Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays

by Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, Roger Ariew (Editor), Daniel Garber (Editor)

Leibniz var einn af mestu heimspekingum Vesturlanda, en auk þess einn fremsti stærðfræðingur síns tíma og í raun mesti alfræðingur sem sögur fara af. Orðræða um frumspeki hefur að geyma þýðingu á þremur ritum eftir Leibniz, „Orðræðu um frumspeki“, „Nýtt kerfi um eðli verunda“ og „Mónöðufræðin“. Í þessum ritum setur Leibniz fram á hnitmiðaðan hátt hugmyndir sínar um eðli veruleikans, möguleika og nauðsyn, samspil efnis og anda og stöðu Guðs gagnvart sköpunarverkinu.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Metaphysics, Classics, Essays, Science, Germany

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1686

About the author

German philosopher and mathematician Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz or Leibnitz invented differential and integral calculus independently of Isaac Newton and proposed an optimist metaphysical theory that included the notion that we live in "the best of all possible worlds."

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, a polymath, occupies a prominent place in the history. Most scholars think that Leibniz developed and published ever widely used notation. Only in the 20th century, his law of continuity and transcendental homogeneity found implementation in means of nonstandard analysis. He of the most prolific in the field of mechanical calculators. He worked on adding automatic multiplication and division to calculator of Blaise Pascal, meanwhile first described a pinwheel in 1685, and used it in the first mass-produced mechanical arithmometer. He also refined the binary number system, the foundation of virtually all digital computers.

Leibniz most concluded that God ably created our universe in a restricted sense, Voltaire often lampooned the idea. Leibniz alongside the great René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza advocated 17th-century rationalism. Applying reason of first principles or prior definitions, rather than empirical evidence, produced conclusions in the scholastic tradition, and the work of Leibniz anticipated modern analytic logic.

Leibniz made major contributions to technology, and anticipated that which surfaced much later in probability, biology, medicine, geology, psychology, linguistics, and computer science. He wrote works on politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology. Various learned journals, tens of thousands of letters, and unpublished manuscripts scattered contributions of Leibniz to this vast array of subjects. He wrote in several languages but primarily Latin and French. No one completely gathered the writings of Leibniz.

Reviews

[Mahnam · Rating 2 out of 5]

نوشته های لایبنیتس متاسفانه بسیار پراكنده هستن و كه دلیلش یكی به این برمیگرده كه نوشته های به جا مانده از او بیشتر به صورت نامه یا مقاله بودن تا كتابی كامل و از طرفی به روش خود اون برمیگرده كه خب پراكنده است!
لایبنیتس برای تعریف جهان، جوهرهایی به اسم موناد در نظر میگیره، به گفته ی اون، هر چیزی در جهان یك بعد مادی و یك بعد فرامادی داره كه حركت و امتداد از بعد مادی میان و نیرو و داشتن قدرت فعل از بعد دیگه. همینجا به دكارت خرده میگیره و با باور دكارت به اینكه كل. پدیدارهای جهان به صورت مكانیس:تی قابل تبیین هستن مخالفت میكنه و میگه این حرف فقط در مورد پدیدارهای مادی است اما اصول هندسی و همین قوانین مكانیستی باید از جای دیگه ای منتشی شده باشند
برای همین موناد در تعریف میكنه؛ صورتی از جوهر كه به تعداد بیشمار در جهان وجود داره و هر كدام به شكل خود جهان را فرامی نمایاند، این مونادها از بین نمیرن و تاثیر مستقیمی روی بعد مادی نمیذارن و از اون هم تاثر نمیپذیرن ولی به واسطه ی خدا در هماهنگی با امتداد مربوط به خود و همچنین دیگر مونادها پیش میرن. انگار دو جهان موازی داریم از ماده و این جواهر كه كمال هر كدوم به اندازه خودشونه. كامل ترین مونادبعد از خدا، نفس انسانه
لایبنیتس اعتقاد داره كه هر موجود مثل جهانی كوچیكه كه كل جهان رو بدون اینكه ارتباط مستقیم با اون داشته باشه، فرانمایی میكنه و هر اتفاقی كه در طول عمر یك موجود میفته از روز اول توی اون وجود داشته ؛ هر موناز تمامی اتفاقات اینده، حال و گذشته اش رو. شامل میشه
بهترین بخش نوشته‌هایش اونجاست كه به درستی از اصل وضوح و تمایز دكارت ایراد میگیره و در ادامه اثبات خدای دكارت رو زیر سوال میبره و میگه در اثبات دكارت فقط اگه خدا ممكن الوجود باشد، وجودش ضروری خواهد بود و بعد اصولی رو برای شناخت مبهم، متمایز، تام،، عیرتام، نمادین و شهودی تعریف میكنه
ایرادش اما اینه كه بیشتر از اینكه به منطق تكیه كنه، حاضر میشه فقط برای نجات دین، اخلاقیات و مفاهیمی مثل مجازات اخروی، حتی حرف های خودش رو زیر ورو كنه. بخش اراده انسان یكی از این موارده كه عملا توی سطر سطر. نوشته اش اومده كه اعمال انسان همه از عللی پیشینی نشات میگیرن و خدا هم از روز ازل به واسطه طبیعتی كه خودش به اوون انسان یا موجود داده، از تمام اعمال ممكن و انتخاب های نهایی اونا مطلعه اما این علم ایجابی نیست و ضرورت فقط روی گرایشه نه خود اراده!
از این تناقضات بسیار دیده میشه. متاسفانه

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why there is something rather than nothing, we are living in the best of all possible worlds, the principle of sufficient reason, if God is possible then God is necessary and thus God exists, the monads have no windows but reflect the entire universe, clear and distinct knowledge, deterministic/natural vs. teleological/rational knowledge, the paramount importance of a priory and innate knowledge, rationalism, and so on. Leibnitz's interests and contributions were all over the place; while most of his philosophical insights are quite engaging and still provide food for thought.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Leibniz would be intolerable if he wasn’t so concise and orderly. The Discourse and Monadology are quick reads. He sets forth his argument with minimal rhetorical flourish, building on his previous points like an architect designing a house. Simple as it sounds, this is a rare skill, and I admire Leibniz for it.

In terms of content, on the other hand, he is hard to stomach. Any modern reader will get the nagging feeling that Leibniz’s reasoning is fallacious, but putting your finger on exactly how so is far more difficult. Suffice to say, a world composed of an infinity of monads that don’t interact, a world where every evil is for a future good, and where God knows everything you will ever do (so free will is illusory), will probably attract few adherents these days. Leibniz’s God, like Hegel’s or Aristotle’s, is a professor’s dream, an ethicist's tool, a metaphysical necessity, rather than the benevolent Being found in the New Testament.

More than that, promises that we live in the best of all possible worlds will be little comfort to those in horrible circumstances. Try explaining to a homeless person that they are destitute for the greater good, that their not being able to eat is all part of a plan. They’ll stab you (or at least they should). You can see why Voltaire wrote an entire book parodying this view (without seeming to fully understand the reasoning behind it).

But, I don’t wish to detract the rating of a book because I disagree with its views. What matters is the strength and organization of the arguments, and it’s hard to fault Leibniz there. After all, isn’t respectful disagreement what philosophy is all about?

[Lysergius · Rating 3 out of 5]

As all good philosophy should be, virtually incomprehensible.

[Brent · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was super fun to interact with Leibniz finally. His argument of sufficient reason, and argument from contingency for God's existence were awesome to read finally from his own pen. A great overview of what rationalism truly was in the 18th century (2/21/2015)


___________________________________________________

Read a second time—I assigned this text for my philosophy club—and enjoyed (understood) it more this time around. Upgrading from three to four stars on account of Leibniz’s influence on Schelling, and also understanding how Kant critiques him. Leibniz is often lumped in with Spinoza and Descartes as the “Rationalists” but he thoroughly disagreed with both on many accounts. There is no doubt about his confidence in the power of reason, as everything is in a sense an ideality.

All physical matter exists because of monads, which operate teleologically. Occasional causes (sometimes he calls them efficient causes) explain mechanistic phenomena, but the true operations are entelechistic, the final causes of God. Leibniz was a determinist, albeit attempted to uphold human freedom in a somewhat Thomistic way. The monads are sort of an energy, a kind of pan-psychism because they still have appetition, and thus are said to have souls (all matter) although he admits it’s unconventional and restricts the use of “soul” to animals (general soul) and human beings (rational soul / minds).

Leibniz believes that sin and evil is brought about by finitude necessarily, because they lack the perfection of God. For Leibniz, God is still purus actus, and his essence is his existence as Aquinas stated. All of the universe, says Leibniz, as a striving for progress towards perfection according to each measure which continues ad infinitum (or until God annihilates the universe). He believes, however, this world is the greatest possible worlds. And not just the greatest goodness overall, as in a utilitarian sense, but the greatest perfection for each individual mind / human being as well. Body as extended matter has no interaction with soul. Monads themselves do not affect one another, but there is a communio of pre established harmony (Kant would critique this with his economy of commercium, wherein composite bodies can have a real interaction with other composite bodies because of a transcendental a priori synthetic unity of experience in consciousness on account of the apperception in consciousness and the principle of simultaneity).

Schelling would take Leibniz’s concept of finitude, striving, and evil, and modify them as God, who exists a priori but only potentially (not actualized), as the one who creates in order to actualize himself through history. His striving is our striving. Evil is finitude raised up to self-consciousness.

More can be said but I’ll save it for my PhD dissertation.
-b
(7/9/25)

[Diem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, I made it through this one. I can't say I enjoyed it or that I feel enlightened. In fact, I might be measurably stupider than before I began reading it. That's no fault of Mr. Leibniz. I just can't anymore with the metaphysics, I think. Is the soul a material substance or immaterial? Is it part of the body or separate from the body? Does God will the law of nature of follow the law of nature? Is man born with all knowledge within him waiting to be illuminated or is he born a blank slate waiting for experience to leave its mark upon him? I dunno, ya know? And if there is one thing that I've learned in the last three years of reading the great metaphysical philosophers whinge on about all of these topics, it is that I don't give a good goddamn. Seriously.

These concepts are so abstract and academic that my mind grabs onto them in the manner of a child attempting to clutch a water weenie. His chubby hands close around the squishy tube but it slips right out of them just when he thinks he has it. Eventually he may get to the point where he learns to just trap a small bit of it in a pincers hold but this is unsatisfying in every way and doesn't allow for any meaningful interaction with the toy. He might learn to grip it so hard in the middle that it bulges out both sides of his fist resembling nothing that it once did and, again, making it impossible to play with or enjoy or even observe. Not only this, metaphysical philosophy always arouses in me the same conclusion that playing with water weenies aroused in me as a child: This is a stupid waste of time. I'm going to go read something interesting and fun.

That being said, I'm glad that there are people who do give a damn because these are important questions and we need to continue asking them. And even people who are on the spectrum of kind-of-don't-care to give-zero-f#@%$ should probably at least familiarize themselves with the debates. Which is all I'm really trying to do here. In a perfect world I'd both care and understand but, unlike Leibniz, I don't believe in perfect worlds.

[Erick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely interesting and makes me want to re-read the Theodicy. After reading Schelling thoroughly, it is clear that Leibniz influenced him. The most noticeable area being Schelling's distinction between "sein" and "wesen" and how they relate to each other as aspects of being. Some of Leibniz's ideas were found subsequently to be incorrect, at least in part (e.g. infinite divisibility of matter), but there is still a lot here worth pondering.

[Farhan Khodaee · Rating 2 out of 5]

What’s this dude saying

[Jakob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Discourse on metaphysics je bil ok mal prevec teoloskega dela ampak ok (4/5), intro to new essays je bil mid (2,5/5), monadologija pa banger ki ga bom se veckrat prebral ena izmed bolsih metafizik (5/5)

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

These short essays introduce the reader to Leibniz's so-called "Perfect Being Theology." Imagine if Anselm had invented Calculus and that's what you get with Leibniz. Not all of his arguments work (as they stand), but all are interesting and worth interacting with.

Leibniz begins by defining power and knowledge and perfections, and so they don't have limits. A perfect being must occupy the least volume, which means it/He is a mind.

Leibniz says a soul (maybe a monad, as we will see later on), like a proposition, says the predicate must be contained virtually in the subject. That's true for propositions, but how does it work with souls? Leibniz says that there are vestiges in X's soul of everything that has happened to him and traced of everything that happens in the universe. Fascinating. I don't know that's true. As a traducianist, I agree with the first half of the proposition.

On Substances

A substance "is like a complete world and like a mirror of God or the whole universe" (Leibniz 9). Don't read "world" too literally. He means something akin (though not identical with) Plantinga's view of possible worlds.

Leibniz also breaks new ground on "necessary" vs. contingent truths (13). In short, nothing is necessary whose contrary is possible.

His talk on "souls" is interesting, if underdeveloped. He says we have a quality of our soul that expresses "some nature, form, or essence" of a thing which is properly the idea of a thing (29). The expression in our soul is the idea of a thing. Our idea of the idea is the concept of the thing.

Principle of Sufficient Reason

This is Leibniz's argument for the existence of God:
1) No single individual thing has the entire collection or set of things in it.
2) This set of things is a sufficient reason for existence.
3) All states of things are copied from the previous state.
4) Essence strives for existence
5) An eternal truth (like an equation) cannot derive its necessary existence from contingent things
6) Therefore, there must be an absolute subject to ground this existence.

Preface to New Essays

Leibniz notes that Newton is closer to Aristotle while he is closer to Plato. Leibniz refutes the supposedly scholastic dictum that knowledge can't be in the intellect until it is first in the senses. Mathematics, for example, relies on numerous assumptions which can't be reduced to sense experience. Moreover, if the soul is a tabula rasa, then my soul at birth would be identical to any other soul at birth, since every soul is blank.

Monadology

1) A monad is a simple substance that enters into composites.
2) Monads contain their own entelechies
3) Everything exists in a plenum (chain of being). Leibniz doesn't make the connection but it must have been in his mind: how does his work on the infinitesimal calculus factor here?


This text is an excellent introduction to the man who co-discovered calculus.

[Stefanos Baziotis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leibniz is not my cup of tea. I don't like his writing and his arguments sound like hallucinations. However, one can't but admit they're novel and consistent too!

Regarding the edition, it's a classical Hackett edition. The translation is good, but the rest is not so good and it doesn't explain the price. The printing is of low quality, there's no index and no commentary. But I don't have any other edition to suggest that includes all of these. If you're interested in just the Monadology, I would suggest Nicholas Roscher's edition. But in any case, if you want to study this seriously, you will probably need a copy of Theodicy too.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The greatest pleasure one can have is the recognition of being loved by others. That is also what God wants from us."

I didn’t understand that at all four years ago. Enshrouded in darkness as I Was, a light such as Leibniz would’ve been unbearable to face, and so it was.

Since then I’ve been lucky enough to learn that indeed, the greatest pleasure (a too weak of a word) is the recognition of being loved by others. Or just by an other. A single moment of total awareness of another persons unconditional love for us is enough to save us. To be loved, especially when you know that you don’t deserve it, just for an instant, can turn everything around. It’s stronger than all darkness. To my great surprise.

Now to think, that we have this power ourselves, all of as, to love others in spite of themselves. Locking eyes and truly seeing their holiness for one singular moment is enough to initiate the deepest possible transformation. Not sure how you see others that way, but I’ve been seen that way, and I immediately bloomed in all dimensions. Or maybe the issues not in the beholder, but in the beholden, who has to believe this of themselves for this instant as well… Unsure how to untangle the causal relationship there. But when the idea emerges and crystallises in consciousness - that we are enough, that we are loved, that we are forgiven despite our sins, that there is mercy and compassion, it really does seem like we are in a perfect world. A very strange experience, for of course there is suffering, yes there is. And yes we sin. But beyond all of that there seems to be this ultimate mercy and compassion. And sometimes this absoluteness manifests itself in the particular, in the gaze of another person, who smiles at you and holds you, and now you understand that you can be so much, that it is not over, that you are ok even with your flaws and your mistakes and your errors, that you can be forgiven, that you forget, and that others will hurt you- but that you’re capable of forgiving them as well, even in the deepest betrayal, mercy is the answer, not vengeance.

As for what God may want of us, who knows. Maybe I’ll understand what Leibniz meant in another four years time.
—————————————————————

Leibniz is the archetypical optimist, whereof others are but bleak shadows: "God is a perfect being whom created the best of all possible worlds."

Oh, how is that so Mr. Leibniz?

L. Because God can be thought in potentiality, he must therefore also exist in actuality.

Why?

L. Because he is God and he is perfect, infinite and self generating.

But what about sinners like Judas?

L. The existence of that we think of as evil appear so only due to our imperfect natures. God deemed everything to be precisely as is, why that is so we are yet to understand. Nay, we shall not understand.

And so on and so forth. Not much progress compared to Descartes, but he writes wonderfully. His arguments sounds silly when retold, but they are surprisingly charming, however wrong they might be.

Also he developed calculus independently and simultaneously as Newton did.

One quote: "The greatest pleasure one can have is the recognition of being loved by others. That is also what God wants from us."
Cute.

[Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

[S]ince something rather nothing exists, there is a certain urge for existence or (so to speak) a straining toward existence in possible things or in possibility or essence itself; in a word, essence in and of itself strives for existence.

Leibniz is alternately brilliant and bizarre in his line of thought. As you're reading, it's clear that you're in the presence of a masterful intellect, but many of his arguments hinge on some less than intuitive assumptions. One of his most startling conclusions is his solution to the problem of evil in The Monadology: the actual world is the best of all possible worlds. Essentially, since God is all good and possesses perfect reason, all that appears evil to us is a constituent of a larger "best possible world"—we just can't see the big picture. Needless to say, if you think God does not exist or that God is not all good, then there's a clear problem here.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leibniz is likely the closest that I will get to supporting Rationalism, personally. His thoughts are clear, and easy to follow, even if I do not agree with him all the time.

The best part about this specific edition is that it has the Discourse on Metaphysics alongside the Monadology, so you can work your way through Leibniz' main ideas in the Discourse, and then get his summary in the Monadology.

Bringing Rationalism back around to take up the teleological standpoint is likely Leibniz' strongest point, and though I think that he falters a small bit when it comes to his stance on Free Will, it is easy to see how he has answered some of the glaring problems that hurt Nicolas Malebranche.

Overall, I highly recommend this for anyone who wants to find the last chance to see why Rationalism was once such a powerful force in modern thought.

[Gregory Eakins · Rating 2 out of 5]

These are a collection of philosophical essays and letters written by a highly intelligent person who totally missed the mark. Leibniz should have stuck to mathematics.

Nearly every "first principle" that he uses as proof of further concepts leans heavily on the existence of a "God" that conveniently behaves in just the manner necessary to make his philosophy work. He never questions how he knows such things about this magical creature, nor does he try to prove the existence of it other than to say things along the lines of, "no substance can begin other than by creation."

I do give Leibniz points for organization and articulation. His thoughts are well put together and slightly more intelligible than some of the other philosophers of his time.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 2 out of 5]

Leibniz har ett svagt rykte, efter de angrepp Voltaire gjorde på hans tankesätt. Det har fått mig att inte riktigt ta honom på allvar. Tyvärr bekräftar denna bok den bilden, snarare än ändrar den. Det är tydligt att Leibniz var mångkunnig och att han hade ett stort kunskapsdjup; det är likaledes tydligt att han var tämligen doktrinär, eftersom de enda unika delarna av hans tankesätt är de som rör människans och bönens praktiker - där han verkar argumentera för att självperfektion är en böneform, och att tinget i sig är värt vördnad som egenvärde. Dessa tankar är godjärtade, vilket talar för att han själv var det också, men de är inte revolutionerande på något sätt. Vad gäller monadläran framstår den som 1) ett cirkelargument, och 2) en omformulering av Cusas påsteånden om guds framträdande och tillbakadraganden.

Boken är kort och lärd. Jag rekommenderar den för nybörjare inom filosofi. Däremot ser jag inte djup nog i den att förtjäna mer uppmärksamhet än så.

[Slava Skobeloff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read: 'Discourse on Metaphysics' and excerpts from the Arnauld Correspondence.

Every substance contains its posteriority and everything that will happen to it.

Every substance express all other substances, but cannot come into contact with one another, and also has a relationship with, or expresses its body.

The animate body to which matter belongs is the form is what gives determinate being to the otherwise pure phenomena of mass. As Plato said, the form is what is ultimately real.

Souls and forms require multiple entities to animate it, but a man, despite being divided into organs and such, retains its metaphysical unity through the soul. The organs are each divided into their own corporeal entities with their own entelechies.

All matter is filled with animate substances, there is no beginning and no end, merely a transportation.

[M D]

DNF the entirety of Philosophical Essays but I spent quite some time w Mr. Leibniz this month. Far as I see Discourse on Metaphysics is his weakest sort of writing (letters to Arnauld better outlines his arguments), in any case his positions on math and physics are always the most exciting and prescient. But as many have said even the mature elaborations of his metaphysics are completely predicated on a highly teleological and theological commitment. And the mind/matter solution is sorta bogus (i.e. mind and matter perfectly compliment each other without ever genuinely influencing one another bc god said so, like two instruments playing in a different room). I am not sure if you can pull that "Monad" baby out of the "Best Possible World" bathwater, the baby has gills and he does not want to leave!! Anyway excellent editorial and translation work by Ariew and Garber.

[Caedyn Skinner · Rating 3 out of 5]

So did Leibniz coin “best of both worlds”

[Matthew Schreiner · Rating 2 out of 5]

‼️🚨BRO IS ONTO NOTHING‼️🚨

Nah but this was a really interesting read and I can’t help but feel like a revival of scholasticism was much needed amidst the Spinozist era of the enlightenment. Leibniz references Plato, Aristotle, or a pre-socratic philosopher on every other page. Good stuff

[Ian · Rating 1 out of 5]

Also, not my cup of tea. He makes all the same mistakes and Descartes, and isn't anymore interesting. Fuck 'em, I'll read something I actually think is worth reading.

[Karl Hallbjörnsson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Contained plenty of intriguing ideas but just as much boring filler. Don't think I'd recommend reading Leibniz, get someone else to simply explain him instead

[Aaron Cliff · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Harmony of the Divine Reason

Windowless Simple Substances

Imperceptible Perceptions

I just like saying Monads

[Напушен Песнопойни · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary of Leibniz and Why I Disagree with Him

Leibniz is the first philosopher I fundamentally disagree with. While he is undeniably intelligent, his approach is too abstract and detached from physical, observable reality. He over-relied on theory, creating a logical system that completely misses the point of how reality actually works.

His key mistake is claiming that knowledge is already inside us, unfolding like a pre-programmed sequence within his so-called monads. This is clearly false—knowledge is acquired through external experience, accumulation, learning, and adaptation. Evidence for this comes from:

- Evolution: Intelligence develops over time through environmental interaction.
- Mastery: Skills require practice, repetition, and refinement, proving knowledge isn’t innate.
- Science & AI: Modern systems learn through feedback loops and external input, not through some pre-set internal logic.

Leibniz was heavily influenced by Plato and Socrates, both of whom believed that truth and knowledge exist innately within the soul. He followed their idealist tradition too closely, rather than grounding his philosophy in reality like Aristotle or Spinoza. His deep religious beliefs further corroded his judgment, leading him to force God into everything, rather than letting reason and experience guide his conclusions. His insistence that God created the best possible world is just a theological assumption, not a serious philosophical or scientific claim.

Leibniz also denies external causation, claiming that monads don’t interact, yet modern physics, neuroscience, and biology all confirm that everything is interconnected and shaped by external forces. His reliance on pre-established harmony as an explanation for mind-body coordination is just an unnecessary workaround, rather than a real solution.

Ultimately, while his Monadology is an impressive intellectual exercise, it doesn’t align with reality. Descartes and Spinoza make far more sense because they acknowledge the role of external influences in shaping thought and experience. Leibniz, despite his intelligence, simply went too deep into theory, let religious assumptions distort his thinking, and lost touch with reality.

[Nicholas Moran · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe I’m dumb as fuck (since this guy was clearly smarter than me) but it seems to me that in every other sentence Leibniz committed a logical leap, one after another which makes many of his arguments boring at best. If he refrained from talking about God (‘his’ God nonetheless) in the way in which he did throughout the whole book maybe he would’ve provoked a more impactful impression on me.

Moreover, I can’t but agree with Kant in saying that any arguments in favor or against those metaphysical phenomena that lie outside the boundary of human understanding (existence of God, immortality of the soul, etc.) can be tinkered with (insofar as one can, by experience, have an, even if imperfect, intuition about them); but never fully be understood, hence one never truly makes any progress in the understanding of them for they can’t be grounded on the faculty of reason on the basis of a priori judgements, i.e. any talk of things in themselves, which are unknown to us, are ultimately unintelligible, regardless of how sound and compelling we might claim one’s arguments to be.

His Monadology was quite interesting though and I feel like some of the metaphysical ideas therein could stand on their own (or be with greater care further expounded upon) without the need of that vague and ambiguous religiosity with which he smeared them with. Basically, I think many of his arguments would look better off without that style and rhetoric of “be it or not the case: God is perfect, hence just and benevolent, hence lovable and worthy if praise blah blah”. It is not necessarily wrong but just came of to me as boring and zealous. Regardless, I guess this attitude was customary at the time in which he lived and certainly the ideas of the likes of Kant, for example, came evidently after him.

Overall worth the read, and considering how relatively short the Monadology is I think anyone who is into western philosophy should read it.

[Adam Carnehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leibniz was a genius and reading him is like embarking upon a great adventure or sitting down to enjoy a rich feast. There is much that is new, unknown, exotic. But he leads with a steady hand and unrelenting logicality and faith. This little book published by Hackett is a collection of four short writings by Leibniz from various stages in his career. It is an outstanding introduction to his thought and method.

Metaphysically, Leibniz had severe disagreements with his opponents - the skeptical Cartesians and the so-called "free-thinkers" (French atheists). They are frequently on the receiving end of his unrelenting attacks. Leibniz would say, however, that they were the attackers: the Cartesians launching a war against the common senses of humanity and the free-thinkers against God and God's order itself. Leibniz argues that God would not present any reality to humanity that was an un-reality, that is, that was a construct fundamentally arbitrary and unknown. The senses are rather instruments to plainly see God through His works (contra the free-thinkers); it is rather our judgments (contra Descartes) that are corrupted and fanciful.

Leibniz also opposed many of the philosophers of his day who showed ingratitude towards the Medieval scholastics. In many places in his writing Leibniz defends Thomas and others, arguing that they saw more fully than most the place reason has in human society. To this end Leibniz defends Aristotle's search for a final cause in each creature or thing; Leibniz poses the question, "Do we see simply because we have eyes, or are there things that need to be seen and thus we have eyes?" The final cause is the sight of God (as he also points out in the final paragraph of his Monadology). All things are formed for our ultimate beneficence, even if they don't seem to be. And God has arranged this cosmos in the ideal way, even though there is apparently waste and suffering.

[Courtenay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay this was a hard read. Like I think 50% of it went over my head, so take this review with a grain of salt.


I really enjoyed this book because, unexpectedly, it really grappled with the idea of man and God. I wasn’t expecting this to be a Christian read, but it was. But it was also very scientific/philosophical. I really found myself moved by his arguments about how man finds himself in the world, how the world wasn’t necessarily made for man, and his arguments about the spirit. I did dislike his argument that man can only come upon ideas on his own. I find that to be untrue. How else, then, can the Holy Spirit work? We know it intervenes on our behalf. If man cannot have ideas influenced or extrapolated from others, than how can we explain the world? Or brainwashing? In a free thinking society, I think his idea might have a chance, but not in the world he discusses.

Despite that little disagreement I had, I found myself very inspired by his work.

I wouldn’t recommend to others because it was hard and a little boring, but if you’re up for the challenge… go ahead I guess.

[Anmol · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Discourse on Metaphysics is a defense of the Christian faith by one of the greatest polymaths of all time. This short book itself, though, is lacklustre. Leibniz discusses all the trending topics in science of his period and then aims to reconcile them with Christianity: this is quite similar to Spinoza's aim, though Leibniz disagrees with Spinoza on certain points. To be honest, I didn't find this very interesting and will move on after reading his Monadology, though I know that truly understanding Leibniz also necessitates reading some of his letters and other extracts. The only noteworthy idea I found here was that the mind expresses God, while other substances express the world.

...neither our senses nor our mind has ever tasted anything approaching the happiness that God prepares for those who love him.

For happiness is to people what perfection is to beings.

[Francisco Barrios · Rating 5 out of 5]

A monad is a simple (indivisible, contingent) substance created as an idea of the necessary being, God, under the premise that this being —being the sum of all perfections without limit—, acts following the best final cause or purpose. Hence the famous aphorism attributed to Leibniz by everyone «This is the best of all possible Worlds».

If you got this assumptions clearly from the beginning, then your intellectual adventure through Leibniz's philosophical works will definitely have a more leisured pace. Please, keep on mind that the previous paragraph is nothing but the starting point of all of his metaphysics, and its implications are far from being exhausted by commentators and scholars.

Enjoy.

[Michael Hooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is split into three section; the main part on the discourse on metaphysics, a commentary on an early rendition of Locke’s Essay concerning human understand, and a condensed summary of his philosophy of Monadism.

Leibniz argument that this world is the best possible world because god is perfect, the dismissal of miracles as just laws inscribed into the universe by God that humans do not yet have access to, and that the division of the universe into indivisible quanta called monads, which account for the eternity of the soul and the nonexistence of true death, was pretty compelling and quite ahead of its time as a quasi rationalism humanist as opposed to the quietism that was pervasive throughout the time