The Architectonic of Philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz

349 Pages·2007·2.22 MB·English

by  Leslie Jaye Kavanaugh

ccoovveerr..nnll..ff..aaii 2255--66--22000077 1155::0077::1111
c
z
THE
i
a
n
Whereas the history of philosophy
defines metaphysics as asking the
b
question "What is Being?"; here is i
asked, "Where is Being?" What is to r i LESLIE
be analyzed is indeed part of the ne
c JAYE
tradition of metaphysics to inquire l
about Being qua being, but here the KAVANAUGH

inquiry is into its structure, its position ,
h e
within the ontological whole. The
o
concept of the “architectonic” is l
borrowed from Kant, albeit with
t
differing intentions. In doing this i
analysis, two points become explicit: t o
one, ontology has a structure; and
two, the status of Being within this e tt
structure. In this work, three philo- s
sophical structures are chosen for a i
c
more extensive examination: the c r
three “architectonics” are that of
C a
Plato’s chora, Aristotle’s continuum,
M
and finally Leibniz’s labyrinth. In the t
,
Y end, any architectonic of philosophy
eo
CM necessarily implies a construction, o
destruction, and eventual re- t
MY
construction of its projects.
a
CY
n
CMY l
t
K p
i

c i:
y
h
h
p
o
K
c
A s
V
A o
N
l
A
U ri
h
G
H
ap
e

h f
AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY PRESS
o
t
www.aup.nl
UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM
ccoovveerr..nnll..ff..aaii 2255--66--22000077 1155::0077::1111
c
z
THE
i
a
n
Whereas the history of philosophy
defines metaphysics as asking the
b
question "What is Being?"; here is i
asked, "Where is Being?" What is to r i LESLIE
be analyzed is indeed part of the ne
c JAYE
tradition of metaphysics to inquire l
about Being qua being, but here the KAVANAUGH

inquiry is into its structure, its position ,
h e
within the ontological whole. The
o
concept of the “architectonic” is l
borrowed from Kant, albeit with
t
differing intentions. In doing this i
analysis, two points become explicit: t o
one, ontology has a structure; and
two, the status of Being within this e tt
structure. In this work, three philo- s
sophical structures are chosen for a i
c
more extensive examination: the c r
three “architectonics” are that of
C a
Plato’s chora, Aristotle’s continuum,
M
and finally Leibniz’s labyrinth. In the t
,
Y end, any architectonic of philosophy
eo
CM necessarily implies a construction, o
destruction, and eventual re- t
MY
construction of its projects.
a
CY
n
CMY l
t
K p
i

c i:
y
h
h
p
o
K
c
A s
V
A o
N
l
A
U ri
h
G
H
ap
e

h f
AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY PRESS
o
t
www.aup.nl
UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM
THE ARCHITECTONIC OF PHILOSOPHY
PLATO, ARISTOTLE, LEIBNIZ
Leslie Jaye Kavanaugh
First published in 2007 by:
Amsterdam University Press
Herengracht 221
1016 BG Amsterdam
www.aup.nl
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
Kavanaugh, Leslie Jaye 1959-
The Architectonic of Philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz
p. 24cm.
ISBN-10 90 5629 416 4
ISBN-13 978 90 5629 416 8
NUR 730
Includes bibliographical references
1.Metaphysics – physics 2. Aristotle – physics. 3. Plato – Timaeus
4. Leibniz – physics 5. 17th century science 6. Ancient Greek science
7. Philosophy of physics - ancient to 17th century
I. Title
Book Layout: Janine Toussaint
Cover Lay out: Tahl Kaminer
Cover Design: AAK
In Goudy Old Style 11.5pt
and aristarcoj 11 pt. designed by Russell Cottrell
© 2007 Leslie Kavanaugh
Vossiuspers UvA – Amsterdam University Press, 2007
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no
part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval s ystem, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, m echanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author
of the book.
THE ARCHITECTONIC OF PHILOSOPHY
PLATO, ARISTOTLE, LEIBNIZ
Leslie Jaye Kavanaugh
Amsterdam University Press
Amsterdam

PREFACE
I have always believed that if I was very fortunate in this life, I would
be blessed with one question, one guiding thread that compelled me
to inquiry, unsettling me in my all too convenient presuppositions,
awakening me to my greatest and most profound knowing. This
question for me is space.
Given the present impossibility of overcoming metaphysics
as defined by the Western tradition, the philosophical difficulty in
actually seeing the way forward, this project attempts to make explicit
the ontological structures that comprise the metaphysical project of
Western metaphysics. This work examines three such architectonics.
Firstly, within a critique of the possibility of a philosophy of penultimate
origins or first principles, a reading of Plato’s Timaeus shows that the
origin is a never-ending, or more accurately always beginning anew,
eternally receding beginning. Secondly, in a critique of the possibility
of a universality, a reading of Aristotle’s Physics alongside other of
his texts, shows that although of “one piece” the phenomenal and
ontological are an infinitely divisible continuum. Furthermore, in a
critique of ontological hierarchies, is a reading of L eibniz’s oeuvre that
shows that the metaphysical intertwined with the p henomenal is a
labyrinth that we scarcely dare dream of escaping.
I will not ask about the “end” of philosophy, or indeed, ask
about its status in opposition to or relation with other disciplines
within the humanities. I leave that project to others. I will not be
calling for the demise of metaphysics, for its “Destruktion”, or even for
its “deconstruction”; rather I will precisely be doing metaphysics –
doing exactly what metaphysics has always done – asking itself what it
is. In this way this project is to do metaphysics, to construct yet another
a rchitectonic of philosophy. Because finally, to “overcome”, to “escape”,
to “end”, to “deconstruct”, to “go beyond”, is in my opinion at present
not only not possible, but also perhaps not even desirable. Perhaps,
I conclude, metaphysics is primarily this very desire to construct, to
contain, and to delimit. If so, then, are these structures optional? Can
ii
other structures be proposed that are configured differently, and are
therefore more useful and meaningful for contemporary concerns?
Ultimately, this project is constructivist, as opposed to
deconstructivist. In the final chapter of this work, I propose a new
a rchitectonic, a structure that is perhaps more immanent, more broadly
based as a foundation, and pluralist whilst being a singular continuity.
Yet it too will merely be among the many architectonic structures in
the metaphysical landscape. I call this proposal the reticulum.
This work is long in the preparation and undoubtedly impossible
without the considerable encouragement of many. First and foremost,
is my teacher, Prof.dr. Hent de Vries. He did what all great teachers do
– he left me free to wrestle with my own questions, and then carefully
and precisely critiqued what I have thought. I am grateful for both the
freedom and the precision. Further, many others have read over the
years sections of the manuscript and offered their criticisms: Marga
Jager has essentially helped with the Greek philosophy; members of
the L eibniz Society have offered comments on various drafts of papers
given at conferences; and students have with their seemingly naïve
questioning often put their finger on precisely the critical issues. I am
indeed grateful to a few persons who helped bring this manuscript
forward into a book: Angelique Caccia who did the text editing and
suggested many improvements for legibility, Tahl Kaminer who layed
out the cover, Janine Toussaint who layed out the book, Patrick Healy
who made helpful suggestions, Cristina Ampatzidou who corrected
the Greek language, and finally Marieke Soons, Editor, and Patrick
Weening, Production Coordinator at Amsterdam University Press
who actually made this book a possibility.
It only remains for me to say that none of this work would have
been even thinkable without the man who is the condition of all my
possibilities, Marcel Speklé, my loving and eternally patient husband.

CONTENTS
PREFACE i
LIST OF FIGURES vii
INTRODUCTION:
THE ARCHITECTONIC 1
On Method: Onto-topology 2
Ontological Structures: The Architectonic 2
The Transcendental Structure of Kant’s Architectonic 4
The Lay of the Land 13
THE ARCHITECTONIC AS ARCHÉ:
ORIGIN, FIRST PRINCIPLES, BEGINNING-
READING PLATO’S TIMAEUS 17
To Begin 17
The Timaeus – The Dialogue about the Genesis 19
Plato’s Timaeus: the Third Term 29
The Arché is to Ask the Question about the Beginning, the Origin. 32
Arché as the First Cause 36
Time at the Beginning 41
The Correspondence between the World-Soul and the Human Soul 45
The Arché is Beginning Again…the Origin 48
A Threefold Schema: Arché – Archetype – Type 50
The Arché as Chora 54
Again…the Ideal-Sensible Distinction 59
Arché as Space 62
In the End as in the Beginning 66
THE ARCHITECTONIC AS CONTINUUM:
ATOMS, INDIVISIBLES, INFINITY -
READING ARISTOTLE’S PHYSICS 69
Aristotle’s Predecessors 70
The Problem of Flux in the Continuum 70
The Fullness of Being 72
The Atomist’s Defense of the Parmendean One 74