In paragraph 35 of her Institutions Physiques Du Châtelet determines a being [un Etre] as that which can exist and whose determinations do not entail a contradiction. Along with her predecessor Wolff, she deems the determination of a being (a ‘thing’ in Wolff) to rest on a rational principle of non-contradiction: if I can prove that an idea is free of contradiction it is possible and thus a being – if an idea entails a contradiction it is a chimera. In her determination of a being, Du Châtelet makes clear that a being merely needs to be possible, i.e. non-contradictory to be a being – it does not need to be existing in actuality. Along with this definition of “a being”, to Du Châtelet all truths rest on the principle of non-contradiction. It is thus clear from Du Châtelet’s understanding of a being that we reject an idea which entails contradiction not on the basis of ‘existence’ but on the basis of a reasoned principle. The determination of a being is dependent upon a principle of knowledge – not upon the existence of beings and the experience thereof. She hoped to pass judgments on nature on the basis of this principle, but also on freedom, God and knowledge itself. Yet is non-contradiction really sufficient to establish ‘a being’ – a necessary truth?

All welcome. Please register for the lecture here:

https://womeninphilosophy.com/lecture-series/

The Zoom link will be sent to all registered participants on the day of the lecture, one hour before the start of the talk.