He means "work", if not "book". You want the mathematical work OP, and EMPHATICALLY NOT the philosophical observations.
As a general rule, if a thinker produces both mathematical work and other non-mathematical writings, the former are the more important and the more interesting as literature.
You would just be reading about the origins of calculus, something you probably already know better than Leibniz yourself if you've taken any decent maths classes. As a general rule any philosopher who excels at maths naturally like Leibniz should have their philosophy taken much more seriously.
No. The history of mathematics for its own sake is an infintely more interesting narrative than the dead ends in which its actors involve themselves, and which serve only as amusing ornament to the real story. Newton with his alchemy, Leibniz with his jesus, &c. The real literary pleasure is to tread the foundational ground as it was being written, and as I have done. I feel very sorry for you that you reach the wrong conclusion both ways, both relying on some cheap modern textbook, and thinking to consume the non-mathematical work of mathematicians.
My greatest pleasure in life is the history of mathematics. It is the highest possible subject.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bait but also low iq
2 years ago
Anonymous
Again, both ways wrong. I am sincere.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>My greatest pleasure in life is the history of mathematics. It is the highest possible subject.
The history of math is the highest possible subject, not the math itself?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>My greatest pleasure in life is the history of mathematics.
My greatest revelation on that subject was that neither Newton nor Leibnitz discovered Calculus, but it really was Archimedes...
Start with Monadology and Theodicy.
New Essays on Human Understanding
Move onto Ars Combinatoria if you're interested in computer science and issues of sapience/sentience.
He has so much work, much of it being still untranslated, that it's hard to give recommendations further than this in a vacuum. Monadology and Theodicy should at least help you to know if you want to continue reading.
Also relevant fragments of his debate with Samuel Clarke. Leibniz gives a brief rundown of literally everything he believes, from theology to monadology to politics, in a debate supposedly about science and free will. He’s a systematic thinker. Everything more or less coheres with each other (except, I think, his position on free will—it’s not as free as he claims it to be).
2 years ago
Anonymous
Just do like everybody and go for the essentials. Discourse of Metaphysics, New Essays on Human Understanding, Theodicy, Principles of Nature and Grace, Monadology, perhaps the System of Theology.
Besides that you enter into a complex realm. He wrote a lot, including a gigantic correspondence. A lot of it is only available in Latin or French, his main languages, and there are still unedited manuscripts centuries later that would make a serious bibliography for a separate author. There are many small writing on virtually every subject that was known in 1700. It really depends on what interests you.
>(except, I think, his position on free will—it’s not as free as he claims it to be).
The system of Leibniz is extremist on this point. Absolutely everything is spontaneous and contingent at the monadic level (aside form the existence of God).
The guy who invented calculus before newton did and absolutely BTFOd him in terms in notation, leading every self respecting mathematician to do integrals and derivates the Leibniz way
Leibniz is hard to crack. He has written letters to the who is who of half of Europe. He has different writing styles and writing language with regards to his target audience. So depending what kind of letter you read you have different terminology and sometimes different modes of him presenting his ideas in their fullness. Why not read is monadology or his theodicee? Same problem. He always has a specific target audience in mind
I didn't understand Leibniz until I read Kreeft's Summa of the Summa to familiarize myself with scholastic thought and then read Philip Weiner's anthology of Leibniz texts starting with the epistemology and metaphysics sections.
What do you mean “his best book”?
He means "work", if not "book". You want the mathematical work OP, and EMPHATICALLY NOT the philosophical observations.
As a general rule, if a thinker produces both mathematical work and other non-mathematical writings, the former are the more important and the more interesting as literature.
You would just be reading about the origins of calculus, something you probably already know better than Leibniz yourself if you've taken any decent maths classes. As a general rule any philosopher who excels at maths naturally like Leibniz should have their philosophy taken much more seriously.
No. The history of mathematics for its own sake is an infintely more interesting narrative than the dead ends in which its actors involve themselves, and which serve only as amusing ornament to the real story. Newton with his alchemy, Leibniz with his jesus, &c. The real literary pleasure is to tread the foundational ground as it was being written, and as I have done. I feel very sorry for you that you reach the wrong conclusion both ways, both relying on some cheap modern textbook, and thinking to consume the non-mathematical work of mathematicians.
My greatest pleasure in life is the history of mathematics. It is the highest possible subject.
Bait but also low iq
Again, both ways wrong. I am sincere.
>My greatest pleasure in life is the history of mathematics. It is the highest possible subject.
The history of math is the highest possible subject, not the math itself?
>My greatest pleasure in life is the history of mathematics.
My greatest revelation on that subject was that neither Newton nor Leibnitz discovered Calculus, but it really was Archimedes...
Wrong
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/414686/AlgebraicVersusGeometricThought.pdf
Meds
his magnum opus idk, what is the most important that should I read from him
Start with Monadology and Theodicy.
New Essays on Human Understanding
Move onto Ars Combinatoria if you're interested in computer science and issues of sapience/sentience.
He has so much work, much of it being still untranslated, that it's hard to give recommendations further than this in a vacuum. Monadology and Theodicy should at least help you to know if you want to continue reading.
Also relevant fragments of his debate with Samuel Clarke. Leibniz gives a brief rundown of literally everything he believes, from theology to monadology to politics, in a debate supposedly about science and free will. He’s a systematic thinker. Everything more or less coheres with each other (except, I think, his position on free will—it’s not as free as he claims it to be).
Just do like everybody and go for the essentials. Discourse of Metaphysics, New Essays on Human Understanding, Theodicy, Principles of Nature and Grace, Monadology, perhaps the System of Theology.
Besides that you enter into a complex realm. He wrote a lot, including a gigantic correspondence. A lot of it is only available in Latin or French, his main languages, and there are still unedited manuscripts centuries later that would make a serious bibliography for a separate author. There are many small writing on virtually every subject that was known in 1700. It really depends on what interests you.
>(except, I think, his position on free will—it’s not as free as he claims it to be).
The system of Leibniz is extremist on this point. Absolutely everything is spontaneous and contingent at the monadic level (aside form the existence of God).
Start with Guenon's meta woo woocalculus
>Leibniz
Who?
The guy who invented calculus before newton did and absolutely BTFOd him in terms in notation, leading every self respecting mathematician to do integrals and derivates the Leibniz way
just read his wikipedia page and move on
Any guy who wears a wig like that can't be right about anything
None of his best works are extant.
>inb4 viennese academy of science shills
Explain it to me.
No.
kreasyonlardan
Leibniz is hard to crack. He has written letters to the who is who of half of Europe. He has different writing styles and writing language with regards to his target audience. So depending what kind of letter you read you have different terminology and sometimes different modes of him presenting his ideas in their fullness. Why not read is monadology or his theodicee? Same problem. He always has a specific target audience in mind
I didn't understand Leibniz until I read Kreeft's Summa of the Summa to familiarize myself with scholastic thought and then read Philip Weiner's anthology of Leibniz texts starting with the epistemology and metaphysics sections.