/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11937557]

What do I need to read in order to understand Leibniz?

[Anonymous No.11937575]

>>11937557
Newton.

[Anonymous No.11937597]

>>11937557
NPC answer: you need to read all the philosophers who came before him, who he rejects, who he takes certain ideas from, so you can see how he combined all these influences into a certain understanding.

Chad player character answer: ignore all the sophists and pedants and just read the people from various eras and cultures who realized the timeless truth that Leibniz in his own way did too, e.g. Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Spinoza, The Upanishads, Adi Shankara, Abhinavagupta, Zhuangzi the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and Ibn Arabi.

[Anonymous No.11937683]

>>11937597
Thanks for your response. Both these approaches seem to have some value.
Is it appropriate and necessary to read an author's entire corpus (or at least the majority of it) in order to move to the next author? Or does one only need to cover the major works (although how these are defined isn't obvious to me)?

[Anonymous No.11937712]

>>11937597
>putting a rationalist and upanishads in the same sentence

[Anonymous No.11937778]

>>11937712
Despite using different methods and having different understandings/values, the rationalist in my post arrives at some of the same conclusions as the Upanishads. The Upanishads are themselves not opposed to rationality so long as it is accorded its proper place in the hierarchy of things and not taken as an end in itself.

[Anonymous No.11937939]

deleuze

[Anonymous No.11938380]

>>11937557
Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.11938659]

>>11938380
Yes, obviously. I meant in addition to the thing itself.