لایب‌نیتس

The Routledge Philosophers

by Nicholas Jolley, مسعود حسینی (Translator)

گوتفریت ویلهلم لایب‌نیتس بدون شک یکی از بزرگ‌ترین فیلسوفان سنت فلسفی مغرب زمین است؛ در عین حال باید گفت که وی فیلسوفی است فوق‌العاده دشوار. دو تا از مشهورترین آموزه‌های فلسفی وی به گونه‌ای هستند که ممکن است در بدو امر بسیار نامأنوس و نامقبول به نظر برسند. به همین دلیل، بسیاری از خوانندگان فلسفه‌ی لایب‌نیتس زمانی که با نظریه‌ی مونادها و این قضیه که جهان فعلی بهترین جهان در میان تمامی جهان‌های ممکن است روبرو می‌شوند نمی‌توانند بر مقاومت اولیه خویش نسبت به این آرا فایق آیند. حقیقت این است که قضیه‌ی اخیر، لایب‌نیتس را در چنان موقعیتی قرار داد که ولتر در کتاب «کاندید» به راحتی او را آماج حملات تند و تیز خود قرار می‌دهد. دشواری‌های فلسفه‌ی لایب‌نیتس منشأ دیگری نیز دارد که اساساً از جنس دیگری است و آن اینکه هر چند او در طول حیاتش یک کتاب فلسفی منتشر کرد، هرگز شرحی قطعی و جامع از نظریات و بحث فلسفی‌اش به دست نداد.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

382 pages, Paperback

First published April 22, 2005

Reviews

[Oliver Christiansen · Rating 2 out of 5]

A mixed bag, that tries to cover almost all of Leibniz' philosophically relevant arguments in about 200 pages, so needless to say the arguments are not always that elaborated. Obviously this is a general flaw of Leibniz' oeuvre, the fact that most of it is apparently quite scattered, so Jolley is not entirely to blame. In fact he's an astute navagater, and I enjoyed several of his references (Rembrandt, Tolstoy and he also alludes to classical atonal music in order to explain a key-concept of Leibniz'), but the work does suffer from being a bit too superficial and in trying to cover too much ground in too little time. Sometimes I even feel that Jolley might be a victim of his own (if not eloquence, then:) navigational skills when he too often tries to connect the same themes, concepts and arguments with each other sometimes resulting in a rather lackluster and opaque feeling as a reader.

In the end, I'm not sure who's to blame for this. I guess I can recommend this book as a very brief introduction to Leibniz, which does shed some light on his theory of truth, concept-containment, petites perceptions and innate ideas/dispositions (all of these are especially interesting if you want to track Leibniz' direct influence on Kant). However, my overall opinion of this book is that it lacked direction. And personally I was dissapointed that it did not include even the slightest mention of Leibniz' "De Arte Combinatoria" and his attempted universal language, dissapointed because his attempt at such a project (like Descartes and Ramon Llull before him) was such a idiosyncratic trait for the last pure (the purity of which this book doesn't help to elucidate, but I'll use the adjective for historical emphasis) rationalist.

[Markku · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps the best accessible and short introduction to Leibniz currently in print. Although Jolley gives his own interpretations, the book is fairly neutral and includes references to different kind of views. The general argument of harmony as an unifying force in Leibniz's philosophy is acceptable. The chapter of Leibniz's ethical and political thought is better than usually in these kind of introductions.

[Kristopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a solid introduction to the systematic philosophy of Leibniz. I don't know enough about Leibniz to speak to the strength of Jolley's interpretation, but he's a good historian of philosophy and writes in a style that is both precise and accessible, which is rare. He presupposes some working knowledge of the intellectual climate, which is, I think necessary for a successful overview of such a major figure. If, however, you're not familiar with early modern philosophy already, you may consider brushing up on the intellectual climate, and some of the other key players of the period before you approach this text. This is, of course, not Jolley's fault, but more a symptom of the nature of early modern philosophy.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

The strength of the book was its ease of understanding. The narrative style allowed me to follow the text and react to the ideas of Liebniz being discussed. However, then the dust settles, the final, global positions of Leibniz just do not seem plausible. Also, I read Candide in undergraduate school and still enjoy reliving its satire. That is a big hurdle for Leibniz to overcome.

Also, the book was read as back fill as I try to read enough to understand my son who is getting a philosophy degree.

Youth will be served.

[David M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Am I a monad?

Kurt Godel once sagely remarked that no one ever became wise from reading Voltaire. So then how does one gain wisdom? The great logician recommended Leibniz.

Voltaire was a spokesman for the very modern idea that we just need to be sensible and put our trust in the progress of science. By contrast Leibniz will likely seem hideous and baroque to the modern reader. Indeed I myself - modern reader par excellence - find monads really fucking weird. I'm alternately attracted and repelled.

This book is an excellent introduction, but it doesn't make things simple and clear. How could it? It's more like an entrance to the labyrinth.

[Harris Bolus · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the Routledge book on Spinoza got my hopes up - either because of Michael Della Rocca’s enthusiasm or my sympathy with Spinoza. In contrast, Nicholas Jolley’s treatment of Leibniz felt like constant criticism with little to no praise - either because of his attitude or because Leibniz didn’t care much for justification. For example, it’s bizarre to me that Leibniz’s system is straightforwardly determinist and excludes contingency, yet Leibniz insisted on affirming both divine and human free will based on contingency. I found myself disappointed with his doctrine of monads, his treatment of the problem of evil, and even his use of the PSR.

On the other hand, I was surprised that I basically agree with his ethics! That was refreshing.

Clearly Leibniz was a genius. Based on Jolley’s discussion of it, I don’t think his style of philosophy suits me. Justification (as in epistemology) is essentially all I care about.

Is it just me? Is it just this book? Should I read one of Leibniz’s works? I usually would, but his writings are so scattered and disunified that I’m not sure where to start.

[Pundapog · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't understand infinities.

Reading Leibniz's thoughts on mechanism, teleology, life, species and organisms was fun, obviously prefigured Hegel's own work and the context is valuable in that regard. But his work on cosmology and atomic theory are just so strange, but very intriguing. A lot of his work is based on a few central issues; the possibility of motion, the problem of continuity, the principle of sufficient reason, and the principle of individuation. The way the book presents Leibniz's philosophy is with a quasi-historical chronicling of his thought which gets confusing at times.

[Narges Shegeft · Rating 3 out of 5]

این اثر هرچند بیشتر به مقایسه ی لایب نیتس با سایر فلاسفه و نامه نگاری هایش پرداخته، کتاب خوبی برای فهمیدن فلسفه ی لایب نیتس به حساب میاد هرچند برای فهم اصل فلسفه ی او خواندن فصل دو و سه کتاب کفایت میکنه چون بقیه ی فصول به مراتب بیشتر به مقایسه او با سایرین پرداخته و میتونه کمی از حوصله ی خواننده خارج بشه .

[A. B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a weird, wonderful world Leibniz's worldview is.

Definitely interested in reading more of him.

[Jeremy]

asdfasd