1) Free will is NOT coercion.
Arnauld maintained that humans still possess free will because we act voluntarily out of our own inner desires, either a love for God or a love for sin, without being physically forced by an outside power.
(2) God is absolutely sovereign.
God's decisions are free and unconstrained by any prior cosmic rules.
In the view of Jansenism, everything happens because of the unconstrained, sovereign, ultimate will of God. God is a living ruler who arbitrarily decides in real-time history to grant grace to one person and withhold it from another.
On the other hand, Leibniz viewed everything that happens as it is mathematically bound inside an eternal, universal, rational, logical blueprint, the Complete Individual Concept. God did NOT invent the concept of Adam or Arnauld,... but those concepts existed a priori in God’s intellect as pure logic. Once God chose to create this Universe, the logical script was immediately locked by the laws of consistency.
Consequently, to Arnauld, Leibniz’s system of the complete individual concept stripped divine power away from God’s arbitrary free will and handed it over to cold, universal, mathematical logic.
Jansenism is based on the mystery of God’s choices. Why does God choose to give grace to person A but damn person B? It's arbitrary, or even irrational, for human eyes. The Jansenist answer is that God’s will owes nothing and is transcendent over human logic.
Leibniz, however, introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason, arguing that God MUST have a rational, spotlessly perfect divine reason for everything He does. Specifically, God MUST create the absolute “Best of All Possible Worlds.”
“And that of the “Sufficient Reason,” by virtue of which we judge that no fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is thus, and not otherwise, although these reasons very often cannot be known to us.” (Monadology, 1714. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)
Best of All Possible Worlds in “Theodicy”
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz believed that God is the distinct Supreme Being who created the Universe out of nothing. But God is NOT the Universe itself. Leibniz fiercely rejected Pantheism when it was proposed by his contemporary Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677).
Rather, for Leibniz, God is the ultimate mathematician and architect. When God calculates the “Best of All Possible Worlds,” God solves an infinite mathematical puzzle to optimize and maximize the variety, order, and harmony of the Universe.
“As in mathematics, when there is no maximum nor minimum, in short nothing distinguished, everything is done equally, or when that is not possible nothing at all is done: so it may be said likewise in respect of perfect wisdom, which is no less orderly than mathematics, that if there were not the best (optimum) among all possible worlds, God would not have produced any. I call ‘World’ the whole succession and the whole agglomeration of all existent things, lest it be said that several worlds could have existed in different times and different places. For they must needs be reckoned all together as one world or, if you will, as one Universe. And even though one should fill all times and all places, it still remains true that one might have filled them in innumerable ways, and that there is an infinitude of possible worlds among which God must needs have chosen the best, since he does nothing without acting in accordance with supreme reason.” (Part 1, Theodicy, 1710. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argued that as God is the omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being, God MUST have chosen to create the most optimal and most harmonious Universe possible out of ALL logically possible worlds.
This idea, so-called Leibnizian optimism, serves as Leibniz’s philosophical solution to the problem of evil. In “Theodicy” (Essais de Théodicée) (1710), Leibniz defended his argument, laying out the reasoning to prove why the actual world is the BEST.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s 70-year lifetime was largely dedicated to his intellectual work as a philosopher, mathematician, as well as a librarian and diplomatic advisor to the House of Brunswick. So in Leibniz’s heart, there was NO room for a conventional family life.
Leibniz did NOT view his own celibacy as a legal or divine requirement, but rather a strategic, voluntary choice, as suggested by his interaction with the Roman Catholic context of the time.
Leibniz’s own celibate life is seen as a practical application of his philosophy. Leibniz focused on intellectual work, rather than personal family obligations, which he believed were part of the “Best of All Possible Worlds” that God created.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is listed alongside other prominent philosophers of his contemporary era who never married, including Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), Isaac Newton (1643–1727), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), David Hume (1711–1776), and so on…
I will introduce their celibate lives one by one in my future posts. Coming soon and stick around!
Further reading (sponsored by Amazon):
● Maria Rosa Antognazza (2016). Leibniz: A Very Short Introduction. 160 pages. Oxford University Press.
(sponsored by Amazon)
In “Leibniz: A Very Short Introduction,” Maria Rosa Antognazza outlines the central features of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's philosophy in the context of Leibniz’s overarching intellectual vision and aspirations! Against the backdrop of Leibniz's encompassing scientific ambitions, “Leibniz: A Very Short Introduction” introduces the fundamental principles of Leibniz's thought, as well as Leibniz’s theory of truth and theory of knowledge. Exploring Leibniz's contributions to logic, mathematics, physics, and metaphysics, “Leibniz: A Very Short Introduction” considers how Leibniz’s theories sat alongside his concerns with politics, diplomacy, and a broad range of practical reforms: juridical, economic, administrative, technological, medical, and ecclesiastical!
Table of Contents
Preface
List of illustrations
1: Who was Leibniz?
2: Characteristica universalis, logical calculus, and mathematics
3: Encyclopaedia, scientia generalis, and the academies of sciences
4: Possible worlds and fundamental principles
5: Complete-concept theory, theory of truth, and theory of knowledge
6: The best of all possible worlds and Leibniz’s theodicy
7: What is ultimately real—unity and activity
8: Monads
9: Monads, corporeal substances, and bodies
Epilogue
Timeline
Abbreviations
References
Further reading
Index
