Hi, I need help with essay on From Leibniz: Letters to Arnauld. Paper must be at least 500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!The primary argument of Leibniz’s letters to Arnauld is to determine the

Hi, I need help with essay on From Leibniz: Letters to Arnauld. Paper must be at least 500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

The primary argument of Leibniz’s letters to Arnauld is to determine the true nature of material objects. Leibniz argues that they are not actually a single substance, but are instead combinations of things that act in unity in a given scenario or plane of existence. In exploring his ideas that all substantial things are already present from the original moment of creation,

Leibniz addresses a question asked by Arnauld regarding how a single block of marble, as a substantial substance, can be considered such once it has been broken in two. He states, “I think that a block of marble is, perhaps, only like a pile of stones, and thus cannot pass as a single substance, but as an assemblage of many” (215). As he makes his case for his way of reasoning, Leibniz’s argument is seen to be based upon the Scholastic concept of the substantial form as something existential from the material element.

To try to make his point, Leibniz introduces a number of examples of substances that might be considered the same, but that are obviously not a single entity as proofs that his claim regarding the block of marble is correct. He starts his analogies by comparing the substance of diamonds, pointing out how two diamonds are made from the same substance, but are not the same entity even when they are forced together such as when they are placed in the setting of a ring. The one that makes the most sense to me is the one in which he compares the concept of a lake full of fish to the idea of the substantial form. He says, “Therefore, I hold that a block of marble is not a complete single substance, any more than the water in a pond together with all the fish it contains would be, even if all the water and all the fish were frozen” (215). Obviously, fish are not the same substance as water, even when they are frozen to the same degree as the water, and yet it can be understood how a block chiseled from this pond might be