[ 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: 117 KB, 800x988, 00.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17400001 No.17400001 [Reply] [Original]

What does /lit/ think of Leibniz?

>> No.17400008 [DELETED] 

>>17400001
He is cool, and a bit of a onions too. But calculus is cool af. I want to check out his stuff sometime.

>> No.17400017

>>17400001
He is cool, I'm a bit curious to check his stuff. Seems heavily influenced by mathematical thinking and I'm (I try) a bit of a monist myself, so I kinda like him and Spinoza.

>> No.17400018

The biscuits are good

>> No.17400020

>>17400001
great hairdo

>> No.17400026

>>17400020
He was probably bald, anon. That is a wig.

>> No.17400035

>>17400026
great wig

>> No.17400455

>>17400001
i'm confused as to how he got to the "best of all possible worlds"

>> No.17400485

>>17400001
The monadology is absolutely beautyful, a musical masterpiece in its own right even though its a philosophy text.

>> No.17400584

>>17400001
It's mathematicized theology, has less connection to reality than Kant. However if you think Hegel's stuff is not bullshit mysticism you gonna like it just as much as him.

>> No.17401499

>>17400001
Absolute madman that wrote about every subject, invented several discipline because the existing ones weren't enough, and was still right about everything.
Last but not least >>17400018

>>17400017
Spinoza and Leibniz are nothing alike aside from the first paying lip service to Descartes. On that particular topic, Leibniz is the anti-monist philosopher.

>> No.17401595
File: 78 KB, 938x938, 1605327190564.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17401595

>>17400001
I love that Gödel created a whole conspiracy because he couldn't find Leibniz Notes on his Project of a characterista universalis, while the Truth may very well be that it just wasn't published yet, considering the pure Volume of his personal Notes

>> No.17401625

>>17401595
>when your complete works aren't yet published three hundred (300) years after your death in spite of constant editing
Didn't they recently edited find some obscure notes about fossils where he had anticipated Cuvier by a century and a half?

>> No.17402936
File: 315 KB, 600x724, Leibniz_Hannover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17402936

>Using the objectively worse depiction of him.
Why do y'all gotta do my niggas like this?
Mothafuckas did the same ol' shit to Kant.

>> No.17402974

>>17400001
The true inventor of Calculus

>> No.17403018

>>17402974
>t. pseud
Leibniz had better notation and did it better for the most part, Newton cared mostly about application.
Both discovered it independently. You are a faggot.

>> No.17403030

>>17403018
Also Newton did modern calculus (or the science of fluxions) first.

>> No.17404462

>>17403018
>>17403030
>muh notation
Leibniz's entire derivation is not just much better grounded (though 19th century will rightly not be satisfied) and more general, it superior in understanding at a very fundamental level. He understood the operation of derivation through its algebraic rules of an operator (the pseudo-limit being only a case for numerical functions). In fact, Leibniz was the first to have a clear concept of function, even though it was uneasy to manipulate without reference to sets. Even for applications, he was the one to derive basic theorems from the chain rule to the exact differential formula or the integration by parts.
Newton wasn't that interested in applications, even to physics, since he rarely used it in his other works. Some claim he used his basic fluxions to discover some propositions of his principia before setting proofs based of a more Euclidian character, but it is contested.
Leibniz also published it decades before Newton (the small paper on fluxion is not calculus). Unironically if Newton's fluxion count as calculus, so should Fermat's work on integration.

>> No.17405153

>>17404462
>t. retard

>> No.17405157

>>17405153
>Unironically if Newton's fluxion count as calculus, so should Fermat's work on integration.
Specifically this part

>> No.17406064

Someone should translate everything he wrote. He wrote so fucking much that there is an entire library just from his notes, fragments and correspondence. There's probably things he wrote nobody ever read.

>> No.17406078

>>17406064
Do you know what language the bulk of his writings are in?

>> No.17406100

>>17400001

GJ on the calculus, too bad about the religious views. His piece at the end of the "Rationalists" reader is an ex post facto justification for the religion that he already held.

>> No.17406112

>>17402974

Mathematics is not invented, it is discovered. His NOTATION was a good invention.

>> No.17406165

>>17406078
Probably Latin ir German. He was the guy who said paper should be wrote in the author's own language instead of Latin, to give more praise to one's own mother tongue.

>> No.17406169

>>17404462
>Leibniz also published it decades before Newton
Doesn't change Newton invented it years before Leibniz in the slightest
>>17406112
Math is both invented and discovered

>> No.17407141

>>17400001
Smartest human in history and there's no contest. Absolute brain chad