Customer Reviews

Philosophical Texts (Oxford Philosophical Texts)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Leibniz is indeed one of the most important and influential of philosophers and also one of the least examined, perhaps even among students of philosophy. He is most known for his contributions to mathematics, theology, and physics while his philosophical views are most often perceived through Voltaire's popular, but rather superficial mocking of his arguments regarding "possible worlds." But Leibniz' "best of all possible worlds" view is more subtle and robust than Voltaire was willing to see. The argument is not that the world is perfect -- certainly not if taken from any single, topical point of view, but that "in producing the universe [God] chose the best possible design, in which there was the greatest variety, together with the greatest order." One may dispute Leibniz' general view and/or aspects of his justification of it, but as Leibniz developed the argument along the lines of possibility, contingency, and necessity, it is difficult to see how one would logically disprove it. It has had to be enough for detractors to declare that they disagree with, or dislike the argument.
The famous argument is a recurring thread and summation in this Oxford Philosophical Texts volume edited by Woolhouse and Francks. Here is certainly a book that belongs in the library of any student of philosophy. As is noted in the editor's introduction, a recent biographer has written of Leibniz -- "Even if he had only contributed to one field, such as law, history, politics, linguistics, theology, logic, technology, mathematics, science, or philosophy his achievement would have earned him a place in history. Yet he contributed to all these fields, not as a dilettante but as an innovator able to lead the specialists." But even in the reasoning of such a magnificent mind there are problems and weaknesses (which tells us a great deal about philosophy and the human mind!). I won't explore the main difficulties that I found. I share one of the concerns expressed by Antoine Arnauld in his correspondence with Leibniz, as well as a few others.
Leibniz draws first from classical schools of thought, the Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Peripatetics (while wise ancient philosophers will always need rehabilitation, they "were not so far from the truth, nor so ridiculous as the common run of our new philosophers suppose."). He mostly rejects the Scholastics as well as the popular influences of European thought, Hobbes and Spinoza. With modification, he rehabilitates Aristotle's "entelechies," which become his "monads" (from the Greek, 'monas', meaning unity, or that which is one). A monad is the universe "from a point of view". Matter is understood as phenomena, not substance. Substance (for example number or mind) is irreducible, matter is a composite. Leibniz' view is amenable to Pythagoras and in many ways to both quantum theory (in the "quarks and gluons" model, the "solidity" of matter is merely a phenomena of the gluon force, and voids in space-time are not exactly voids) and to so-called string theories. One might say it is amenable to grand unification theory as well. Leibniz also hinted bluntly of Einstein's Relativity, repeatedly stating that there is no such thing as a physical state of absolute rest, motion, or time, as they are all "relativities." Newton, for all his genius, got that wrong (as regards time, that is).
I could go on and on, there are many pregnant themes in this collection of essays, articles, and correspondence (for example, "the present is big with the future"). Trying to keep this brief, I will simply suggest you read Leibniz (but do not skip the excellent introduction in this volume). Histories place him in Newton's shadow, which is unfortunate; as a philosopher, he certainly does not belong there. As regards the comparisons, Leibniz' mathematics was more elegant, his physics more far-sighted, his theology better by almost any standard. It seems he had a nicer personality too. His influence on such divergent thinkers as Kant, Russell, and Plantinga indicates his continuing importance.

A very good textbook, but with poor emphasis on Leibniz's mathematical work. I did't put four stars since it is a book intended for philosophers, or more precisely, students of philosophy, but I believe that no course on Leibniz can be complete without placing emphasis on his mathematical views, and their influence on his philosophical views.