[Download] ➹ Discourse on Metaphysics By Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – Thegreatwallonline.us

Discourse on Metaphysics Leibniz Was A True Polymath And Has Been Called The Most Comprehensive Thinker Since Aristotle In These Two Great Works By The Founder Of Modern German Speculative Philosophy, The Reader Is Introduced To Leibniz S Matephysics, Including His Conception Of Physical Substance, The Motion And Resistance Of Bodies, And The Role Of The Divine Within The Dynamic Universe

[Download] ➹ Discourse on Metaphysics  By Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – Thegreatwallonline.us
  • paper
  • Discourse on Metaphysics
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
  • English
  • 04 October 2017
  • 0879757752

10 thoughts on “Discourse on Metaphysics


  1. says:


  2. says:

    Employing the principle of charity, I will initiate a review of this book with as little criticism as practicable Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is a significant figure, not for philosophy per se, but for originating Mathematical Logic so, I guess philosophy and the ideas of kinetic energy, and Calculus Of course, you can debate the whole Newton vs Leibniz hokum somewhere else All of these accomplishments are astounding therefore, I opine that Leibniz should be remembered for all the precedi Employing the principle of charity, I will initiate a review of this book with as little criticism as practicable Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is a significant figure, not for philosophy per se, but for originating Mathematical Logic so, I guess philosophy and the ideas of kinetic energy, and Calculus Of course, you can debate the whole Newton vs Leibniz hokum somewhere else All of these accomplishments are astounding therefore, I opine that Leibniz should be remembered for all the preceding achievements. Now is where it gets awkward Leibniz accepted the ontological proof for the existence of God and by God, I mean the Christian God of 17th Century the purpose of this review is not to talk about beliefs, I will just leave that phrasing ambiguous Leibniz advised that God could have chosen any sort of world since, it is possible Nevertheless, since He God is perfect by definition, this is the best of all possible worlds Of course, Leibniz would be ridiculed by Voltaire for this ludicrous deduction, in Candide but I digress Leibniz s argument goes something like this Life is not worth living if we do not have free will Free will is the purchase price of sin A world without free will is not worth living in Therefore, this is the best of all possible worlds Yes, it does go like that, and even the insouciant reader can sense something inexplicable afoot in Leibniz s reasoning. Frankly, the order of Leibniz writing is to be celebrated It is clearly written, and situated in an order where each argument builds upon previous premises, conclusions, and arguments Both the Discourse on Metaphysics and The Monadology can be read quickly However, this is the extent of my extolment for Leibniz The message in his arguments is utterly farcical Instead of investigating the nature of existence, he immediately starts from the point of view that his God exists, and as such, Leibniz is only reporting the reality Yes facts As an example, Leibniz indicates that, there is a universal order and everything conforms to it This is so true, Leibniz observes, that not only does nothing occur in this world which is absolutely irregular, but it is even impossible to conceive such an occurrence Think about that for a few seconds Okay, time is up I have thought of many things that are absolutely irregular that occur The point is that Leibniz was wrongI am hesitant to go any further in the Discourse on Metaphysics nonetheless, I still judge it to be important reading Not necessarily for what Leibniz was right about, but because it demonstrates the error process that can affect even the most brilliant of humans This is an important point, because very often, arguments are made and ideas embraced that are fallacious appeals to authority, belief, popularity, etc It is troublesome to express this in a positive way. Turning toward The Monadology,here Leibniz outdid himself by conveying the idea of infinite units of force made up of soul, that make up everything else Some of these monads do not interact, and as a result, bad things can sometimes be good No worries though, the God of Leibniz knows everything, because He has divine foreknowledge Once again, you might want to pause here and consider the implications Peradventure, look up the Consequence Argument Here is a link to a short book that perfectly explains it in Chapter 3 A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will Once you understand the Consequence Argument, you will comprehend the problem viz., if God has foreknown what we will do, we cannot now do otherwise than we actually do Therefore, if free will requires the power to do otherwise, then no one has free will Yet, remember the premises and conclusion in one of the previous paragraphs No worries, I used the bold formatting to help you find it You know, the one where Leibniz claims, Life is not worth living if we do not have free will Free will is the purchase price of sin A world without free will is not worth living in Therefore, this is the best of all possible worlds This is representative of the inconsistencies in Leibniz s argumentsin toto. Consequently, Leibniz s arguments tend to have problems Leibniz s reasoning is inclined towards inconsistencies, and at times, incoherence Moreover, Leibniz s formulation of us living in the best possible world is difficult to quantify when, in modernity, you see an ample share of the world living in unbearable circumstances v.g., I flush my toilet everyday with water cleaner than most of the world s drinking water To explain to someone that the reason they are living in squalor is for the greater good would be derisory Hence, one can easily understand why Voltaire so effortlessly lampooned Leibniz on his best possible world postulation In conclusion, I do consider there is much to be derived from reading Leibniz even though I dissent from many of his arguments The fundamental contribution is that he formulates his arguments well, and this is central to philosophy Sometimes reading philosophy isfor understanding the mistakes that others have made to ensure you do not make the same mistakes in your own reasoning Happy reading


  3. says:

    Must read again and take notes


  4. says:

    I listened to the two hour audiobook from Audible This is one that I will return to as a reference from time to time I cannot say that it was a thrilling read, but it is a must read for anyone interested in philosophical disciplines I majored in Chemistry at a Methodist Church related university Having been steeped in Wesleyan doctrine and philosophy from childhood, I found Leibniz ideas to be quite satisfying When I see and hear various self proclaimed scientific experts trying to use sc I listened to the two hour audiobook from Audible This is one that I will return to as a reference from time to time I cannot say that it was a thrilling read, but it is a must read for anyone interested in philosophical disciplines I majored in Chemistry at a Methodist Church related university Having been steeped in Wesleyan doctrine and philosophy from childhood, I found Leibniz ideas to be quite satisfying When I see and hear various self proclaimed scientific experts trying to use science to tear down faith or self proclaimed pillars of religion trying battle against science using fundamentalist dogma, I would like to lock up both factions in a room, bind and gag them, and force them to listen to lectures and sermons from Leibniz and John Wesley while Charles Wesley s hymns are playing in the background They would all be forced to stay there eating meager rations and taking Holy Communion until they found some points in each side where they could agree Only then would said experts be allowed to have their opinions see the light of day


  5. says:

    _


  6. says:

    La publicar en otro momento


  7. says:

    Pretty terrible He appeals not to rationality, but to how awesome he thinks God must be He argues, for instance, that memory must live on after death because God is perfect and it would be bad if memory didn t live on after death.


  8. says:

    It was a good speech, with some interesting thoughts, however, I dislike that the base of all the Leibniz s philosophical work is the believe of god and the bible, the goodness of the men, unfortunately the good nature is not in human.


  9. says:

    Leibniz has some interesting insights, but unlike some of his contemporaries e.g Spinoza , he chooses not to challenge the traditional interpretation of Christianity As a result, his views on some things like the meaning of life seem a bit over simplistic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *