What Is Structural Causation?

  • Tzuchien Tho
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 46)


The second chapter of this book presents the central argument of the book in a synoptic form. It proposes a first approach to an important interpretive lens for understanding Leibniz’s dynamics project as presenting a theory of causation that is structural in nature. In the preceding introduction, we examined the chronological development of the dynamics and emphasized the growth of the dynamics project from the notion of Leibnizian vis as a structural property, the property of a physical or mechanical system. Now we take a step further. Since the dynamics aimed at developing a science of the cause of motion, the proper object of the dynamics is the nature of causation rather than the mere properties of motion. A structural form of causation is proposed here in order to render explicit the central concept of Leibniz’s dynamics.


2. Other Texts of G.W. Leibniz (Not Cited by Abbreviation)

II. Texts by Other Authors

  1. Leibniz, G.W. 1991. Phoranomus seu de potentia et legibus naturae. Ed. and annotation by André Robinet. Physis 28(2): 429–541 and Physis 28(3): 797–885.Google Scholar
  2. Leibniz, G.W. 1994. Leibniz: La réforme de la dynamique. Ed. Michel Fichant. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, Gregory. 1984. ‘Quod ostendendum susceperamus’. What did Leibniz undertake to show in Brevis Demonstratio? Studia Leibnitiana Sonderhelft 13: 122–137.Google Scholar
  4. Costabel, Pierre. 1960. Leibniz et la dynamique: Les textes de 1692. Paris: Hermann. English edition: Costabel, Pierre. 1973. Leibniz and Dynamics: the texts of 1692 (trans. R. E. W. Maddison). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Duchesneau, François. 1994. La Dynamique de Leibniz. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  6. Duchesneau, François. 1998. Leibniz’s Theoretical Shift in the Phoranomus and Dynamica de Potentia. Perspectives on Science 6 (1–2): 77–109.Google Scholar
  7. Eustachio a Sancto Paolo. 1614. Summa philosophiae quadripartita. Pars III. Paris: Carolum Chastelain.Google Scholar
  8. Fichant, Michel. 1995. De la puissance à l’action: la singularité de la Dynamique. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 100 (1): 49–81.Google Scholar
  9. Gueroult, Martial. 1934. Dynamique et métaphysique Leibniziennes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
  10. Huygens, Christiaan. 1669. Extrait d’une lettre de M. Huygens. Journal des sçavans 1672: 22–24.Google Scholar
  11. Huygens, Christiaan. 1929. Oeuvres Completes, Vol. 16. La Haye: Martinus Hijhof.Google Scholar
  12. Huygens, Christiaan. 1977. The motion of colliding bodies (trans: Richard J. Blackwell). Isis 68 (4): 574–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kepler, Johannes. 1990. Gesammelte Werke Vol. III. Ed. Kepler-Kommission Der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  14. Lodge, Paul. 1997. Force and the Nature of Cody in Discourse on Metaphysics §§17–18. Leibniz Society Review 7: 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Newton, Issac. 1972. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Vol. I. Trans. Andrew Motte and ed. Florian Cajori. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Papin, Denis. 1689. De gravitatis causa et proprietatibus observationes. Acta Eruditorum: 183–189.Google Scholar
  17. Sleigh, Robert Jr. 1990. Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on Their Correspondence. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Suárez, Francisco. 2015. Disputationes Metaphysicae. Accessed 28 Mar 2016.
  19. Torricelli, Evangelista. 1644. Opera Geometrica. Florence: Amadoro Massa and Lorenzo de Landis.Google Scholar
  20. Wallis, John. 1670. De Mechanica: sive, De motu, tractatus geometricus. London: Gulielmi Godbit.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tzuchien Tho
    • 1
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations