I’ve been thinking how much nicer Leibnizian idealism is than the Berkeleyan sort, because you get this nice dose of realism from unconscious perception.
For instance, in one of his letters to Des Bosses, Leibniz offers a neat idealistic account of transsubstantiation: the unconscious perception of the micro-structure of the bread and wine perishes and is replaced with the unconscious perception of the micro-structure of Christ’s body, while the conscious perception of the macro-structure of the bread and wine remains. Material substance is better identified with micro-structure than macro-structure, and the macro-structure is more accident-like, so this counts as a replacement of the material substances in the bread and wine with the material substance of Christ’s body and blood.
Clever! But I am not sure what Leibniz can do with issues about size. The phenomenal perception of the micro-structure of Christ’s body presumably covers a larger volume of perceptual space than the macro-structure of the host. But Christ’s body is supposed to be where the host is.
Leibniz doesn’t say that this account of transsubstantiation is good. He suggests it’s the best one that can be adopted by Jesuits who don’t believe in composite substances.
No comments:
Post a Comment