Introduction: Mathesis Universalis, Proof and Computation

  • Stefania CentroneEmail author
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 412)


By “mathesis universalis” Descartes and Leibniz understood a most general science built on the model of mathematics. Though the term, along with that of “mathesis universa”, had already been used during the seventeenth century, it was with Descartes and Leibniz that it became customary to designate it as a universal mathematical science that unifies all formal a priori sciences. In his Dissertatio de arte combinatoria (1666), early Leibniz writes that the mathesis is not a discipline, but unifies parts from different disciplines that have quantity as their subject. A while later, in a fragment entitled Elementa Nova Matheseos Universalis (1683?) he writes “the mathesis […] shall deliver the method through which things that are conceivable can be exactly determined”; in another fragment he takes the mathesis to be “the science of all things that are conceivable.” The more mature Leibniz considers all mathematical disciplines as branches of the mathesis and designs the mathesis as a general science of forms applicable not only to magnitudes but to every object that exists in our imagination, i.e. that is possible at least in principle. As a general science of forms the mathesis investigates possible relations between “arbitrary objects” (“objets quelconques”). It is an abstract theory of combinations and relations among objects whatever.


  1. Bolzano, B. (1810). Beyträge zu einer begründeteren Darstellung der Mathematik. Erste Lieferung, Caspar Widtmann, Prague. Reprint: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre. Versuch einer ausfürlichen und größtentheils neuen Darstellung der Logik mit steter Rücksicht auf deren bisherige Bearbeiter, Bd 1–4, Seidel, Sulzbach. In: J. Berg et al. (Ed.), Bernard Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe [BGA], Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1969 ff, Series 1, volumes 11–14.Google Scholar
  3. Casari, E. (1987). Matematica e verità. Rivista di Filosofia, 78, 329–350.Google Scholar
  4. Casari, E. (2004). Logic and the laws of possible being. In M. Marsonet & M. Benzi (Eds.), Logic and metaphysics (pp. 16–43). Genova: Name.Google Scholar
  5. Descartes, R. (1908). Oeuvres (Ch. E. Adam, & P. Tannery, Eds.) (Vol. X), Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
  6. Leibniz, G. W. (1704). Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humain. In Akademieausgabe, VI.6, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyTechnical University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations