[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 16 KB, 330x407, leibniz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10228901 No.10228901 [Reply] [Original]

Leibniz is actually really lucid and makes strong arguments, and he has a lot of really good ideas in between his crazy stuff

I thought he was supposed to a total dumbfuck

>> No.10228914

>>10228901
>I thought he was supposed to a total dumbfuck
Where did you get that idea? He's among the most brilliant men to have ever lived.

>> No.10228929

>>10228914
Im talking about his philosophy

>> No.10228947

>I thought he was supposed to a total dumbfuck
Candide is satire aimed at the popularity of his Theodicy, it makes no proper rebuttals of the arguments in question and doesn't even touch on the theory of monads or his work as a diplomat or his attempts to reconcile the warring branches of Christianity ravaging the Europe of his day. In fact Voltaire was basically the /lit/ of his day.

>> No.10228985

>>10228929
and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Use this as a lesson for the future

>> No.10228990

>>10228914
He believe Voltaire character assassination and wank of Newton which was taught in his public school senior year.

>> No.10229578

>>10228947
To be fair, Candide was satire, not an argument. All Voltaire set out to do was show the absurdity of Leibniz's conclusion.

That being said, Leibniz is wicket smart.

>> No.10229585

What do you make of the Monadology?

>> No.10229589

>>10228901
DAMN. dis nigga look wack as FUCK

>> No.10229591

>>10228985
you sound like a tremendous faget
>>10228947
Voltaire was a dumbfuck, and a French dumbfuck to boot. There's nothing lower than that.

>> No.10229599
File: 16 KB, 320x371, 1500294014475.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10229599

>>10228985

>he's even more passive aggressive than women who post on Jezebel
wew

>> No.10230753

>>10228901
Can anyone tell me why he is the grand pappy of Accelerationism?

>> No.10230813

>>10229578
You're right but that only makes the people who wrote off Leibniz because of Candida even dumberer

>> No.10230879
File: 33 KB, 402x410, 12 Angry Men.avi_005242034.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10230879

Meme-ass fuckwit Voltaire RUINED ubermensch Leibniz forever with his shit book "Candide".
Voltaire probably didn't even bother to read Leibniz and completely misunderstood Leibniz' point - and strawmans Leibniz and dumbs down his philosophy (and just adds shit - like Pangloss not helping others because 'all's good'). Not Leibniz.
>Hurr durrr bad fings happen to people so you can't be a optimist gerrrrr
That's not Leibniz in a nutshell, and it fails to accommodate the religious concept of the Fall from perfection symbolized by Eden. But atheist faggot Voltaire naturally equated all religion with falsity and thus proceeds to bullshit up a tale that is incarnate ignorance and slander. Very unjust from a man ostensibly devoted to justice.

>> No.10231070
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10231070

>thread that recognizes Candide for the piece of shit it is
good, anytime someone tries to defend Candide he should be declared for the closeted redditor he is and publicly shamed

>> No.10231079

>>10231070
I thought it was funny at parts. Then again I read it in translation, it probably isn't funny in the original French.

>> No.10231101
File: 18 KB, 500x322, IMG_20170710_125426.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10231101

>2017
>Not knowing that the Monadoloy and the discovery of calculus are the highest points of the pre-Kantian European intellect

>> No.10231113

>>10230879
Agreed. Voltaire was a smarmy, toxic pseud with no capacity for refined thought and a penchant for causing needless chaos. Exactly the kind of sophist who needed bullying when he was younger. It's best to forget him.

>> No.10232357

>>10231113
t. holy roman emperor

>> No.10233417

What are the main problems with Leibniz's arguments for God in the Monadology? Specifically the ones coming from the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

>> No.10233418

>>10233417
If you mean his theodicy then there are no problems with it; he's right.

>> No.10233421

>>10233418
I'm talking about (roughly paraphrased):
1) If God can exist, he does
2) Since God is necessary and before all other things, the only thing keeping him from existing is a contradiction (from PSR)
3) There is no contradiction in the idea of God
4) Therefore God can exist
5) Therefore God exists

And:
1) There needs to be a reason for the existence of anything (from PSR)
2) This reason must be a necessary being, since everything else is contingent
3) This implies God's existence

>> No.10233444

>>10233421
And what is the PSR as Leibniz has stated it?

>> No.10233448

>>10233444
Principle of sufficient reason

Aka how/what isn't enough and there needs to be a "why", no brute facts, etc

>> No.10233451

>>10228901

Your latter paragraph is crazy. Forgive the following run-on sentence but it should communicate what I want. Although it doesn't seem to be a popular or well-known appellation (I couldn't corroborate it), a competent PhD in philosophy, who was clearly in his wheelhouse, once instructed the class I was in that among certain of Leibniz's contemporaries, he was known as "the monster" because he was so crazy smart and just generally good at everything he touched, in their view.

I'm now curious about this attribution, and I haven't been able to substantiate it.

>> No.10233457

>>10233448
Exact phrasing you'e concerned with? It's relevant. I think the argument is correct but I can't remember the exact phasing of the PSR and I'm too lazy to get my Philosophy of Religion textbook or Heidegger lectures on said principle out of the piles of books in my room.

>> No.10233478

>>10233457
31. Our reasonings are based on two great principles, that of contradiction, in virtue of which we judge that which involves a contradiction to be false, and that which is opposed or contradictory to the false to be true.

32. And that of sufficient reason, by virtue of which we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise, although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us. (G VI, 612/L 646)

>> No.10233484

>>10233478
I'm inclined to accept the argument.

>> No.10233581

>>10233484
hol' up

I found a solid objection:

If the idea that everything being contingent implies the existence of a necessary god, then everything in the world is either

1) Necessary, which defeats the first premise
2) Contingent, which implies that God's creation itself is contingent, which in turn requires an infinite regress of PSR explanations

>> No.10233587

>>10228990
this.
you can learn a hell of a lot searching for that which is not everywhere pushed in your face. the suppression of Leibniz is one of the greatest examples.

>> No.10233590

>>10233581
I don't understand.

>> No.10233613

>>10233590
The second argument is a lot more powerful if you treat only contingent things as susceptible to the PSR

Then, assuming the second argument holds, then God's creation, and everything involved with it, is either necessary or contingent

If it's the first, then the argument is self-defeating
If it's the second, then the PSR either defeats it, or it requires an infinite regress of explanations

>> No.10233648

>>10233581
>>10233590
>>10233613
nvm

It's equivocation

Contingency in Leibniz's sense implies that something is contingent on something else, not necessarily contingent in existing. Therefore, everything can be necessarily existent but still contingent on God