What do you think?
Rate this book
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1686
Employing the principle of charity, I will initiate a review of this book with as little criticism as practicable. 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 for this ludicrous deduction, in ; 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 wrong!
I 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: . 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 arguments in toto.