Liebniz was an early admirer of Epicurean atomism; but later devoted himself to the doctrine of substantial forms as outlined in his Monadology.

On the face of it, atoms are substantial forms - they have substance and they have form; what are the major differences between these two theories?


If I understand your question correctly, you ask about the difference between an atom and a monad - is that right?

If it is, then the major difference between them is probably the fact, that a monad is not pure matter as atom (Epicureans were matterialists: even souls they considered to be build of atoms, just of some different type). I don't want to make a mistake, but I am quite confident that a substance in Christian philosophy is a term generally not associated with matter.

But there are other differences: I assume that Epicurus concept of atom is familiar to you and the Leibniz's monads just cause confusion. (Indeed, monadology is rather odd metaphysical system.) I would recommend those articles about monads, they describe the idea of a monad quite well:



Note the biggest differences:

  • Atoms are pure matter, whereas monads are not.
  • Atoms are connected with other atoms, whereas monads can not interact between them (monad "has no doors or windows")
  • Atoms are what is the world build of in a sense as bricks are what a wall is build of, whereas monads are complete beings - they all are the parts of the universe and in every of them there is a reflection of the universe in which it appears as if they could interact.

And some differences according to particularly Epicurus' concept of atoms:

  • Atoms are not the smalles parts of the universe - they are made of minima, whereas monads are indivisible.

  • Atoms are not fully determined - there are some random movements of atoms called clinamen (greek: parenklisis), whereas monads... well, they are determined in a specific way and it is all quite complicated (the articles I recommended should put some light onto it).

On the other hand, there is no reason why couldn't the matter (not substance) be made of atoms in Leibniz's concept: I cannot though provide evidence that he has actually thought so and I am sure that it is not an important part of his philosophy (the atom concept in Epicurus' philosophy was developed for his ethics - and a similar role in Leibniz's philosophy certainly play monads).

  • Great answer; thanks for the references. You're right that I was asking about the differences between monads and atoms; is it correct to say in the Epicurean system that 'soul atoms' are made of matter, rather than being atoms of some spirit-like notion? In a sense I see Leibnizs system as a spiritualised form of Epicures doctrine. Isn't the 'swerve' of atoms called clinamen rather than parenklisis - or are they the same concept in different languages? As I understand it, substances are defined as being causally closed - hence Leibnizs attempt to harmonise them through Sep 10 '14 at 20:51
  • his harmonic doctrine. Sep 10 '14 at 20:53
  • You are right, as I see clinamen is probably the most common name and it means the same as parenklisis - I didn't know the English word so just transcribed the greek word (google says that it is also used). Could you elaborate how do you see Leibniz's system as a spiritualised form of Epicure's harmonic doctrine? I don't understand which exactly part of Epicure's philosophy you refer to (I may not be an expert of Epicure though).
    – Bartek M
    Sep 10 '14 at 21:07
  • There are similarities between monads and atoms - they are simple and indivisible is probably the key property; but whereas atoms are matter; monads are substances, thus able to support the notion of mind spirit in a way that is different from Epicurus; also Epicurean atoms developed as a reaction to Parmenides One - they are many; in the same way L's monads are Parmenides One multiplied. Epicurus didn't have a harmonic doctrine; it is Lebniezs; as each monad is causally closed how can they affect each other - they cannot; the harmonic doctrine is a way of getting around that... Sep 10 '14 at 21:58
  • I confess I find that confusing as what (sufficent) reason is there for them to harmonise. Sep 10 '14 at 22:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.