/lit/ - Literature

>>20387944
>Leibniz has no major philosophical work
Theodicee? Monadology? Do you even google bro?

>>20387994
Have you read them?

>>20387944
was Leibniz really refuted by Guenon?

>>20387944
No one collated his collected works and his shit is scattered all over the place.

>>20388386
Not refuted from what I'm reading in RoQ, just mentioned. On ch 10 rn

>>20387944
His legacy was destroyed because retards though he stole his mathematical works from Newton.

>>20387944
IDK, I feel he gets a decent bit of attention here. Nothing major, but not a literal who. would be nice if there was a comprehensive publishing of his writtings.
>>20388463
eh, idk about that, if anything, I think more people know about him due to the calculous situation between him and isaac more than anything else. Its almost the reverse of Descarte funnily enough. With him, his pholosophy far outweighs his (considerable) contributions to mathmatics in the public mind, while for Liebnitz, his cocreation of calculus far outshines his contribution to philosophy in the public mind.

>>20388449
Not entirely true but his work is work is apparently hard to get through.

> Because Leibniz never described the characteristica universalis in operational detail, many philosophers have deemed it an absurd fantasy. In this vein, Parkinson wrote:

> Leibniz's views about the systematic character of all knowledge are linked with his plans for a universal symbolism, a Characteristica Universalis. This was to be a calculus which would cover all thought, and replace controversy by calculation. The ideal now seems absurdly optimistic..."
> —Parkinson 1973: ix

> The logician Kurt Gödel, on the other hand, believed that the characteristica universalis was feasible, and that its development would revolutionize mathematical practice (Dawson 1997). He noticed, however, that a detailed treatment of the characteristica was conspicuously absent from Leibniz's publications. It appears that Gödel assembled all of Leibniz's texts mentioning the characteristica, and convinced himself that some sort of systematic and conspiratorial censoring had taken place, a belief that became obsessional. Gödel may have failed to appreciate the magnitude of the task facing the editors of Leibniz's manuscripts, given that Leibniz left about 15,000 letters and 40,000 pages of other manuscripts. Even now, most of this huge Nachlass remains unpublished.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristica_universalis#G%C3%B6del_alleges_conspiracy

>>20388662
please learn english before posting

>>20388712
sorry for not crossing my t's and dotting my i's when I am posting on a drunk Wednesday night Pablo.

>>20388386
Retroactively so

>>20387944
Leibniz is too hard, too sophisticated, too intelligent for this board and generally the modern world.

>>20388386
Not at all dumbass. In fact ‘Leibnitz’ (Guénon's preferred spelling) is one of the few modern philosophers G. praises.

>>20388706
I dunno I had an easy time

Leibniz was an Aristotelian and a Christian. He's not discussed because both teleology and Christianity is frowned upon by the post-Enligthenment order.

>>20390098
>Leibniz was an Aristotelian and a Christian.
So like Kant

>>20387994
Monadology is like 8 pages or something.

>>20388449
Funny way to say it was systematically destroyed and distorted by the viennese academy of science.

>>20388706
Gödel was right. Shills need not reply.

>>20391637
Godel was gay

>>20391637
The characteristica universalis is quite simply impossibly infeasible. Leibniz was being more optimistic than normal (and he's an optimistic guy). I doubt that Leibniz ever got around to constructing such a system because he probably didn't even know where to start. Hell, if Gödel was so convinced it was possible why didn't he ever try to construct one? He's clever enough right? Well, evidently he didn't, and that's because he couldn't. Neither he nor Leibniz were clever enough, despite both being genius, to ever pull it off. Sounds to me like he was just some clever fanboy who thought way too highly of his idol. Even geniuses can be irrational! There's a reason he misunderestimated the amount of work that archivist and scholars have to do to get through all of Leibniz' nachlauss: Dunning-Kruger. He's a mathematician, not an archivist. He thinks he knows but he doesn't. It happens all the time. STEM people tend to value the work of scholars of other domains less (especially the humanities and social-sciences). There's also a really nefarious reason for why he thought that there was some sort of conspiracy: He was prone to conspiratorial thinking. Just look at how he died:
> Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods of mental instability and illness. Following the assassination of his close friend Moritz Schlick,[35] Gödel developed an obsessive fear of being poisoned, and would eat only food prepared by his wife Adele. Adele was hospitalized beginning in late 1977, and in her absence Gödel refused to eat;[36] he weighed 29 kilograms (65 lb) when he died of "malnutrition and inanition caused by personality disturbance" in Princeton Hospital on January 14, 1978.[37] He was buried in Princeton Cemetery. Adele died in 1981.[38]
The man was nutty I'm afraid. What a shame.

I'll read him later this year and start shilling him

>>20392292
>STEM people tend to value the work of scholars of other domains less (especially the humanities and social-sciences)

Its the other way around. Crybully gatekeeping is the conspiracy.

>>20387944
>Leibniz
Who?

>>20392292
>Even geniuses can be irrational!
>Dunning-Kruger
>misunderestimated
Dropped for writing like a faggot.

>>20394835
Based, I did the same

>>20392292
>>20388706
We already have this. It's formalized logic but we also know that it has no foundation. So we don't have what Leibniz had in mind

Schelling claimed all of Leibniz’s philosophy was contained within Spinoza’s, although Leibniz didn’t realize this.

>>20396312
Schelling and Spinoza were two retards

>>20387994
>Monadology
This is no way major. Sure, it's a great work, but it's 10 pages in length.

>>20396331
Yet you still can't explain what's a monad LMAOOOOOO

>>20396321
leibniz got owned by a jew. suck it chud

>>20396439
You never read Leibniz

>>20396474
I’ve read the monadology and discourse on metaphysics. I love him and Descartes and Spinoza, it’s just that spinoza is obviously the most important thinker of the rationalists.

>>20396347
I don't think Leibniz could either. It's not a position anyone holds anymore. There are Kantians, Hegelians, Heideggerians, Nietzscheans, Spinozists, Cartesians, Humeans, etc. But hardly anyone today will call themselves a Lebnizian. That is not to say Leibniz wasn't a genius and a great thinker.

>>20396529
Because most men are cowards. A leibniezian would have to withstand constant attacks from philosophical cowards or even worse feminine marxists.

>>20390098
unironically

>>20396270
because it's impossible what he wants is a meta-metaphysics. Which can be proven.

>>20396522
Important how? We had pantheism since Neoplatonists and he didn't bring anything new.

>>20396529
>he's not popular so he's wrong
>no i won't refute him using arguments i already said he lost the popularity contest

>>20396622
The entire project of German idealism is inserting “spirit” or life into Spinozism

>>20396635
It's not, you're just a pseud with a superficial understanding of anything related to philosophy. Answer the question, don't ramble about even more things you don't understand

>>20396635
>the entire project of German idealism is inserting "cocks" into asses
fixed that for you.

>>20396669
Here’s the source, Philosophical investigations into the essence of human freedom by Leibniz

>>20396679
Oops I mean by Schelling

>>20396669
>>20396676
that’s what I thought bitches. suck this dick

>>20396735
Kill yourself brainlet

>>20394579
Back to fit

>>20396626
I didn't say Leibniz is wrong. I said he lacks an account of what Monads are. The Mondaology, as has been pointed out in this thread multiple times, can be read in 15 minutes, and is not some complete treatise. Maybe Leibniz is right, but if he is he never wrote down why. That is why there aren't any Lebnizians (no, it's not because of the feminazis, >>20396548 ).

As I said:
> That is not to say Leibniz wasn't a genius and a great thinker.

>>20397142
Leibniz's monadology follows from his definition of concepts (which makes them coincide with subjectivities), you have to read the monadology after reading a bunch of his other essays on his metaphysics of concepts. I recommend Philip Wiener's anthology for Leibniz, particularly the divisions on metaphysics and epistemology.

Copleston also has a decent summary of Leibniz and his context to get you started in volume 4 (I think?) of his History of Philosophy.

>>20388662
>Nothing major, but not a literal who

>>20388662
>>20397172
Oh sorry anon I thought you were stating your opinion on the prominence of Leibniz' work rather than the amount of attention he gets .

Bump

>>20397153
>Philip Wiener's anthology for Leibniz
Thanks anon.

>>20397153
mmm can’t find it here https://en.es1lib.org/s/Leibniz?e=1

>>20396529
You're a Lezbian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W8fA0Z2cRE

>>20399106
Why's eve so fucking ugly? Not even talking about the face.

>>20390098
>both teleology and Christianity is frowned upon by the post-Enligthenment order.
And that's a good thing

>>20399527
Here is why.

>>20387944
Thoughts?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

>>20396572
Can metaphysics be proven? I tend towards Kant's ideas about it personally, that as a general concept sure inductively but absolutely none of its contents can be. Do you know what Leibniz thought on this? From his Monadology I got the impression he thought something metaphysical could be demonstrable even if "a monad," itself is physical.

>>20401341
check out funkenstein's theology and the scientific imagination for a decent overview of leibniz's answer and what assumptions it's based on

basically he assumes that reason is universal and transparent if practiced correctly so correct conceptual analysis reveals actual truth, he is an arch rationalist

>>20387944
Leibniz nutz lmao