Leibnizζζ

Contents
Articles
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1
Pre-established harmony 23
Principle of sufficient reason 24
Salva veritate 26
Well-founded phenomenon 27
Best of all possible worlds 28
Dynamism (metaphysics) 31
Theodicy 33
Transcendental law of homogeneity 44
Vis viva 44
Characteristica universalis 46
Leibniz wheel 54
Leibniz's gap 56
Law of Continuity 57
De Arte Combinatoria 58
Discourse on Metaphysics 59
New Essays on Human Understanding 60
Thodice 61
Monadology 62
LeibnizClarke correspondence 65
Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis 67
References
Article Sources and Contributors 68
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 70
Article Licenses
License 71
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

"Leibniz" redirects here. For other uses, see Leibniz (disambiguation).
Born July 1, 1646

Leipzig, Electorate of Saxony, Holy Roman Empire
Died November 14, 1716 (aged70)

Hanover, Electorate of Hanover, Holy Roman Empire
Nationality German
Era 17th-/18th-century philosophy
Region Western Philosophy
Maininterests Mathematics, metaphysics, logic, theodicy, universal language
Notableideas calculus
Monads
Best of all possible worlds
Leibniz formula for
Leibniz harmonic triangle
Leibniz formula for determinants
Leibniz integral rule
Principle of sufficient reason
Diagrammatic reasoning
Notation for differentiation
Proof of Fermat's little theorem
Kinetic energy
Entscheidungsproblem
AST
Law of Continuity
Transcendental Law of Homogeneity
Characteristica universalis
Ars combinatoria
Calculus ratiocinator
[2]
Universalwissenschaft
Signature
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (German: [tfit vlhlm fn labnts] or [lapnts]) (July 1, 1646 November
14, 1716) was a German mathematician and philosopher. He occupies a prominent place in the history of
mathematics and the history of philosophy.
Leibniz developed calculus independently of Isaac Newton, and Leibniz's mathematical notation has been widely
used ever since it was published. It was only in the 20th century that his Law of Continuity and Transcendental Law
of Homogeneity found mathematical implementation (by means of non-standard analysis). He became one of the
most prolific inventors in the field of mechanical calculators. While working on adding automatic multiplication and
division to Pascal's calculator, he was the first to describe a pinwheel calculator in 1685[3] and invented the Leibniz
wheel, used in the arithmometer, the first mass-produced mechanical calculator. He also refined the binary number
system, which is at the foundation of virtually all digital computers.
In philosophy, Leibniz is most noted for his optimism, e.g., his conclusion that our Universe is, in a restricted sense,
the best possible one that God could have created. Leibniz, along with Ren Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, was one
of the three great 17th century advocates of rationalism. The work of Leibniz anticipated modern logic and analytic
philosophy, but his philosophy also looks back to the scholastic tradition, in which conclusions are produced by
applying reason to first principles or prior definitions rather than to empirical evidence.
Leibniz made major contributions to physics and technology, and anticipated notions that surfaced much later in
philosophy, probability theory, biology, medicine, geology, psychology, linguistics, and computer science. He wrote
works on philosophy, politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology. Leibniz's contributions to this vast array
of subjects were scattered in various learned journals, in tens of thousands of letters, and in unpublished manuscripts.
He wrote in several languages, but primarily in Latin, French, and German.[4] There is no complete gathering of the
writings of Leibniz.
Biography
Early life
Gottfried Leibniz was born on July 1, 1646 (near the 1648 end of the Thirty Years' War), in Leipzig, Saxony, to
Friedrich Leibniz and Catharina Schmuck. Friedrich noted in his family journal:
"21. Juny am Sontag 1646 Ist mein Sohn Gottfried Wilhelm, post sextam vespertinam 1/4 uff 7 uhr abents zur
welt gebohren, im Wassermann."
In English:
"On Sunday 21 June [NS: 1 July] 1646, my son Gottfried Wilhelm is born into the world a quarter after six in
the evening, in Aquarius.[5] "[6]
His father died when Leibniz was six years old, and from that point on he was raised by his mother. Her teachings
influenced Leibniz's philosophical thoughts in his later life.Wikipedia:Citation needed
Leibniz's father had been a Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Leipzig and the boy inherited his
father's personal library. He was given free access to it from the age of seven. While Leibniz's schoolwork focused
on a small canon of authorities, his father's library enabled him to study a wide variety of advanced philosophical
and theological works ones that he would not have otherwise been able to read until his college years.[7] Access to
his father's library, largely written in Latin, also led to his proficiency in the Latin language, which he achieved by
the age of 12. He also composed three hundred hexameters of Latin verse in a single morning for a special event at
school at the age of 13.[8]
He enrolled in his father's former university at age 15,[9] and completed his bachelor's degree in philosophy in
December 1662. He defended his Disputatio Metaphysica de Principio Individui, which addressed the principle of
individuation, on June 9, 1663. Leibniz earned his master's degree in philosophy on February 7, 1664. He published
and defended a dissertation Specimen Quaestionum Philosophicarum ex Jure collectarum, arguing for both a
theoretical and a pedagogical relationship between philosophy and law, in December 1664. After one year of legal
studies, he was awarded his bachelor's degree in Law on September 28, 1665.Wikipedia:Citation needed
In 1666, at age 20, Leibniz wrote his first book, On the Art of Combinations, the first part of which was also his
habilitation thesis in philosophy.[10] His next goal was to earn his license and doctorate in Law, which normally
required three years of study. In 1666, the University of Leipzig turned down Leibniz's doctoral application and
refused to grant him a doctorate in law, most likely due to his relative youth.[11][12] Leibniz subsequently left
Leipzig.[13]
Leibniz then enrolled in the University of Altdorf, and almost immediately he submitted a thesis, which he had
probably been working on earlier in Leipzig.[14] The title of his thesis was Disputatio Inauguralis De Casibus
Perplexis In Jure. Leibniz earned his license to practice law and his Doctorate in Law in November 1666. He next
declined the offer of an academic appointment at Altdorf, saying that "my thoughts were turned in an entirely
different direction".[15]
As an adult, Leibniz often introduced himself as "Gottfried von Leibniz". Many posthumously published editions of
his writings presented his name on the title page as "Freiherr G. W. von Leibniz." However, no document has ever
been found from any contemporary government that stated his appointment to any form of nobility.[16]
16661674
Leibniz's first position was as a salaried secretary to an alchemical society in Nuremberg.[17] He knew fairly little
about the subject at that time but presented himself as deeply learned. He soon met Johann Christian von Boyneburg
(16221672), the dismissed chief minister of the Elector of Mainz, Johann Philipp von Schnborn.[18] Von
Boyneburg hired Leibniz as an assistant, and shortly thereafter reconciled with the Elector and introduced Leibniz to
him. Leibniz then dedicated an essay on law to the Elector in the hope of obtaining employment. The stratagem
worked; the Elector asked Leibniz to assist with the redrafting of the legal code for his Electorate.[19] In 1669,
Leibniz was appointed Assessor in the Court of Appeal. Although von Boyneburg died late in 1672, Leibniz
remained under the employment of his widow until she dismissed him in 1674.Wikipedia:Citation needed
Von Boyneburg did much to promote Leibniz's reputation, and the latter's memoranda and letters began to attract
favorable notice. Leibniz's service to the Elector soon followed a diplomatic role. He published an essay, under the
pseudonym of a fictitious Polish nobleman, arguing (unsuccessfully) for the German candidate for the Polish crown.
The main force in European geopolitics during Leibniz's adult life was the ambition of Louis XIV of France, backed
by French military and economic might. Meanwhile, the Thirty Years' War had left German-speaking Europe
exhausted, fragmented, and economically backward. Leibniz proposed to protect German-speaking Europe by
distracting Louis as follows. France would be invited to take Egypt as a stepping stone towards an eventual conquest
of the Dutch East Indies. In return, France would agree to leave Germany and the Netherlands undisturbed. This plan
obtained the Elector's cautious support. In 1672, the French government invited Leibniz to Paris for discussion,[20]
but the plan was soon overtaken by the outbreak of the Franco-Dutch War and became irrelevant. Napoleon's failed
invasion of Egypt in 1798 can be seen as an unwitting, late implementation of Leibniz's plan, after the Eastern
hemisphere colonial supremacy in Europe had already passed from the Dutch to the British.Wikipedia:Citation
needed
Thus Leibniz began several years in Paris. Soon after arriving, he met Dutch physicist and mathematician Christiaan
Huygens and realised that his own knowledge of mathematics and physics was patchy. With Huygens as mentor, he
began a program of self-study that soon pushed him to making major contributions to both subjects, including
discovering his version of the differential and integral calculus. He met Nicolas Malebranche and Antoine Arnauld,
the leading French philosophers of the day, and studied the writings of Descartes and Pascal, unpublished as well as
published. He befriended a German mathematician, Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus; they corresponded for the
rest of their lives. In 1675 he was admitted by the French Academy of Sciences as a foreign honorary member,
despite his lack of attention to the academy.Wikipedia:Citation needed
When it became clear that France would not implement
its part of Leibniz's Egyptian plan, the Elector sent his
nephew, escorted by Leibniz, on a related mission to
the English government in London, early in 1673.[21]
There Leibniz came into acquaintance of Henry
Oldenburg and John Collins. He met with the Royal
Society where he demonstrated a calculating machine
that he had designed and had been building since 1670.
The machine was able to execute all four basic
operations (adding, subtracting, multiplying, and
dividing), and the Society quickly made him an
external member. The mission ended abruptly when
news reached it of the Elector's death, whereupon Stepped Reckoner
Leibniz promptly returned to Paris and not, as had been

planned, to Mainz.[22]
The sudden deaths of his two patrons in the same winter meant that Leibniz had to find a new basis for his career. In
this regard, a 1669 invitation from the Duke of Brunswick to visit Hanover proved fateful. Leibniz declined the
invitation, but began corresponding with the Duke in 1671. In 1673, the Duke offered him the post of Counsellor
which Leibniz very reluctantly accepted two years later, only after it became clear that no employment in Paris,
whose intellectual stimulation he relished, or with the Habsburg imperial court was forthcoming.Wikipedia:Citation
needed
House of Hanover, 16761716

Leibniz managed to delay his arrival in Hanover until the end of 1676 after making one more short journey to
London, where he was later accused by Newton of being shown some of Newton's unpublished work on the
calculus.[23] This was alleged to be evidence supporting the accusation, made decades later, that he had stolen the
calculus from Newton. On the journey from London to Hanover, Leibniz stopped in The Hague where he met
Leeuwenhoek, the discoverer of microorganisms. He also spent several days in intense discussion with Spinoza, who
had just completed his masterwork, the Ethics.[24]
In 1677, he was promoted, at his request, to Privy Counselor of Justice, a post he held for the rest of his life. Leibniz
served three consecutive rulers of the House of Brunswick as historian, political adviser, and most consequentially,
as librarian of the ducal library. He thenceforth employed his pen on all the various political, historical, and
theological matters involving the House of Brunswick; the resulting documents form a valuable part of the historical
record for the period.
Among the few people in north Germany to accept Leibniz were the Electress Sophia of Hanover (16301714), her
daughter Sophia Charlotte of Hanover (16681705), the Queen of Prussia and his avowed disciple, and Caroline of
Ansbach, the consort of her grandson, the future George II. To each of these women he was correspondent, adviser,
and friend. In turn, they all approved of Leibniz more than did their spouses and the future king George I of Great
Britain.[25]
The population of Hanover was only about 10,000, and its provinciality eventually grated on Leibniz. Nevertheless,
to be a major courtier to the House of Brunswick was quite an honor, especially in light of the meteoric rise in the
prestige of that House during Leibniz's association with it. In 1692, the Duke of Brunswick became a hereditary
Elector of the Holy Roman Empire. The British Act of Settlement 1701 designated the Electress Sophia and her
descent as the royal family of England, once both King William III and his sister-in-law and successor, Queen Anne,
were dead. Leibniz played a role in the initiatives and negotiations leading up to that Act, but not always an effective
one. For example, something he published anonymously in England, thinking to promote the Brunswick cause, was
formally censured by the British Parliament.
The Brunswicks tolerated the enormous effort Leibniz devoted to intellectual pursuits unrelated to his duties as a
courtier, pursuits such as perfecting the calculus, writing about other mathematics, logic, physics, and philosophy,
and keeping up a vast correspondence. He began working on the calculus in 1674; the earliest evidence of its use in
his surviving notebooks is 1675. By 1677 he had a coherent system in hand, but did not publish it until 1684.
Leibniz's most important mathematical papers were published between 1682 and 1692, usually in a journal which he
and Otto Mencke founded in 1682, the Acta Eruditorum. That journal played a key role in advancing his
mathematical and scientific reputation, which in turn enhanced his eminence in diplomacy, history, theology, and
philosophy.
The Elector Ernest Augustus commissioned Leibniz to write a history of the House of Brunswick, going back to the
time of Charlemagne or earlier, hoping that the resulting book would advance his dynastic ambitions. From 1687 to
1690, Leibniz traveled extensively in Germany, Austria, and Italy, seeking and finding archival materials bearing on
this project. Decades went by but no history appeared; the next Elector became quite annoyed at Leibniz's apparent
dilatoriness. Leibniz never finished the project, in part because of his huge output on many other fronts, but also
because he insisted on writing a meticulously researched and erudite book based on archival sources, when his
patrons would have been quite happy with a short popular book, one perhaps little more than a genealogy with
commentary, to be completed in three years or less. They never knew that he had in fact carried out a fair part of his
assigned task: when the material Leibniz had written and collected for his history of the House of Brunswick was
finally published in the 19th century, it filled three volumes.
In 1708, John Keill, writing in the journal of the Royal Society and with Newton's presumed blessing, accused
Leibniz of having plagiarized Newton's calculus.[26] Thus began the calculus priority dispute which darkened the
remainder of Leibniz's life. A formal investigation by the Royal Society (in which Newton was an unacknowledged
participant), undertaken in response to Leibniz's demand for a retraction, upheld Keill's charge. Historians of
mathematics writing since 1900 or so have tended to acquit Leibniz, pointing to important differences between
Leibniz's and Newton's versions of the calculus.
In 1711, while traveling in northern Europe, the
Russian Tsar Peter the Great stopped in Hanover and
met Leibniz, who then took some interest in Russian
matters for the rest of his life. In 1712, Leibniz began a
two-year residence in Vienna, where he was appointed
Imperial Court Councillor to the Habsburgs. On the
death of Queen Anne in 1714, Elector George Louis
became King George I of Great Britain, under the terms
of the 1701 Act of Settlement. Even though Leibniz
had done much to bring about this happy event, it was
not to be his hour of glory. Despite the intercession of
the Princess of Wales, Caroline of Ansbach, George I
forbade Leibniz to join him in London until he
completed at least one volume of the history of the Leibniz's correspondence, papers and notes from 1669-1704,
National Library of Poland.
Brunswick family his father had commissioned nearly 30 years earlier. Moreover, for George I to include Leibniz in
his London court would have been deemed insulting to Newton, who was seen as having won the calculus priority
dispute and whose standing in British official circles could not have been higher. Finally, his dear friend and
defender, the Dowager Electress Sophia, died in 1714.
Death
Leibniz died in Hanover in 1716: at the time, he was so out of favor that neither George I (who happened to be near
Hanover at that time) nor any fellow courtier other than his personal secretary attended the funeral. Even though
Leibniz was a life member of the Royal Society and the Berlin Academy of Sciences, neither organization saw fit to
honor his passing. His grave went unmarked for more than 50 years. Leibniz was eulogized by Fontenelle, before the
Academie des Sciences in Paris, which had admitted him as a foreign member in 1700. The eulogy was composed at
the behest of the Duchess of Orleans, a niece of the Electress Sophia.
Personal life
Leibniz never married. He complained on occasion about money, but the fair sum he left to his sole heir, his sister's
stepson, proved that the Brunswicks had, by and large, paid him well. In his diplomatic endeavors, he at times
verged on the unscrupulous, as was all too often the case with professional diplomats of his day. On several
occasions, Leibniz backdated and altered personal manuscripts, actions which put him in a bad light during the
calculus controversy. On the other hand, he was charming, well-mannered, and not without humor and
imagination.[27] He had many friends and admirers all over Europe. On Leibniz's religious views, although he is
considered by some biographers as a deist, he has also been claimed as a theist; for example, biographer Herbert
Breger states, "Leibniz believed in the God of Christianity and he also had an extraordinarily high esteem for reason
and its capabilities."
Philosopher
Leibniz's philosophical thinking appears fragmented, because his philosophical writings consist mainly of a
multitude of short pieces: journal articles, manuscripts published long after his death, and many letters to many
correspondents. He wrote only two book-length philosophical treatises, of which only the Thodice of 1710 was
published in his lifetime.
Leibniz dated his beginning as a philosopher to his Discourse on Metaphysics, which he composed in 1686 as a
commentary on a running dispute between Nicolas Malebranche and Antoine Arnauld. This led to an extensive and
valuable correspondence with Arnauld;[28] it and the Discourse were not published until the 19th century. In 1695,
Leibniz made his public entre into European philosophy with a journal article titled "New System of the Nature and
Communication of Substances".[29] Between 1695 and 1705, he composed his New Essays on Human
Understanding, a lengthy commentary on John Locke's 1690 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, but upon
learning of Locke's 1704 death, lost the desire to publish it, so that the New Essays were not published until 1765.
The Monadologie, composed in 1714 and published posthumously, consists of 90 aphorisms.
Leibniz met Spinoza in 1676, read some of his unpublished writings, and has since been suspected of appropriating
some of Spinoza's ideas. While Leibniz admired Spinoza's powerful intellect, he was also forthrightly dismayed by
Spinoza's conclusions,[30] especially when these were inconsistent with Christian orthodoxy.
Unlike Descartes and Spinoza, Leibniz had a thorough university education in philosophy. He was influenced by his
Leipzig professor Jakob Thomasius, who also supervised his BA thesis in philosophy. Leibniz also eagerly read
Francisco Surez, a Spanish Jesuit respected even in Lutheran universities. Leibniz was deeply interested in the new
methods and conclusions of Descartes, Huygens, Newton, and Boyle, but viewed their work through a lens heavily
tinted by scholastic notions. Yet it remains the case that Leibniz's methods and concerns often anticipate the logic,
and analytic and linguistic philosophy of the 20th century.
The Principles
Leibniz variously invoked one or another of seven fundamental philosophical Principles:[31]
Identity/contradiction. If a proposition is true, then its negation is false and vice versa.
Identity of indiscernibles. Two distinct things cannot have all their properties in common. If every predicate
possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa, then entities x and y are identical; to suppose two things
indiscernible is to suppose the same thing under two names. Frequently invoked in modern logic and philosophy.
The "identity of indiscernibles" is often referred to as Leibniz's Law. It has attracted the most controversy and
criticism, especially from corpuscular philosophy and quantum mechanics.
Sufficient reason. "There must be a sufficient reason [often known only to God] for anything to exist, for any
event to occur, for any truth to obtain."[32]
Pre-established harmony.[33] "[T]he appropriate nature of each substance brings it about that what happens to one
corresponds to what happens to all the others, without, however, their acting upon one another directly."
(Discourse on Metaphysics, XIV) A dropped glass shatters because it "knows" it has hit the ground, and not
because the impact with the ground "compels" the glass to split.
Law of Continuity. Natura non saltum facit.
Optimism. "God assuredly always chooses the best."[34]
Plenitude. "Leibniz believed that the best of all possible worlds would actualize every genuine possibility, and
argued in Thodice that this best of all possible worlds will contain all possibilities, with our finite experience of
eternity giving no reason to dispute nature's perfection."
Leibniz would on occasion give a rational defense of a specific principle, but more often took them for granted.[35]
The monads
Leibniz's best known contribution to metaphysics is his theory of monads, as exposited in Monadologie. According
to Leibniz, monads are elementary particles with blurred perceptions of one another. Monads can also be compared
to the corpuscles of the Mechanical Philosophy of Ren Descartes and others. Monads are the ultimate elements of
the universe. The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal,
indecomposable, individual, subject to their own laws, un-interacting, and each reflecting the entire universe in a
pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). Monads are centers of force; substance
is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal.
The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity. Unlike atoms, monads possess no material or spatial
character. They also differ from atoms by their complete mutual independence, so that interactions among monads
are only apparent. Instead, by virtue of the principle of pre-established harmony, each monad follows a
preprogrammed set of "instructions" peculiar to itself, so that a monad "knows" what to do at each moment. (These
"instructions" may be seen as analogs of the scientific laws governing subatomic particles.) By virtue of these
intrinsic instructions, each monad is like a little mirror of the universe. Monads need not be "small"; e.g., each
human being constitutes a monad, in which case free will is problematic.
Monads are purported to have gotten rid of the problematic:
Interaction between mind and matter arising in the system of Descartes;
Lack of individuation inherent to the system of Spinoza, which represents individual creatures as merely
accidental.
Theodicy and optimism

Further information: Best of all possible worlds
The word "optimism" is used in the classic sense of optimal, not optimistic.
The Theodicy[36] tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all
possible worlds. It must be the best possible and most balanced world, because it was created by an all powerful and
all knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him or
possible to exist. In effect, apparent flaws that can be identified in this world must exist in every possible world,
because otherwise God would have chosen to create the world that excluded those flaws.
Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and
faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. The Theodicy is
Leibniz's attempt to reconcile his personal philosophical system with his interpretation of the tenets of
Christianity.[37] This project was motivated in part by Leibniz's belief, shared by many conservative philosophers
and theologians during the Enlightenment, in the rational and enlightened nature of the Christian religion as
compared to its purportedly less advanced non Western counterparts. It was also shaped by Leibniz's belief in the
perfectibility of human nature (if humanity relied on correct philosophy and religion as a guide), and by his belief
that metaphysical necessity must have a rational or logical foundation, even if this metaphysical causality seemed
inexplicable in terms of physical necessity (the natural laws identified by science).
Because reason and faith must be entirely reconciled, any tenet of faith which could not be defended by reason must
be rejected. Leibniz then approached one of the central criticisms of Christian theism:[38] if God is all good, all wise
and all powerful, how did evil come into the world? The answer (according to Leibniz) is that, while God is indeed
unlimited in wisdom and power, his human creations, as creations, are limited both in their wisdom and in their will
(power to act). This predisposes humans to false beliefs, wrong decisions and ineffective actions in the exercise of
their free will. God does not arbitrarily inflict pain and suffering on humans; rather he permits both moral evil (sin)
and physical evil (pain and suffering) as the necessary consequences of metaphysical evil (imperfection), as a means
by which humans can identify and correct their erroneous decisions, and as a contrast to true good.
Further, although human actions flow from prior causes that ultimately arise in God, and therefore are known as a
metaphysical certainty to God, an individual's free will is exercised within natural laws, where choices are merely
contingently necessary, to be decided in the event by a "wonderful spontaneity" that provides individuals an escape
from rigorous predestination.
Symbolic thought
Leibniz believed that much of human reasoning could be reduced to calculations of a sort, and that such calculations
could resolve many differences of opinion:
The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so
that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say:
Let us calculate [calculemus], without further ado, to see who is right.[39]
Leibniz's calculus ratiocinator, which resembles symbolic logic, can be viewed as a way of making such calculations
feasible. Leibniz wrote memoranda[40] that can now be read as groping attempts to get symbolic logicand thus his
calculusoff the ground. But Gerhard and Couturat did not publish these writings until modern formal logic had
emerged in Frege's Begriffsschrift and in writings by Charles Sanders Peirce and his students in the 1880s, and hence
well after Boole and De Morgan began that logic in 1847.
Leibniz thought symbols were important for human understanding. He attached so much importance to the
development of good notations that he attributed all his discoveries in mathematics to this. His notation for the
calculus is an example of his skill in this regard. C.S. Peirce, a 19th-century pioneer of semiotics, shared Leibniz's
passion for symbols and notation, and his belief that these are essential to a well-running logic and mathematics.
But Leibniz took his speculations much further. Defining a character as any written sign, he then defined a "real"
character as one that represents an idea directly and not simply as the word embodying the idea. Some real
characters, such as the notation of logic, serve only to facilitate reasoning. Many characters well known in his day,
including Egyptian hieroglyphics, Chinese characters, and the symbols of astronomy and chemistry, he deemed not
real.[41] Instead, he proposed the creation of a characteristica universalis or "universal characteristic", built on an
alphabet of human thought in which each fundamental concept would be represented by a unique "real" character:
It is obvious that if we could find characters or signs suited for expressing all our thoughts as clearly and
as exactly as arithmetic expresses numbers or geometry expresses lines, we could do in all matters
insofar as they are subject to reasoning all that we can do in arithmetic and geometry. For all
investigations which depend on reasoning would be carried out by transposing these characters and by a
species of calculus.[42]
Complex thoughts would be represented by combining characters for simpler thoughts. Leibniz saw that the
uniqueness of prime factorization suggests a central role for prime numbers in the universal characteristic, a striking
anticipation of Gdel numbering. Granted, there is no intuitive or mnemonic way to number any set of elementary
concepts using the prime numbers. Leibniz's idea of reasoning through a universal language of symbols and
calculations however remarkably foreshadows great 20th century developments in formal systems, such as Turing
completeness, where computation was used to define equivalent universal languages (see Turing degree).
Because Leibniz was a mathematical novice when he first wrote about the characteristic, at first he did not conceive
it as an algebra but rather as a universal language or script. Only in 1676 did he conceive of a kind of "algebra of
thought", modeled on and including conventional algebra and its notation. The resulting characteristic included a
logical calculus, some combinatorics, algebra, his analysis situs (geometry of situation), a universal concept
language, and more.
What Leibniz actually intended by his characteristica universalis and calculus ratiocinator, and the extent to which
modern formal logic does justice to the calculus, may never be established.[43]
Formal logic
Main article: Algebraic logic
Leibniz is the most important logician between Aristotle and 1847, when George Boole and Augustus De Morgan
each published books that began modern formal logic. Leibniz enunciated the principal properties of what we now
call conjunction, disjunction, negation, identity, set inclusion, and the empty set. The principles of Leibniz's logic
and, arguably, of his whole philosophy, reduce to two:
1. All our ideas are compounded from a very small number of simple ideas, which form the alphabet of human
thought.
2. Complex ideas proceed from these simple ideas by a uniform and symmetrical combination, analogous to
arithmetical multiplication.
The formal logic that emerged early in the 20th century also requires, at minimum, unary negation and quantified
variables ranging over some universe of discourse.
Leibniz published nothing on formal logic in his lifetime; most of what he wrote on the subject consists of working
drafts. In his book History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell went so far as to claim that Leibniz had
developed logic in his unpublished writings to a level which was reached only 200 years later.
Mathematician
Although the mathematical notion of function was implicit in trigonometric and logarithmic tables, which existed in
his day, Leibniz was the first, in 1692 and 1694, to employ it explicitly, to denote any of several geometric concepts
derived from a curve, such as abscissa, ordinate, tangent, chord, and the perpendicular.[44] In the 18th century,
"function" lost these geometrical associations.
Leibniz was the first to see that the coefficients of a system of linear equations could be arranged into an array, now
called a matrix, which can be manipulated to find the solution of the system, if any. This method was later called
Gaussian elimination. Leibniz's discoveries of Boolean algebra and of symbolic logic, also relevant to mathematics,
are discussed in the preceding section. The best overview of Leibniz's writings on the calculus may be found in Bos
(1974).
Calculus
Leibniz is credited, along with Sir Isaac Newton, with the discovery of calculus (that comprises differential and
integral calculus). According to Leibniz's notebooks, a critical breakthrough occurred on November 11, 1675, when
he employed integral calculus for the first time to find the area under the graph of a function y=(x). He introduced
several notations used to this day, for instance the integral sign representing an elongated S, from the Latin word
summa and the d used for differentials, from the Latin word differentia. This cleverly suggestive notation for the
calculus is probably his most enduring mathematical legacy. Leibniz did not publish anything about his calculus until
1684.[45] The product rule of differential calculus is still called "Leibniz's law". In addition, the theorem that tells
how and when to differentiate under the integral sign is called the Leibniz integral rule.
Leibniz exploited infinitesimals in developing the calculus, manipulating them in ways suggesting that they had
paradoxical algebraic properties. George Berkeley, in a tract called The Analyst and also in De Motu, criticized these.
A recent study argues that Leibnizian calculus was free of contradictions, and was better grounded than Berkeley's
empiricist criticisms.
From 1711 until his death, Leibniz was engaged in a dispute with John Keill, Newton and others, over whether
Leibniz had invented the calculus independently of Newton. This subject is treated at length in the article
Leibniz-Newton controversy.
The use of infinitesimals in mathematics was frowned upon by followers of Karl WeierstrassWikipedia:Citation
needed, but survived in science and engineering, and even in rigorous mathematics, via the fundamental
computational device known as the differential. Beginning in 1960, Abraham Robinson worked out a rigorous
foundation for Leibniz's infinitesimals, using model theory, in the context of a field of hyperreal numbers. The
resulting non-standard analysis can be seen as a belated vindication of Leibniz's mathematical reasoning. Robinson's
transfer principle is a mathematical implementation of Leibniz's heuristic law of continuity, while the standard part
function implements the Leibnizian transcendental law of homogeneity.
Topology
Leibniz was the first to use the term analysis situs,[46] later used in the 19th century to refer to what is now known as
topology. There are two takes on this situation. On the one hand, Mates, citing a 1954 paper in German by Jacob
Freudenthal, argues:
Although for Leibniz the situs of a sequence of points is completely determined by the distance between
them and is altered if those distances are altered, his admirer Euler, in the famous 1736 paper solving the
Knigsberg Bridge Problem and its generalizations, used the term geometria situs in such a sense that
the situs remains unchanged under topological deformations. He mistakenly credits Leibniz with
originating this concept. ...it is sometimes not realized that Leibniz used the term in an entirely different
sense and hence can hardly be considered the founder of that part of mathematics.[47]
But Hideaki Hirano argues differently, quoting Mandelbrot:

To sample Leibniz' scientific works is a sobering experience. Next to calculus, and to other thoughts that
have been carried out to completion, the number and variety of premonitory thrusts is overwhelming.
We saw examples in 'packing,'...My Leibniz mania is further reinforced by finding that for one moment
its hero attached importance to geometric scaling. In "Euclidis Prota"..., which is an attempt to tighten
Euclid's axioms, he states,...: 'I have diverse definitions for the straight line. The straight line is a curve,
any part of which is similar to the whole, and it alone has this property, not only among curves but
among sets.' This claim can be proved today.[48]
Thus the fractal geometry promoted by Mandelbrot drew on Leibniz's notions of self-similarity and the principle of
continuity: natura non saltum facit. We also see that when Leibniz wrote, in a metaphysical vein, that "the straight
line is a curve, any part of which is similar to the whole", he was anticipating topology by more than two centuries.
As for "packing", Leibniz told to his friend and correspondent Des Bosses to imagine a circle, then to inscribe within
it three congruent circles with maximum radius; the latter smaller circles could be filled with three even smaller
circles by the same procedure. This process can be continued infinitely, from which arises a good idea of
self-similarity. Leibniz's improvement of Euclid's axiom contains the same concept.
Scientist and engineer

Leibniz's writings are currently discussed, not only for their anticipations and possible discoveries not yet
recognized, but as ways of advancing present knowledge. Much of his writing on physics is included in Gerhardt's
Mathematical Writings.
Physics
See also: Dynamism (metaphysics)
Leibniz contributed a fair amount to the statics and dynamics emerging around him, often disagreeing with Descartes
and Newton. He devised a new theory of motion (dynamics) based on kinetic energy and potential energy, which
posited space as relative, whereas Newton was thoroughly convinced that space was absolute. An important example
of Leibniz's mature physical thinking is his Specimen Dynamicum of 1695.[49]
Until the discovery of subatomic particles and the quantum mechanics governing them, many of Leibniz's
speculative ideas about aspects of nature not reducible to statics and dynamics made little sense. For instance, he
anticipated Albert Einstein by arguing, against Newton, that space, time and motion are relative, not absolute: "As
for my own opinion, I have said more than once, that I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is, that I
hold it to be an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions."[50] Leibniz's rule for the derivatives of
products is an important, if often overlooked, step in many proofs in diverse fields of physics. The principle of
sufficient reason has been invoked in recent cosmology, and his identity of indiscernibles in quantum mechanics, a
field some even credit him with having anticipated in some sense. Those who advocate digital philosophy, a recent
direction in cosmology, claim Leibniz as a precursor.
The vis viva

Leibniz's vis viva (Latin for living force) is mv2, twice the modern kinetic energy. He realized that the total energy
would be conserved in certain mechanical systems, so he considered it an innate motive characteristic of matter.[51]
Here too his thinking gave rise to another regrettable nationalistic dispute. His vis viva was seen as rivaling the
conservation of momentum championed by Newton in England and by Descartes in France; hence academics in
those countries tended to neglect Leibniz's idea. In reality, both energy and momentum are conserved, so the two
approaches are equally valid.
Other natural science

By proposing that the earth has a molten core, he anticipated modern geology. In embryology, he was a
preformationist, but also proposed that organisms are the outcome of a combination of an infinite number of possible
microstructures and of their powers. In the life sciences and paleontology, he revealed an amazing transformist
intuition, fueled by his study of comparative anatomy and fossils. One of his principal works on this subject,
Protogaea, unpublished in his lifetime, has recently been published in English for the first time. He worked out a
primal organismic theory.[52] In medicine, he exhorted the physicians of his timewith some resultsto ground
their theories in detailed comparative observations and verified experiments, and to distinguish firmly scientific and
metaphysical points of view.
Social science
Much of Leibniz's work went on to have a great impact on the field of psychology.[53] His theory regarding
consciousness in relation to the principle of continuity can be seen as an early theory regarding the stages of sleep.
He believed that by the principle that phenomena found in nature were continuous be default, it was likely that the
transition between consciousness and unconscious states had intermediary steps.[54] Though Leibniz's ideas
regarding pre-established harmony were rejected by many, psychologists embraced his ideas of psychophysical
parallelism. This idea refers to the mindbody problem, stating that though the mind and brain do not act upon each
other, but act alongside one another separately but in harmony.[55]
Leibniz believed that the mind had a very active role in perception, and plays much a larger role in sensory input. He
focused heavily on perception, distinguishing between the type of perception where we are conscious of a stimulus,
and the other which is being aware of a distinct perception. He believed that there are many petites perceptions, or
small perceptions of which we perceive but are unaware of. For example, when a bag of rice is spilled, we see the
rice but are not necessarily aware of how many grains are in the pile. Under this principle, there are an infinite
number of perceptions within us at any given time that we are unaware of. For this to be true there must also be a
portion of the mind that we are unaware of at any given time. In this respect, Leibniz's theory of perception can be
viewed as one of many theories leading up to the idea of the unconscious.[56] Additionally, the idea of subliminal
stimuli can be traced back to this theory.[57] Leibniz was a direct influence on Ernst Platner, who is credited with
originally coining the term Unbewutseyn (unconscious).[58]
Leibniz's ideas regarding music and tonal perception went on to influence the laboratory studies of Wilhelm
Wundt.[59]
In public health, he advocated establishing a medical administrative authority, with powers over epidemiology and
veterinary medicine. He worked to set up a coherent medical training programme, oriented towards public health and
preventive measures. In economic policy, he proposed tax reforms and a national insurance program, and discussed
the balance of trade. He even proposed something akin to what much later emerged as game theory. In sociology he
laid the ground for communication theory.
Technology
In 1906, Garland published a volume of Leibniz's writings bearing on his many practical inventions and engineering
work. To date, few of these writings have been translated into English. Nevertheless, it is well understood that
Leibniz was a serious inventor, engineer, and applied scientist, with great respect for practical life. Following the
motto theoria cum praxi, he urged that theory be combined with practical application, and thus has been claimed as
the father of applied science. He designed wind-driven propellers and water pumps, mining machines to extract ore,
hydraulic presses, lamps, submarines, clocks, etc. With Denis Papin, he invented a steam engine. He even proposed a
method for desalinating water. From 1680 to 1685, he struggled to overcome the chronic flooding that afflicted the
ducal silver mines in the Harz Mountains, but did not succeed.[60]
Computation
Leibniz may have been the first computer scientist and information theorist.[61] Early in life, he documented the
binary numeral system (base 2), then revisited that system throughout his career.[62] He anticipated Lagrangian
interpolation and algorithmic information theory. His calculus ratiocinator anticipated aspects of the universal Turing
machine. In 1934, Norbert Wiener claimed to have found in Leibniz's writings a mention of the concept of feedback,
central to Wiener's later cybernetic theory.
In 1671, Leibniz began to invent a machine that could execute all four arithmetical operations, gradually improving
it over a number of years. This "Stepped Reckoner" attracted fair attention and was the basis of his election to the
Royal Society in 1673. A number of such machines were made during his years in Hanover, by a craftsman working
under Leibniz's supervision. It was not an unambiguous success because it did not fully mechanize the operation of
carrying. Couturat reported finding an unpublished note by Leibniz, dated 1674, describing a machine capable of
performing some algebraic operations.[63] Leibniz also devised a (now reproduced) cipher machine, recovered by
Nicholas Rescher in 2010.[64]
Leibniz was groping towards hardware and software concepts worked out much later by Charles Babbage and Ada
Lovelace. In 1679, while mulling over his binary arithmetic, Leibniz imagined a machine in which binary numbers
were represented by marbles, governed by a rudimentary sort of punched cards.[65] Modern electronic digital
computers replace Leibniz's marbles moving by gravity with shift registers, voltage gradients, and pulses of
electrons, but otherwise they run roughly as Leibniz envisioned in 1679.
Librarian
While serving as librarian of the ducal libraries in Hanover and Wolfenbuettel, Leibniz effectively became one of the
founders of library science. The latter library was enormous for its day, as it contained more than 100,000 volumes,
and Leibniz helped design a new building for it, believed to be the first building explicitly designed to be a library.
He also designed a book indexing system in ignorance of the only other such system then extant, that of the Bodleian
Library at Oxford University. He also called on publishers to distribute abstracts of all new titles they produced each
year, in a standard form that would facilitate indexing. He hoped that this abstracting project would eventually
include everything printed from his day back to Gutenberg. Neither proposal met with success at the time, but
something like them became standard practice among English language publishers during the 20th century, under the
aegis of the Library of Congress and the British Library.
He called for the creation of an empirical database as a way to further all sciences. His characteristica universalis,
calculus ratiocinator, and a "community of minds"intended, among other things, to bring political and religious
unity to Europecan be seen as distant unwitting anticipations of artificial languages (e.g., Esperanto and its rivals),
symbolic logic, even the World Wide Web.
Advocate of scientific societies

Leibniz emphasized that research was a collaborative endeavor. Hence he warmly advocated the formation of
national scientific societies along the lines of the British Royal Society and the French Academie Royale des
Sciences. More specifically, in his correspondence and travels he urged the creation of such societies in Dresden,
Saint Petersburg, Vienna, and Berlin. Only one such project came to fruition; in 1700, the Berlin Academy of
Sciences was created. Leibniz drew up its first statutes, and served as its first President for the remainder of his life.
That Academy evolved into the German Academy of Sciences, the publisher of the ongoing critical edition of his
works.[66]
Lawyer, moralist
With the possible exception of Marcus Aurelius, no philosopher has ever had as much experience with practical
affairs of state as Leibniz. Leibniz's writings on law, ethics, and politics[67] were long overlooked by
English-speaking scholars, but this has changed of late.[68]
While Leibniz was no apologist for absolute monarchy like Hobbes, or for tyranny in any form, neither did he echo
the political and constitutional views of his contemporary John Locke, views invoked in support of democracy, in
18th-century America and later elsewhere. The following excerpt from a 1695 letter to Baron J. C. Boyneburg's son
Philipp is very revealing of Leibniz's political sentiments:
As for.. the great question of the power of sovereigns and the obedience their peoples owe them, I
usually say that it would be good for princes to be persuaded that their people have the right to resist
them, and for the people, on the other hand, to be persuaded to obey them passively. I am, however,
quite of the opinion of Grotius, that one ought to obey as a rule, the evil of revolution being greater
beyond comparison than the evils causing it. Yet I recognize that a prince can go to such excess, and
place the well-being of the state in such danger, that the obligation to endure ceases. This is most rare,
however, and the theologian who authorizes violence under this pretext should take care against excess;
excess being infinitely more dangerous than deficiency.[69]
In 1677, Leibniz called for a European confederation, governed by a council or senate, whose members would
represent entire nations and would be free to vote their consciences;[70] this is sometimes tendentiously considered
an anticipation of the European Union. He believed that Europe would adopt a uniform religion. He reiterated these
proposals in 1715.
Ecumenism
Leibniz devoted considerable intellectual and diplomatic effort to what would now be called ecumenical endeavor,
seeking to reconcile first the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches, later the Lutheran and Reformed churches. In
this respect, he followed the example of his early patrons, Baron von Boyneburg and the Duke John Frederickboth
cradle Lutherans who converted to Catholicism as adultswho did what they could to encourage the reunion of the
two faiths, and who warmly welcomed such endeavors by others. (The House of Brunswick remained Lutheran
because the Duke's children did not follow their father.) These efforts included corresponding with the French bishop
Jacques-Bnigne Bossuet, and involved Leibniz in a fair bit of theological controversy. He evidently thought that the
thoroughgoing application of reason would suffice to heal the breach caused by the Reformation.
Philologist
Leibniz the philologist was an avid student of languages, eagerly latching on to any information about vocabulary
and grammar that came his way. He refuted the belief, widely held by Christian scholars in his day, that Hebrew was
the primeval language of the human race. He also refuted the argument, advanced by Swedish scholars in his day,
that a form of proto-Swedish was the ancestor of the Germanic languages. He puzzled over the origins of the Slavic
languages, was aware of the existence of Sanskrit, and was fascinated by classical Chinese.
He published the princeps editio (first modern edition) of the late medieval Chronicon Holtzatiae, a Latin chronicle
of the County of Holstein.
Sinophile
Leibniz was perhaps the first major European intellect to take a close interest in Chinese civilization, which he knew
by corresponding with, and reading other works by, European Christian missionaries posted in China. Having read
Confucius Sinicus Philosophus on the first year of its publication, he concluded that Europeans could learn much
from the Confucian ethical tradition. He mulled over the possibility that the Chinese characters were an unwitting
form of his universal characteristic. He noted with fascination how the I Ching hexagrams correspond to the binary
numbers from 0 to 111111, and concluded that this mapping was evidence of major Chinese accomplishments in the
sort of philosophical mathematics he admired.[71]
Leibniz's attraction to Chinese philosophy originates from his perception that Chinese philosophy was similar to his
own. The historian E.R. Hughes suggests that Leibniz's ideas of "simple substance" and "pre-established harmony"
were directly influenced by Confucianism, pointing to the fact that they were conceived during the period that he
was reading Confucius Sinicus Philosophus.
As polymath
While making his grand tour of European archives to research the Brunswick family history that he never completed,
Leibniz stopped in Vienna between May 1688 and February 1689, where he did much legal and diplomatic work for
the Brunswicks. He visited mines, talked with mine engineers, and tried to negotiate export contracts for lead from
the ducal mines in the Harz mountains. His proposal that the streets of Vienna be lit with lamps burning rapeseed oil
was implemented. During a formal audience with the Austrian Emperor and in subsequent memoranda, he advocated
reorganizing the Austrian economy, reforming the coinage of much of central Europe, negotiating a Concordat
between the Habsburgs and the Vatican, and creating an imperial research library, official archive, and public
insurance fund. He wrote and published an important paper on mechanics.
Leibniz also wrote a short paper, first published by Louis Couturat in 1903,[72] summarizing his views on
metaphysics. The paper is undated; that he wrote it while in Vienna was determined only in 1999, when the ongoing
critical edition finally published Leibniz's philosophical writings for the period 167790. Couturat's reading of this
paper was the launching point for much 20th-century thinking about Leibniz, especially among analytic
philosophers. But after a meticulous study of all of Leibniz's philosophical writings up to 1688a study the 1999
additions to the critical edition made possibleMercer (2001) begged to differ with Couturat's reading; the jury is
still out.
Posthumous reputation
As a mathematician and philosopher

When Leibniz died, his reputation was in decline. He was remembered for only one book, the Thodice, whose
supposed central argument Voltaire lampooned in his Candide. Voltaire's depiction of Leibniz's ideas was so
influential that many believed it to be an accurate description. Thus Voltaire and his Candide bear some of the blame
for the lingering failure to appreciate and understand Leibniz's ideas. Leibniz had an ardent disciple, Christian Wolff,
whose dogmatic and facile outlook did Leibniz's reputation much harm. He also influenced David Hume who read
his Thodice and used some of his ideas.[73] In any event, philosophical fashion was moving away from the
rationalism and system building of the 17th century, of which Leibniz had been such an ardent proponent. His work
on law, diplomacy, and history was seen as of ephemeral interest. The vastness and richness of his correspondence
went unrecognized.
Much of Europe came to doubt that Leibniz had discovered the calculus independently of Newton, and hence his
whole work in mathematics and physics was neglected. Voltaire, an admirer of Newton, also wrote Candide at least
in part to discredit Leibniz's claim to having discovered the calculus and Leibniz's charge that Newton's theory of
universal gravitation was incorrect.Wikipedia:Citation needed The rise of relativity and subsequent work in the
history of mathematics has put Leibniz's stance in a more favorable light.
Leibniz's long march to his present glory began with the 1765 publication of the Nouveaux Essais, which Kant read
closely. In 1768, Dutens edited the first multi-volume edition of Leibniz's writings, followed in the 19th century by a
number of editions, including those edited by Erdmann, Foucher de Careil, Gerhardt, Gerland, Klopp, and Mollat.
Publication of Leibniz's correspondence with notables such as Antoine Arnauld, Samuel Clarke, Sophia of Hanover,
and her daughter Sophia Charlotte of Hanover, began.
In 1900, Bertrand Russell published a critical study of Leibniz's metaphysics.[74] Shortly thereafter, Louis Couturat
published an important study of Leibniz, and edited a volume of Leibniz's heretofore unpublished writings, mainly
on logic. They made Leibniz somewhat respectable among 20th-century analytical and linguistic philosophers in the
English-speaking world (Leibniz had already been of great influence to many Germans such as Bernhard Riemann).
For example, Leibniz's phrase salva veritate, meaning interchangeability without loss of or compromising the truth,
recurs in Willard Quine's writings. Nevertheless, the secondary English-language literature on Leibniz did not really
blossom until after World War II. This is especially true of English speaking countries; in Gregory Brown's
bibliography fewer than 30 of the English language entries were published before 1946. American Leibniz studies
owe much to Leroy Loemker (190485) through his translations and his interpretive essays in LeClerc (1973).
Nicholas Jolley has surmised that Leibniz's reputation as a philosopher is now perhaps higher than at any time since
he was alive.[75] Analytic and contemporary philosophy continue to invoke his notions of identity, individuation, and
possible worlds, while the doctrinaire contempt for metaphysics, characteristic of analytic and linguistic philosophy,
has faded.Wikipedia:Citation needed Work in the history of 17th- and 18th-century ideas has revealed more clearly
the 17th-century "Intellectual Revolution" that preceded the better-known Industrial and commercial revolutions of
the 18th and 19th centuries. The 17th- and 18th-century belief that natural science, especially physics, differs from
philosophy mainly in degree and not in kind, is no longer dismissed out of hand. That modern science includes a
"scholastic" as well as a "radical empiricist" element is more accepted now than in the early 20th century. Leibniz's
thought is now seen as a major prolongation of the mighty endeavor begun by Plato and Aristotle: the universe and
man's place in it are amenable to human reason.
In 1985, the German government created the Leibniz Prize, offering an annual award of 1.55 million euros for
experimental results and 770,000 euros for theoretical ones. It is the world's largest prize for scientific achievement.
The collection of manuscript papers of Leibniz at the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek Niederschische
Landesbibliothek were inscribed on UNESCO's Memory of the World Register in 2007.
Writings and edition

Leibniz mainly wrote in three languages: scholastic Latin, French and German. During his lifetime, he published
many pamphlets and scholarly articles, but only two "philosophical" books, the Combinatorial Art and the
Thodice. (He published numerous pamphlets, often anonymous, on behalf of the House of Brunswick-Lneburg,
most notably the "De jure suprematum" a major consideration of the nature of sovereignty.) One substantial book
appeared posthumously, his Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, which Leibniz had withheld from
publication after the death of John Locke. Only in 1895, when Bodemann completed his catalogues of Leibniz's
manuscripts and correspondence, did the enormous extent of Leibniz's Nachlass become clear: about 15,000 letters
to more than 1000 recipients plus more than 40,000 other items. Moreover, quite a few of these letters are of essay
length. Much of his vast correspondence, especially the letters dated after 1700, remains unpublished, and much of
what is published has been so only in recent decades. The amount, variety, and disorder of Leibniz's writings are a
predictable result of a situation he described in a letter as follows:
I cannot tell you how extraordinarily distracted and spread out I am. I am trying to find various things in
the archives; I look at old papers and hunt up unpublished documents. From these I hope to shed some
light on the history of the [House of] Brunswick. I receive and answer a huge number of letters. At the
same time, I have so many mathematical results, philosophical thoughts, and other literary innovations
that should not be allowed to vanish that I often do not know where to begin.[76]
The extant parts of the critical edition[77] of Leibniz's writings are organized as follows:
Series 1. Political, Historical, and General Correspondence. 25 vols., 16661706.
Series 2. Philosophical Correspondence. 2 vols., 16631694 (the third volume, 1695-1700, is in preparation).
Series 3. Mathematical, Scientific, and Technical Correspondence. 8 vols., 16721698.
Series 4. Political Writings. 7 vols., 166799.
Series 5. Historical and Linguistic Writings. Inactive.
Series 6. Philosophical Writings. 7 vols., 166390, and Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain.
Series 7. Mathematical Writings. 6 vols., 167276.
Series 8. Scientific, Medical, and Technical Writings. 1 vol., 1668-76.
The systematic cataloguing of all of Leibniz's Nachlass began in 1901. It was hampered by two world wars and
decades of German division in two states with the cold war's "iron curtain" in between, separating scholars, and also
scattering portions of his literary estates. The ambitious project has had to deal with seven languages contained in
some 200,000 pages of written and printed paper. In 1985 it was reorganized and included in a joint program of
German federal and state (Lnder) academies. Since then the branches in Potsdam, Mnster, Hanover and Berlin
have jointly published 57 volumes of the critical edition, with an average of 870 pages, and prepared index and
concordance works.
Selected works
The year given is usually that in which the work was completed, not of its eventual publication.
1666. De Arte Combinatoria (On the Art of Combination); partially translated in Loemker 1 and Parkinson
(1966).
1671. Hypothesis Physica Nova (New Physical Hypothesis); Loemker 8.I (partial).
1673 Confessio philosophi (A Philosopher's Creed); an English translation is available.
1684. Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis (New method for maximums and minimums); translated in Struik,
D. J., 1969. A Source Book in Mathematics, 12001800. Harvard University Press: 27181.
1686. Discours de mtaphysique; Martin and Brown (1988), Ariew and Garber 35, Loemker 35, Wiener III.3,
Woolhouse and Francks 1. An online translation [78] by Jonathan Bennett is available.
1703. Explication de l'Arithmtique Binaire (Explanation of Binary Arithmetic); Gerhardt, Mathematical Writings
VII.223. An online translation [79] by Lloyd Strickland is available.
1710. Thodice; Farrer, A.M., and Huggard, E.M., trans., 1985 (1952). Wiener III.11 (part). An online
translation [80] is available at Project Gutenberg.
1714. Monadologie; translated by Nicholas Rescher, 1991. The Monadology: An Edition for Students. University
of Pittsburg Press. Ariew and Garber 213, Loemker 67, Wiener III.13, Woolhouse and Francks 19. Online
translations: Jonathan Bennett's translation [78]; Latta's translation [81]; French, Latin and Spanish edition, with
facsimile of Leibniz's manuscript. [82]Wikipedia:Link rot
1765. Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain; completed in 1704. Remnant, Peter, and Bennett, Jonathan,
trans., 1996. New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge University Press. Wiener III.6 (part). An online
translation [83] of the Preface and Book I by Jonathan Bennett is available.
Collections
Five important collections of English translations are Wiener (1951), Loemker (1969), Ariew and Garber (1989),
Woolhouse and Francks (1998), and Strickland (2006). The ongoing critical edition of all of Leibniz's writings is
Smtliche Schriften und Briefe.
Notes
[1] The History of Philosophy, Vol. IV: Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Leibniz by Frederick C. Copleston (1958)
[2] Franz Exner, "ber Leibnitz'ens Universal-Wissenschaft", 1843; "Universalwissenschaft" (http:/ / www. zeno. org/ Meyers-1905/ A/
Universalwissenschaft) in the Meyers Groes Konversations-Lexikon; Stanley Burris, "Leibniz's Influence on 19th Century Logic" (http:/ /
plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ leibniz-logic-influence/ ), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[3] David Smith, p.173-181 (1929)
[4] Roughly 40%, 30%, and 15%, respectively. www.gwlb.de (http:/ / www. gwlb. de/ Leibniz/ Leibniz-Nachlass/ index. htm). Leibniz-Nachlass
(i.e. Legacy of Leibniz), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek (one of the three Official Libraries of the German state Lower Saxony).
[5] It is possible that the words "in Aquarius" refer to the Moon (the Sun in Cancer; Sagittarius rising (Ascendant)); see Astro-Databank chart of
Gottfried Leibniz (http:/ / www. astro. com/ cgi/ chart.
cgi?wgid=wgeJw9js0KwjAQhJ9GUFilG2z9CXsOiHfPKYlpsIklTSnp07tFkTkMzLfszOxfnoR0gTTKaOhufRv9Auqd8zN5ayAAwgmwOTaA5yvWEFBYUYGbe
[6] The original has "1/4 uff 7 uhr" but there is no reason to assume that in the 17th century this meant a quarter to seven. The quote is given by
Hartmut Hecht in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Teubner-Archiv zur Mathematik Volume 2, 1992), in the first lines of chapter 2, Der junge
Leibniz, p. 15; see H. Hecht, Der junge Leibniz (http:/ / link. springer. com/ chapter/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-663-05995-0_2#page-1); see also G. E.
Guhrauer, G. W. Frhr. v. Leibnitz. B. 1. Breslau 1846, Anm. S. 4 (http:/ / play. google. com/ books/ reader?printsec=frontcover&
output=reader& id=fHJMAAAAcAAJ& pg=GBS. RA1-PA3).
[7] Mackie (1845), 21
[8] Mackie (1845), 22
[9] Mackie (1845), 26
[10] A few copies were produced as requested for the habilitation procedure; it was published without his consent in 1690.
[11] :20
[12] :143
[13] Mackie (1845), 38
[14] Mackie (1845), 39
[15] Mackie (1845), 40
[16] Aiton 1985: 312
[17] Ariew R., G.W. Leibniz, life and works, p.21 in The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, ed. by N. Jolley, Cambridge University Press, 1994,
ISBN 0521365880
[18] Mackie (1845), 43
[19] Mackie (1845), 44-45
[20] Mackie (1845), 58-61
[21] Mackie (1845), 69-70
[22] Mackie (1845), 73-74
[23] On the encounter between Newton and Leibniz and a review of the evidence, see Alfred Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War: The Quarrel
Between Newton and Leibniz (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 4469.
[24] Mackie (1845), 117-118
[25] For a recent study of Leibniz's correspondence with Sophia Charlotte, see MacDonald Ross (http:/ / www. philosophy. leeds. ac. uk/ GMR/
homepage/ sophiec. html) (1998).
[26] Mackie (1845), 109
[27] See Wiener IV.6 and Loemker 40. Also see a curious passage titled "Leibniz's Philosophical Dream," first published by Bodemann in 1895
and translated on p. 253 of Morris, Mary, ed. and trans., 1934. Philosophical Writings. Dent & Sons Ltd.
[28] Ariew & Garber, 69; Loemker, 36, 38
[29] Ariew & Garber, 138; Loemker, 47; Wiener, II.4
[30] Ariew & Garber, 27284; Loemker, 14, 20, 21; Wiener, III.8
[31] Mates (1986), chpts. 7.3, 9
[32] Loemker 717
[33] See Jolley (1995: 12931), Woolhouse and Francks (1998), and Mercer (2001).
[34] Loemker 311
[35] For a precis of what Leibniz meant by these and other Principles, see Mercer (2001: 47384). For a classic discussion of Sufficient Reason
and Plenitude, see Lovejoy (1957).
[36] Rutherford (1998) is a detailed scholarly study of Leibniz's theodicy.
[37] Magill, Frank (ed.). Masterpieces of World Philosophy. New York: Harper Collins (1990).
[38] Magill, Frank (ed.) (1990)

[39] The Art of Discovery 1685, Wiener 51
[40] Many of his memoranda are translated in Parkinson 1966.
[41] Loemker, however, who translated some of Leibniz's works into English, said that the symbols of chemistry were real characters, so there is
disagreement among Leibniz scholars on this point.
[42] Preface to the General Science, 1677. Revision of Rutherford's translation in Jolley 1995: 234. Also Wiener I.4
[43] A good introductory discussion of the "characteristic" is Jolley (1995: 22640). An early, yet still classic, discussion of the "characteristic"
and "calculus" is Couturat (1901: chpts. 3,4).
[44] Struik (1969), 367
[45] For an English translation of this paper, see Struik (1969: 27184), who also translates parts of two other key papers by Leibniz on the
calculus.
[46] Loemker 27
[47] Mates (1986), 240
[48] Mandelbrot (1977), 419. Quoted in Hirano (1997).
[49] Ariew and Garber 117, Loemker 46, W II.5. On Leibniz and physics, see the chapter by Garber in Jolley (1995) and Wilson (1989).
[50] See H. G. Alexander, ed., The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 2526.
[51] See Ariew and Garber 15586, Loemker 5355, W II.67a
[52] On Leibniz and biology, see Loemker (1969a: VIII).
[53] On Leibniz and psychology, see Loemker (1969a: IX).
[54] Larry M. Jorgensen, The Principle of Continuity and Leibniz's Theory of Consciousness (http:/ / muse. jhu. edu/ login?auth=0&
type=summary& url=/ journals/ journal_of_the_history_of_philosophy/ v047/ 47. 2. jorgensen. html)
[55] D. Brett King, Wayne Viney and William Woody. A History of Psychology: Ideas and Context (2009), 150153.
[56] Nicholls and Leibscher, Thinking the Unconscious: Nineteenth-Century German Thought (2010), 6.
[57] King et al. (2009), 150153.
[58] Nicholls and Leibscher, Thinking the Unconscious: Nineteenth-Century German Thought (2010), 9.
[59] S. H., Klempe, The Role of Tone Sensation and Musical Stimuli in Early Experimental Psychology (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/
pubmed/ 21462196)
[60] Aiton (1985), 107114, 136
[61] Davis (2000) discusses Leibniz's prophetic role in the emergence of calculating machines and of formal languages.
[62] See Couturat (1901): 47378.
[63] Couturat (1901), 115
[64] See N. Rescher, Leibniz and Cryptography (Pittsburgh, University Library Systems, University of Pittsburgh, 2012).
[65] The Reality Club: Wake Up Call for Europe Tech (http:/ / www. edge. org/ discourse/ schirrmacher_eurotech. html)
[66] On Leibniz's projects for scientific societies, see Couturat (1901), App. IV.
[67] See, for example, Ariew and Garber 19, 94, 111, 193; Riley 1988; Loemker 2, 7, 20, 29, 44, 59, 62, 65; W I.1, IV.13
[68] See (in order of difficulty) Jolley (2005: chpt. 7), Gregory Brown's chapter in Jolley (1995), Hostler (1975), and Riley (1996).
[69] Loemker: 59, fn 16. Translation revised.
[70] Loemker: 58, fn 9
[71] On Leibniz, the I Ching, and binary numbers, see Aiton (1985: 24548). Leibniz's writings on Chinese civilization are collected and
translated in Cook and Rosemont (1994), and discussed in Perkins (2004).
[72] Later translated as Loemker 267 and Woolhouse and Francks 30
[73] Vasilyev, 1993 (http:/ / www. humesociety. org/ hs/ issues/ v19n1/ vasilyeu/ vasilyeu-v19n1. pdf)
[74] Russell, 1900
[75] Jolley, 21719
[76] 1695 letter to Vincent Placcius in Gerhardt.
[77] www.leibniz-edition.de (http:/ / www. leibniz-edition. de/ ). See photograph there.
[78] http:/ / www. earlymoderntexts. com/
[79] http:/ / www. leibniz-translations. com/ binary. htm
[80] http:/ / www. gutenberg. org/ etext/ 17147
[81] http:/ / www. rbjones. com/ rbjpub/ philos/ classics/ leibniz/ monad. htm
[82] http:/ / www. helicon. es/ dig/ 8542205. pdf
[83] http:/ / www. earlymoderntexts. com/ pdfs/ leibniz1705book1. pdf
References
Bibliographies
Bodemann, Eduard, Die Leibniz-Handschriften der Kniglichen ffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover, 1895,
(anastatic reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1966).
Bodemann, Eduard, Der Briefwechsel des Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in der Kniglichen ffentliche Bibliothek zu
Hannover, 1895, (anastatic reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1966).
Ravier, mile, Bibliographie des uvres de Leibniz, Paris: Alcan, 1937 (anastatic reprint Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1966).
Heinekamp, Albert and Mertens, Marlen. Leibniz-Bibliographie. Die Literatur ber Leibniz bis 1980, Frankfurt:
Vittorio Klostermann, 1984.
Heinekamp, Albert and Mertens, Marlen. Leibniz-Bibliographie. Die Literatur ber Leibniz. Band II: 1981-1990,
Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1996.
An updated bibliography of more than 25.000 titles is available at Leibniz Bibliographie (http:/ / www.
leibniz-bibliographie.de/DB=1.95/LNG=EN/).
Primary literature
Schrecker, Paul & Schrecker, Anne Martin, (eds.), 1965. Monadology and other Philosophical Essays.
Prentice-Hall.
Parkinson, G. H. R. (ed.), 1966. Logical Papers. Clarendon Press.
Mason, H.T. & Parkinson, G.H.R. (eds.), 1967. The Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence. Manchester University
Press.
Loemker, Leroy, (ed.), 1969 (1956). Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Reidel.
Morris, Mary & Parkinson, G. H. R. (eds.), 1973. Philosophical Writings. Everymans University Library.
Riley, Patrick, (ed.), 1988. Leibniz: Political Writings. Cambridge University Press.
Niall, R. Martin, D. & Brown, Stuart (eds.), 1988. Discourse on Metaphysics and Related Writings. Manchester
University Press.
Ariew, Roger and Garber, Daniel. (eds.), 1989. Leibniz: Philosophical Essays. Hackett.
Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), 1991. G. W. Leibnizs Monadology. An Edition for Students, University of Pittsburgh
Press.
Parkinson, G. H. R. (ed.) 1992. De Summa Rerum. Metaphysical Papers, 1675-1676. Yale University Press.
Cook, Daniel, & Rosemont, Henry Jr., (eds.), 1994. Leibniz: Writings on China. Open Court.
Farrer, Austin (ed.), 1995. Theodicy, Open Court.
Remnant, Peter, & Bennett, Jonathan, (eds.), 1996 (1981). Leibniz: New Essays on Human Understanding.
Cambridge University Press.
Woolhouse, R.S., and Francks, R., (eds.), 1997. Leibnizs New System and Associated Contemporary Texts.
Oxford University Press.
Woolhouse, R.S., and Francks, R., (eds.), 1998. Leibniz: Philosophical Texts. Oxford University Press.
Ariew, Roger, (ed.), 2000. G. W. Leibniz and Samuel Clarke: Correspondence. Hackett.
Richard T. W. Arthur, (ed.), 2001. The Labyrinth of the Continuum: Writings on the Continuum Problem,
1672-1686. Yale University Press.
Robert C. Sleigh Jr., (ed.), 2005. Confessio Philosophi: Papers Concerning the Problem of Evil, 1671-1678. Yale
University Press.
Dascal, Marcelo (ed.), 2006. G. W. Leibniz. The Art of Controversies, Springer.
Strickland, Lloyd, 2006 (ed.). The Shorter Leibniz Texts: A Collection of New Translations. Continuum.
Look, Brandon and Rutherford, Donald (eds.), 2007. The Leibniz-Des Bosses Correspondence, Yale University
Press.
Cohen, Claudine and Wakefield, Andre, (eds.), 2008. Protogaea. University of Chicago Press.
Murray, Michael, (ed.) 2011. Dissertation on Predestination and Grace, Yale University Press.
Strickand, Lloyd (ed.), 2011. Leibniz and the two Sophies. The philosophical correspondence, Toronto.
Lodge, Pail (ed.), 2013. The Leibniz-De Volder Correspondence: With Selections from the Correspondence
Between Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli, Yale University Press.
Artosi, Alberto, Pieri, Bernardo, Sartor, Giovanni (eds.), 2014. Leibniz: Logico-Philosophical Puzzles in the Law,
Springer.
Secondary literature
Adams, Robert Merrihew. 1994. Lebniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York: Oxford, Oxford University
Press
Aiton, Eric J., 1985. Leibniz: A Biography. Hilger (UK).
Antognazza, Maria Rosa, 2008. Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Barrow, John D.; Tipler, Frank J. (1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press.
ISBN978-0-19-282147-8. LCCN 87028148 (http://lccn.loc.gov/87028148).
Du Bois-Reymond, Paul, 1974. Leibnizsche Gedanken in der neueren Naturwissenschaft, Berlin: Dummler, 1871
(reprinted in his Vortrge ber Philosophie und Gesellschaft, Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Bos, H. J. M., 1974. "Differentials, higher-order differentials and the derivative in the Leibnizian calculus," Arch.
History Exact Sciences 14: 190.
Stuart Brown (ed.), 1999. The Young Leibniz and His Philosophy (1646-76), Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Couturat, Louis, 1901. La Logique de Leibniz. Paris: Felix Alcan.
Davis, Martin, 2000. The Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing. WW Norton.
Deleuze, Gilles, 1993. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. University of Minnesota Press.
Finster, Reinhard & van den Heuvel, Gerd 2000. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Mit Selbstzeugnissen und
Bilddokumenten. 4. Auflage. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg (Rowohlts Monographien, 50481), ISBN
3-499-50481-2.
Grattan-Guinness, Ivor, 1997. The Norton History of the Mathematical Sciences. W W Norton.
Hall, A. R., 1980. Philosophers at War: The Quarrel between Newton and Leibniz. Cambridge University Press.
Heidegger, Martin, 1983. The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic. Indiana University Press.
Hostler, J., 1975. Leibniz's Moral Philosophy. UK: Duckworth.
Ishiguro, Hid 1990. Leibniz's Philosophy of Logic and Language. Cambridge University Press.
Jolley, Nicholas, ed., 1995. The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz. Cambridge University Press.
Kaldis, Byron, 2011. Leibniz' Argument for Innate Ideas in Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important
Arguments in Western Philosophy edited by M Bruce & S Barbone. Blackwell.
LeClerc, Ivor, ed., 1973. The Philosophy of Leibniz and the Modern World. Vanderbilt University Press.
Lovejoy, Arthur O., 1957 (1936). "Plenitude and Sufficient Reason in Leibniz and Spinoza" in his The Great
Chain of Being. Harvard University Press: 14482. Reprinted in Frankfurt, H. G., (ed.), 1972. Leibniz: A
Collection of Critical Essays. Anchor Books 1972.
Luchte, James, 2006. " Mathesis and Analysis: Finitude and the Infinite in the Monadology of Leibniz (http://
luchte.wordpress.com/mathesis-and-analysis-finitude-and-the-infinite-in-the-monadology-of-leibniz/), in
Heythrop Journal, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 519543.
Mackie, John Milton; Guhrauer, Gottschalk Eduard, 1845. Life of Godfrey William von Leibnitz. Gould, Kendall
and Lincoln.
Mates, Benson, 1986. The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language. Oxford University Press.
Mercer, Christia, 2001. Leibniz's Metaphysics: Its Origins and Development. Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, Franklin, 2004. Leibniz and China: A Commerce of Light. Cambridge University Press.
Riley, Patrick, 1996. Leibniz's Universal Jurisprudence: Justice as the Charity of the Wise. Harvard University
Press.
Rutherford, Donald, 1998. Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, David Eugene (1929). A Source Book in Mathematics. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc.
Smith, Justin E. H., 2011. Divine Machines. Leibniz and the Sciences of Life, Princeton University Press.
Ward, A. W., 1911. Leibniz as a Politician (lecture)
Wilson, Catherine, 1989. Leibniz's Metaphysics: A Historical and Comparative Study. Princeton University Press.
Zalta, E. N., 2000. " A (Leibnizian) Theory of Concepts (http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/leibniz.pdf),"
Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse / Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 3: 137183.
External links
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz) entry by Brandon C. Look in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Gottfried Leibniz: Causation" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-cau/) article in the Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
"Gottfried Leibniz: Metaphysics" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/) article in the Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz" (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.
ac.uk/Biographies/Leibniz.html), MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, University of St Andrews.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (http://www.genealogy.ams.org/id.php?id=60985) at the Mathematics Genealogy
Project
Works by Gottfried Leibniz (http://www.gutenberg.org/author/Leibniz+Gottfried+Wilhelm+Freiherr+von)
at Project Gutenberg
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Philosophers/L/
Leibniz,_Gottfried_Wilhelm) at DMOZ
Translations (http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/) by Jonathan Bennett, of the New Essays, the exchanges with
Bayle, Arnauld and Clarke, and about 15 shorter works.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Texts and Translations (http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rutherford/
Leibniz/index.html), compiled by Donald Rutherford, UCSD
Philosophical Works of Leibniz translated by G.M. Duncan (https://archive.org/details/
philosophicalwor00leibuoft)
Leibnitiana (http://www.gwleibniz.com/), links and resources compiled by Gregory Brown, University of
Houston.
Pre-established harmony 23
Pre-established harmony
Gottfried Leibniz's theory of pre-established harmony (French: harmonie prtablie) is a philosophical theory
about causation under which every "substance" only affects itself, but all the substances (both bodies and minds) in
the world nevertheless seem to causally interact with each other because they have been programmed by God in
advance to "harmonize" with each other. Leibniz's term for these substances was "monads" which he described in a
popular work (Monadology 7) as "windowless".
An example:
An apple falls on Alice's head, apparently causing the experience of pain in her mind. In fact, the apple does
not cause the pain - the pain is caused by some previous state of Alice's mind. If Alice then seems to shake her
hand in anger, it is not actually her mind that causes this, but some previous state of her hand.
Leibniz's theory is best known as a solution to the mind-body problem of how mind can interact with the body.
However, Leibniz also rejected the idea of physical bodies affecting each other, and explained all physical causation
in this way.
Under pre-established harmony, the preprogramming of each mind must be extremely complex, since only it itself
causes its own thoughts or movements, for as long as it exists. In order to appear to interact, each substance's
"program" must contain a description of either the entire universe, or of how the object is to behave at all times,
during all "interactions" which will appear to occur.
It can also be noted that if a mind behaves as a windowless monad, there is no need for any other object to exist in
order to create that mind's sense perceptions, leading to a solipsistic universe consisting only of that mind. Leibniz
seems to admit this in his Discourse on Metaphysics section 14. However, he claims that his Principle of Harmony,
according to which God creates the best and most harmonious world possible, dictates that the perceptions (internal
states) of each monad "expresses" the world in its entirety, and the world expressed by the monad actually exists.
Although Leibniz says that each monad is "windowless," he also claims that it functions as a "mirror" of the entire
created universe.
On occasion, Leibniz styled himself as "the author of the system of preestablished harmony".[1]
References
[1] Leibniz Philosophischen Schriften hrsg. C. Gerhardt, Bd VI 539, 546; and also the New Essays
External links
Leibniz's Philosophy of Mind from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
leibniz-mind/)
Principle of sufficient reason

The principle of sufficient reason is one of four laws of logic which states that nothing is without a causation. It is a
powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause. The
formulation of the principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz,[1] although the idea was conceived and utilized
in various philosophers that preceded him, including Anaximander, Parmenides, Archimedes, Thomas Aquinas,
Anaximander of Miletus, and Spinoza. Some philosophers have associated the principle of sufficient reason with "ex
nihilo nihil fit".[2] This principle bears many similarities with the Buddhist concept of Dependent Origination.
Formulation
The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.
A sufficient explanation may be understood either in terms of reasons or causes, for like many philosophers of the
period, Leibniz did not carefully distinguish between the two. The resulting principle is very different, however,
depending on which interpretation is given.
It is an open question whether the principle of sufficient reason can be applied to axioms within a logic construction
like a mathematical or a physical theory, because axioms are propositions accepted as having no justification
possible within the system Wikipedia:Citation needed. The principle declares that all propositions considered to be
true within a system should be deducible from the set axioms at the base of the construction (with some theoretical
exceptions: see Gdel's theorem).
Leibniz's view
Leibniz identified two kinds of truth, necessary and contingent truths. He believed necessary mathematical truths to
be derived from the law of identity (and the principle of contradiction): "Necessary truths are those that can be
demonstrated through an analysis of terms, so that in the end they become identities, just as in Algebra an equation
expressing an identity ultimately results from the substitution of values [for variables]. That is, necessary truths
depend upon the principle of contradiction." Leibniz states that the sufficient reason for necessary truths is that their
negation is a contradiction.
Leibniz admitted contingent truths on the basis of infinitary reasons, to which God had access but humans did not:
In contingent truths, even though the predicate is in the subject, this can never be demonstrated, nor can
a proposition ever be reduced to an equality or to an identity, but the resolution proceeds to infinity, God
alone seeing, not the end of the resolution, of course, which does not exist, but the connection of the
terms or the containment of the predicate in the subject, since he sees whatever is in the series.
Without this qualification, the principle can be seen as a description of a certain notion of closed system, in which
there is no 'outside' to provide unexplained events with causes. It is also in tension with the paradox of Buridan's ass.
Leibniz denied that the paradox of Buridan's ass could ever occur, saying:
In consequence of this, the case also of Buridan's ass between two meadows, impelled equally towards
both of them, is a fiction that cannot occur in the universe....For the universe cannot be halved by a
plane drawn through the middle of the ass, which is cut vertically through its length, so that all is equal
and alike on both sides.....Neither the parts of the universe nor the viscera of the animal are alike nor are
they evenly placed on both sides of this vertical plane. There will therefore always be many things in the
ass and outside the ass, although they be not apparent to us, which will determine him to go on one side
rather than the other. And although man is free, and the ass is not, nevertheless for the same reason it
must be true that in man likewise the case of a perfect equipoise between two courses is impossible.
(Theodicy, pg. 150 [3])
As a Law of Thought
The principle was one of the four recognised laws of thought, that held a place in European pedagogy of logic and
reasoning (and, to some extent, philosophy in general) in the 18th and nineteenth century. It was influential in the
thinking of Leo Tolstoy, amongst others, in the elevated form that history could not be accepted as random.
Schopenhauer's Four Forms

Main article: On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
According to Schopenhauer's On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, there are four distinct
forms of the principle.
First Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming (principium rationis sufficientis fiendi); appears as the
law of causality in the understanding.[4]
Second Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowing (principium rationis sufficientis cognoscendi); asserts
that if a judgment is to express a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient ground or reason, in which case it
receives the predicate true.[5]
Third Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Being (principium rationis sufficientis essendi); the law whereby
the parts of space and time determine one another as regards those relations.[6] Example in arithmetic: Each number
presupposes the preceding numbers as grounds or reasons of its being; "I can reach ten only by going through all the
preceding numbers; and only by virtue of this insight into the ground of being, do I know that where there are ten, so
are there eight, six, four."[7]
Now just as the subjective correlative to the first class of representations is the understanding, that to
the second the faculty of reason, and that to the third pure sensibility, so is the subjective correlative to
this fourth class found to be the inner sense, or generally self-consciousness.[8]
Fourth Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Acting (principium rationis sufficientis agendi); briefly known as
the law of motivation.[9] Any judgment that does not follow its previously existing ground or reason or any state
that cannot be explained away as falling under the three previous headings must be produced by an act of will which
has a motive. As his proposition in 43 states, Motivation is causality seen from within.[10]
Notes
[1] There are numerous anticipations. One often pointed to is in Anselm of Canterbury: his phrase quia Deus nihil sine ratione facit (http:/ /
12koerbe. de/ pan/ curdeus5. htm) and the formulation of the ontological argument for the existence of God. A clearer connection is with the
cosmological argument for the existence of God. The principle can be seen in both Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham. Leibniz
formulated it, but was not an originator. See chapter on Leibniz and Spinoza in A. O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being.
[2] Alexander R. Pruss (2007) "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Augments new and old for the Principle of Sufficant Reason" in Explication Topic in
Contemporary Philosophy Ch. 14
[3] http:/ / www. gutenberg. org/ ebooks/ 17147
[4] Arthur Schopenhauer, On The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, S 20, trans. E. Payne, (Open Court Publishing Company,
1997), 4.
1997), 5.
1997), 6.
1997), 7.
[8] Arthur Schopenhauer, On The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, page 212, S 42, trans. E. Payne, (Open Court Publishing
Company, 1997), 8.
1997), 9.
1997), 10.
External links
Principle of Sufficient Reason (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason) entry by Yitzhak Melamed,
Martin Lin in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (http://www.amazon.com/dp/052185959X) by Alexander
R. Pruss
Salva veritate
The literal translation of the Latin "salva veritate" is "with (or by) unharmed truth", using ablative of manner: "salva"
meaning "rescue," "salvation," or "welfare," and "veritate" meaning "reality" or "truth". Thus, Salva veritate (or
intersubstitutivity) is the logical condition by which two expressions may be interchanged without altering the
truth-value of statements in which the expressions occur. Substitution salva veritate is not possible in opaque
contexts.[1]
Leibniz
The phrase occurs in two fragments from Gottfried Leibniz's General Science. Characteristics:
In Chapter 19, Definition 1, Leibniz writes: "Two terms are the same (eadem) if one can be substituted for the
other without altering the truth of any statement (salva veritate)."
In Chapter 20, Definition 1, Leibniz writes: "Terms which can be substituted for one another wherever we please
without altering the truth of any statement (salva veritate), are the same (eadem) or coincident (coincidentia). For
example, 'triangle' and 'trilateral', for in every proposition demonstrated by Euclid concerning 'triangle', 'trilateral'
can be substituted without loss of truth (salva veritate)."
Quine
W.V.O. Quine takes substitutivity salva veritate to be the same as the "indiscernibility of identicals". Given a true
statement, one of its two terms may be substituted for the other in any true statement and the result will be true.[2] He
continues to show that depending on context, the statement may change in value, In fact, the whole quantified modal
logic of necessity is dependent on context and empty otherwise; for it collapses if essence is withdrawn.[3]
For example, the statements:
(1) Giorgione = Barbarelli,
(2) Giorgione was so-called because of his size
are true; however, replacement of the name 'Giorgione' by the name 'Barbarelli' turns (2) into the falsehood:
[4]
Barbarelli was so-called because of his size.
Quine's example here refers to Giorgio Barbarelli's sobriquet "Giorgione", an Italian name roughly glossed as "Big
George."
Salva veritate 27
References
[1] L.T.F. Gamut, Logic, Language and Meaning, printed in 1991
[2] W.V.O. Quine, Quintessence, extensions, Reference and Modality, P378
[3] W.V.O. Quine, Quintessence, extensions, Reference and Modality, P356-P357
[4] W.V.O. Quine, Quintessence, extensions, Reference and Modality, P361
Bibliography
Clarence Irving Lewis, A Survey of Symbolic Logic, Appendix, Dover.
External links
Philosophical Dictionary (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s.htm)
Well-founded phenomenon
Well-founded phenomena (Latin: phenomena bene fundata), in the philosophy of Gottfried Leibniz, are ways in
which the world falsely appears to us, but which are grounded in the way the world actually is (as opposed to dreams
or hallucinations, which are false appearances that are not thus grounded).
For Leibniz, the universe is made up of an infinite number of simple substances or monads, each of which contains a
representation of the entire universe (past, present, and future), and which are all causally isolated from one another
("Monads have no windows through which anything could enter or depart."[1]) For the most part the monads'
perceptions are more or less confused and obscure, but some of them correspond either to the ways in which other
monads are related or to the ways that the representation is genuinely ordered; these are the well-founded
phenomena.
In the world of ordinary experience we might call a rainbow a well-ordered phenomenon; it appears to us to be a
coloured arch in the sky, though there is in fact no arch there. We are not suffering from hallucinations, though, for
the appearance is grounded in the way the world is actually ordered in the behaviour of light, dust motes, water
particles, etc.
For Leibniz, there are two main categories of well-founded phenomena: the ordinary world of individual objects and
their interactions, and more abstract phenomena such as space, time, and causality. This is also found in his
expression of pre-established harmony being the actual basis of causation.
Notes
[1] Leibniz, "The Monadology" (1714), 7.
References
Leibniz, " The Monadology (http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/leibniz/
monadology/monadology.html)" (1714), G. VI 607623
Best of all possible worlds
Gottfried Leibniz, the philosopher who coined the term

"best of all possible worlds" in his work the Thodice
Part of a series on
Philosophy of
religion
Concepts in
religion
Conceptions of
God
Existence of God
Theories of
religion
Religious language
Philosophers of
religion
Related concepts
v
t
e [1]
The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" (French: le meilleur des mondes possibles; German: Die beste aller
mglichen Welten) was coined by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Thodice sur
la bont de Dieu, la libert de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and
the Origin of Evil). The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in
Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.
The problem of evil

Main article: Problem of evil
Among his many philosophical interests and concerns, Leibniz took on this question of theodicy: If God is
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, how do we account for the suffering and injustice that exist in the
world? Historically, attempts to answer the question have been made using various arguments, for example, by
explaining away evil or reconciling evil with good.
Free will versus determinism

See also: Free will and Determinism
For Leibniz, an additional central concern is the matter of reconciling human freedom (indeed, God's own freedom)
with the determinism inherent in his own theory of the universe. Leibniz' solution casts God as a kind of "optimizer"
of the collection of all original possibilities: Since He is good and omnipotent, and since He chose this world out of
all possibilities, this world must be goodin fact, this world is the best of all possible worlds.
On the one hand, this view might help us rationalize some of what we experience: Imagine that all the world is made
of good and evil. The best possible world would have the most good and the least evil. Courage is better than no
courage. It might be observed, then, that without evil to challenge us, there can be no courage. Since evil brings out
the best aspects of humanity, evil is regarded as necessary. So in creating this world God made some evil to make the
best of all possible worlds. On the other hand, the theory explains evil not by denying it or even rationalizing itbut
simply by declaring it to be part of the optimum combination of elements that comprise the best possible Godly
choice. Leibniz thus does not claim that the world is overall very good, but that because of the necessary
interconnections of goods and evils, God, though omnipotent, could not improve it in one way without making it
worse in some other way.[2]
Giovanni Gentile, in his work The General Theory of Mind as Pure Act, claimed that if God had created everything
to fall into line with the most favorable possible condition, it would suppose that all of reality is pre-realized and
determined in the mind of God. Therefore the apparent free will displayed by both God, by his necessity of being
bound by what is the most good, and humanity in their limitations derived from God to be inline with the most good,
are not free wills at all but entirely determinate. Thus ultimately relegated to blind naturalistic processes entrapping
both God and humanity to necessity, robbing both of any true freely creative will.
Criticism
Critics of Leibniz, such as Voltaire, argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to justify
optimism. While Leibniz argued that suffering is good because it incites human will, critics argue that the degree of
suffering is too severe to justify belief that God has created the "best of all possible worlds". Leibniz also addresses
this concern by considering what God desires to occur (his antecedent will) and what God allows to occur (his
consequent will).[3] Others, such as the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga criticized Leibniz's theodicy by
arguing that there probably is not such a thing as the best of all possible worlds, since one can always conceive a
better world, such as a world with one more morally righteous person.
The Theodicy was deemed illogical by the philosopher Bertrand Russell.[4] Russell points out that moral and physical
evil must result from metaphysical evil (imperfection). But imperfection is merely finitude or limitation; if existence
is good, as Leibniz maintains, then the mere existence of evil requires that evil also be good. In addition, libertarian
Christian theology defines sin as not necessary but contingent, the result of free will. Russell maintains that Leibniz
failed to logically show that metaphysical necessity (divine will) and human free will are not incompatible or
contradictory.
The mathematician Paul du Bois-Reymond, in his "Leibnizian Thoughts in Modern Science", wrote that Leibniz
thought of God as a mathematician:
As is well known, the theory of the maxima and minima of functions was indebted to him for the
greatest progress through the discovery of the method of tangents. Well, he conceives God in the
creation of the world like a mathematician who is solving a minimum problem, or rather, in our modern
phraseology, a problem in the calculus of variations the question being to determine among an infinite
number of possible worlds, that for which the sum of necessary evil is a minimum.
The statement that "we live in the best of all possible worlds" drew scorn, most notably from Voltaire, who
lampooned it in his comic novella Candide by having the character Dr. Pangloss (a parody of Leibniz and
Maupertuis) repeat it like a mantra. From this, the adjective "Panglossian" describes a person who believes that the
world about us is the best possible one.
In other philosophy
Aquinas, using Scholasticism, treats the "Best of all possible worlds" problem in the Summa Theologica (1273):[5]
Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other
would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore,
God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not
exist.
He counters this in general by the quinque viae, and in particular with this refutation:
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would
not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring
good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist,
and out of it produce good.
The theological theory of pandeism has been classed as a logical derivation of this proposition with the contention
that:
If divine becoming were complete, God's kenosis--God's self-emptying for the sake of love--would be
total. In this pandeistic view, nothing of God would remain separate and apart from what God would
become. Any separate divine existence would be inconsistent with God's unreserved participation in the
lives and fortunes of the actualized phenomena.":67
References
[1] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Philosophy_of_religion_(sidebar)& action=edit
[2] J. Franklin, Leibniz's solution to the problem of evil (http:/ / www. maths. unsw. edu. au/ ~jim/ think. pdf), Think 5 (2003), 97-101.
[3] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Peter Remnant, Jonathan Francis Bennett (1996). New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge University
Press. pp. 182-190 ISBN 0-521-57660-1, ISBN 978-0-521-57660-4.
[4] Russell, Bertrand. A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. London: George Allen & Unwin (1900).
[5] http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ summa/ 1002. htm#article3
External links
Project Gutenberg provides an online English translation of the Theodicy (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/
17147).
Leibniz's solution to the problem of evil (http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/think.pdf)
Dynamism (metaphysics)
Dynamism is a general name for a group of philosophical views concerning the nature of matter. However different
they may be in other respects, all these views agree in making matter consist essentially of simple and indivisible
units, substances, or forces. Dynamism is sometimes used to denote systems that admit not only matter and
extension, but also determinations, tendencies, and forces intrinsic and essential to matter. More properly, however,
it means exclusive systems that do away with the dualism of matter and force by reducing the former to the latter.[1]
This is evident in the classical formulation of Leibniz.
Leibniz's Formulation
Dynamism is the metaphysics of Gottfried Leibniz (16461716) that reconciles hylomorphic substance theory with
mechanistic atomism by way of a pre-established harmony, and which was later developed by Christian Wolff
(16791754) as a metaphysical cosmology. The major thesis for Leibniz follows as a consequences of his monad,
that: the nature of every substance carries a general expression of the whole universe. [The monad provides] the
concept of an individual substance that contains...all its phenomena, such that nothing can happen to substance that is
not generated from its own ground...but in conformity to what happens to another... Whereby Leibniz "counters the
tendency inherent in Cartesian and Spinozistic rationalism toward an isolationist interpretation of the ontological
independence of substance... Leibnizs account of substantial force aims to furnish the complete metaphysical
groundwork for a science of dynamics".
In the opening paragraph of Specimen dynamicum (1692), Leibniz begins by clarifying his intention to
supersede the Cartesian account of corporeal substance by asserting the priority of force over extension... This
allows him to affirm that the Aristotelian principle of form is needed for the philosophical account of nature.
He does this in view of four main facets of his doctrine of force: (1) the characterization of force (vis naturae)
as that which is constitutive of substance itself; (2) the concern to sharply distinguish this concept of force
from the Scholastic notion of potentia; (3) the correlative interpretation of force in terms of conatus or nisus,
i.e., as something between mere potency and completed act; and (4) the affirmation of the fundamental
correctness of Aristotles own concept of form as entelechy, and Leibnizs corresponding attempt to make this
concept fully intelligible.
By superseding the Cartesian concept of corporeal substance and by advocating the Aristotelian principle of
form, Leibniz sets the stage for an interpretation of material being in terms different from those of inert matter
and externally communicated motion. Leibniz thus retains what he takes to be the rational core of the
Aristotelian conception of substance. In effect, Leibnizs theory of force involves the rehabilitation and
reconstruction of the matter-form composite as the pivotal concept of the metaphysics of corporeal nature.
Leibnizs concern to revive the Aristotelian explanatory scheme by means of the concept of substantial force
underlies his description of the structural and material features of the aggregation of monads and corporeal
interaction. He holds that the following four ontological expressions of substantial force constitute the nature
of a complete corporeal substance and supply the grounds of all corporeal interaction: primitive active force,
primitive passive force, derivative active force, and derivative passive force.
The analysis of primitive active force (vis activa primitiva) yields the fundamental metaphysical principle that
substance perdures through all processes of phenomenally manifested corporeal interaction [and] the basis of
the identity of any particular body through the alterations that it undergoes as the result of its interactions with
other bodies. It also provides for the continuity and conservation of action within corporeal nature as a whole.
Primitive passive force (vis passiva primitiva) is the ground of corporeal extension, by which a body appears
as material mass [and capacity] to resist changes in its state of motion and to hinder penetration by other
bodies... Derivative active force (vis activa derivativa) results from the modification or limitation of primitive
force... that takes the form of the phenomenally manifested conflict of physical bodies... subject to distribution
by virtue of this conflict. It therefore does not perdure in any single body during the course of its interaction
with other corporeal substances. Since it is comprehensible as the internal action [when] acted upon by some
other body or bodies, [with] the capacity to resist... penetration and changes in their states of motion.
Derivative passive force (vis passiva derivativa) is the purely quantitative modification of primitive passive
force [known] in terms of the measures of any material masss resistance to penetration and change in its state
of motion.
Leibniz insists that primitive force pertains solely to completely general causes. As a strictly metaphysical
principle, it is the object of purely rational apprehension. It is thus not linked immediately to the actual laws of
corporeal interaction in the phenomenal realm. On the other hand, derivative force does pertain directly to
such observable interaction. Its analysis leads to the systematic formulation of the fundamental laws of
corporeal dynamics. These are laws of action that are known not only by reason, but are also proved by the
evidence of the senses.
Jeffrey Edwards,"Leibnizs Aristotelian Dynamism and the Idea of a Transition from Metaphysics to
Corporeal Nature" in Substance, Force, and the Possibility of Knowledge: On Kant's Philosophy of Material
Nature
20th Century and Contemporary Use

Elements of Dynamism can be found in the works of Henri Bergson, and in more contemporary works, such as the
process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead in terms of relations,[2] as well as the systems theory of Ludwig von
Bertalanffy and William Ross Ashby. The Basque philosopher Xavier Zubiri, most notably in his works, "On
Essence" and "Dynamic Structure of Reality" details of several dynamisms inherent in the universe, beginning with
variation, then onto alteration, selfhood, self-possession, living-together, onto Dynamism as a Mode of
Being-in-the-world. It is a response to the Philosophy of Spirit via Hegel in addition to reductionists and Heidegger.
This concept also has resonances with the Object-oriented ontology and Speculative Realism schools of
philosophy.[3]
References
[1] Dubray, Charles. "Dynamism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 29 May 2014
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05222a.htm>.
[2] Whitehead, Alfred North, and David Ray Griffin. Process and reality: an essay in cosmology. Corrected ed. New York: Free Press, 19781929.
[3] Harman, Graham. Towards speculative realism: essays and lectures. Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2010
Theodicy
For the book, see Thodice.
Gottfried Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' in an

attempt to justify God's existence in light of the
apparent imperfections of the world.
Part of a series on
God
General conceptions
Agnosticism
Apatheism
Atheism
Deism
Henotheism
Ignosticism
Monotheism
Omnism
Panentheism
Pantheism
Polytheism
Theism
Transtheism
Specific conceptions
Creator
Demiurge
Theodicy 34
Devil
Deus
Father
Great Architect
Monad
Mother
Supreme Being
Sustainer
The All
The Lord
Trinity
Tawhid
Ditheism
Monism
Personal
Unitarianism
In particular religions
Abrahamic
Bah'
Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Mormonism
Ancient Egyptian Monotheism
Buddhism
Hinduism
Jainism
Sikhism
Zoroastrianism
Attributes
Eternalness
Existence
Gender
Names("God")
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Experiences and practices
Belief
Esotericism
Faith
Fideism
Gnosis
Hermeticism
Metaphysics
Mysticism
Prayer
Revelation
Worship
Theodicy 35
Related topics
Euthyphro dilemma
God complex
God gene
Theology
Ontology
Philosophy
Problem of evil
Religion
Religious texts
Portrayals of God in popular media
v
t
e [1]
Part of a series on
Philosophy of
religion
Concepts in
religion
Conceptions of
God
Existence of God
Theories of
religion
Religious language
Philosophers of
religion
Related concepts
v
t
e [1]
Theodicy (/idsi/ from Greek theos "god" + dike "justice"), in its most common form, is the attempt to answer
the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Theodicy attempts to resolve the evidential
problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and
omniscience, in either their absolute or relative form, with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.[2] Unlike
a defense, which tries to demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy
provides a framework which claims to make God's existence probable. The term was coined in 1710 by German
philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his work, Thodice, though various responses to the problem of evil had been
Theodicy 36
previously proposed. The British philosopher John Hick traced the history of moral theodicy in his work, Evil and
the God of Love, identifying three major traditions: the Plotinian theodicy, named after Plotinus, the Augustinian
theodicy, which Hick based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo, and the Irenaean theodicy, which Hick
developed, based on the thinking of St Irenaeus. Other philosophers have suggested that theodicy is a modern
discipline because deities in the ancient world were often imperfect.
German philosopher Max Weber saw theodicy as a social problem, based on the human need to explain puzzling
aspects of the world; sociologist Peter L. Berger argued that religion arose out of a need for social order, and
theodicy developed to sustain it. Following the Holocaust, a number of Jewish theologians developed a new response
to the problem of evil, sometimes called anti-theodicy, which maintains that God cannot be meaningfully justified.
As an alternative to theodicy, a defence may be proposed, which is limited to showing the logical possibility of God's
existence. American philosopher Alvin Plantinga presented a version of the free will defence which argued that the
coexistence of God and evil is not logically impossible, and that free will further explains the existence of evil
without threatening the existence of God. Similar to a theodicy, a cosmodicy attempts to justify the fundamental
goodness of the universe, and an anthropodicy attempts to justify the goodness of humanity.
Definition
As defined by Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of why God permits evil."[3] Theodicy is
defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the evidential problem of evil that
militates against the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.[4] The word theodicy derives from the
Greek words theos and dik. Theos is translated God and dik can be translated as either just or right.[5] Thus,
theodicy literally means justifying God.[6]
In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nick Trakakis proposed an additional three requirements which must be
contained within a theodicy:
Common sense views of the world.
Widely held historical and scientific opinion.
Plausible moral principles.
As a response to the problem of evil, a theodicy is distinct from a defence. A defence attempts to demonstrate that
the occurrence of evil does not contradict God's existence, but it does not propose that rational beings are able to
understand why God permits evil. A theodicy seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence
of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists.[7] A theodicy is often based on a
prior natural theology, which attempts to prove the existence of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God's existence
remains probable after the problem of evil is posed by giving a justification for God's permitting evil to happen.[8]
Defences propose solutions to the logical problem of evil, while theodicies attempt to answer the evidential problem.
Reasons for theodicy

German philosopher Max Weber interpreted theodicy as a social problem,[9] and viewed theodicy as a "problem of
meaning". Weber argued that, as human society became increasingly rational, the need to explain why good people
suffered and evil people prospered became more important because religion casts the world as a "meaningful
cosmos". Weber framed the problem of evil as the dilemma that the good can suffer and the evil can prosper, which
became more important as religion became more sophisticated.[10] He identified two purposes of theodicy: to explain
why good people suffer (a theodicy of suffering), and why people prosper (a theodicy of good fortune). A theodicy
of good fortune seeks to justify the good fortune of people in society; Weber believed that those who are successful
are not satisfied unless they can justify why they deserve to be successful.[11] For theodicies of suffering, Weber
argued that three different kinds of theodicy emergedpredestination, dualism, and karmaall of which attempt to
satisfy the human need for meaning, and he believed that the quest for meaning, when considered in light of
Theodicy 37
suffering, becomes the problem of suffering.[12]

Sociologist Peter L. Berger characterised religion as the human attempt to build order out of a chaotic world. He
believed that humans could not accept that anything in the world was meaningless and saw theodicy as an assertion
that the cosmos has meaning and order, despite evidence to the contrary.[13] Berger presented an argument similar to
that of Weber, but suggested that the need for theodicy arose primarily out of the situation of human society. He
believed that theodicies existed to allow individuals to transcend themselves, denying the individual in favour of the
social order.[14]
History
The term theodicy was coined by German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work, written in French, Essais
de Thodice sur la bont de Dieu, la libert de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of
God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil).[15] Leibniz's Thodice was a response to skeptical Protestant
philosopher Pierre Bayle, who wrote in his work Dictionnaire Historique et Critique that, after rejecting three
attempts to solve it, he saw no rational solution to the problem of evil. Bayle argued that, because the Bible asserts
the coexistence of God and evil, this state of affairs must simply be accepted.
French philosopher Voltaire criticised Leibniz's concept of theodicy in his Pome sur le dsastre de Lisbonne (Poem
on the Lisbon disaster), suggesting that the massive destruction of innocent lives caused by the Lisbon earthquake
demonstrated that God was not providing the "best of all possible worlds".[16] Voltaire also includes the
earthquake/theodicy theme in his novel, Candide.[17]
In The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914), Constantine Kempf argued that, following Leibniz's work, philosophers called
their works on the problem of evil "theodicies", and philosophy about God was brought under the discipline of
theodicy. He argued that theodicy began to include all of natural theology, meaning that theodicy came to consist of
the human knowledge of God through the systematic use of reason.
In 1966, British philosopher John Hick published Evil and the God of Love, in which he surveyed various Christian
responses to the problem of evil, before developing his own.[18] In his work, Hick identified and distinguished
between three types of theodicy: Plotinian, which was named after Plotinus, Augustinian, which had dominated
Western Christianity for many centuries, and Irenaean, which was developed by the Eastern Church Father Irenaeus,
a version of which Hick subscribed to himself.[19]
Ancient religions
Dr Philip Irving Mitchell of the Dallas Baptist University notes that some philosophers have cast the pursuit of
theodicy as a modern one, as earlier scholars used the problem of evil to support the existence of one particular god
over another, explain wisdom, or explain a conversion, rather than to justify God's goodness. Professor Sarah Iles
Johnston argues that ancient civilizations, such as the ancient Mesopotamians, Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians held
polytheistic beliefs that may have enabled them to deal with the concept of theodicy differently. These religions
taught the existence of many gods and goddesses who controlled various aspects of daily life. These early religions
may have avoided the question of theodicy by endowing their deities with the same flaws and jealousies that plagued
humanity. No one god or goddess was fundamentally good or evil; this explained that bad things could happen to
good people if they angered a deity because the gods could exercise the same free will that humankind possesses.
Such religions taught that some gods were more inclined to be helpful and benevolent, while others were more likely
to be spiteful and aggressive. In this sense, the evil gods could be blamed for misfortune, while the good gods could
be petitioned with prayer and sacrifices to make things right. There was still a sense of justice in that individuals that
were right with the gods could avoid punishment.[20]
Theodicy 38
Biblical theodicy
Main article: Theodicy and the Bible
The biblical account of the justification of evil and suffering in the presence of God has both similarities and
contrasts in the Hebrew bible and the Greek bible of the New Testament. For the Hebrew bible, the Book of Job is
often quoted as the authoritative source of discussion.[21]
On the question of the absolute or relative form of the issue of theodicy prevailing in biblical theology as such, the
prevailing account is predominantly in the relative form of theodicy in general. The Book of Isaiah in chapter 45
states;
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 [22]
This does not allow the absolute form of omnibenevolence required for the consideration of the absolute form of
theodicy in general.[23] A similar account is found in the New Testament epistles where in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
(King James Version) the distinction between the elect of God and the non-elect is clearly distinguished stating: "In
flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:/
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power."[24] Therein everlasting punishment upon the non-elect does not allow the absolute form of omnibenevolence
required for the absolute form of theodicy when discussed on the basis of the New Testament narratives as well.[25]
Augustinian theodicy
Main article: Augustinian theodicy
The Protestant and Reformed reading of Augustinian theodicy, as promoted primarily by John Hick, is based on the
writings of Augustine of Hippo, a Christian philosopher and theologian who lived from AD 354 to 430. The catholic
(pre-Reformation) formulation of the same issue is substantially different and is outlined below. In Hick's approach,
this form of theodicy argues that evil does not exist except as a privationor corruption ofgoodness, and therefore
God did not create evil.[26] Augustinian scholars have argued that God created the world perfectly, with no evil or
human suffering. Evil entered the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and the theodicy casts the
existence of evil as a just punishment for this original sin.[27] The theodicy argues that humans have an evil nature in
as much as it is deprived of its original goodness, form, order, and measure due to the inherited original sin of Adam
and Eve, but still ultimately remains good due to existence coming from God, for if a nature was completely evil
(deprived of the good), it would cease to exist.[28] It maintains that God remains blameless and good.[29]
In the catholic reading of Augustine, the issue of just war as developed in his book The City of God substantially
established his position concerning the positive justification of killing, suffering and pain as inflicted upon an enemy
when encountered in war for a just cause.[30] Augustine asserted that peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that
could only be stopped by violence would be a sin. Defense of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially
when authorized by a legitimate authority. While not elaborating the conditions necessary for war to be just,
Augustine nonetheless originated the very phrase, itself, in his work The City of God.[31] In essence, the pursuit of
peace must include the option of fighting with all of its eventualities in order to preserve peace in the long-term.[32]
Such a war could not be pre-emptive, but defensive, to restore peace.[33] Thomas Aquinas, centuries later, used the
authority of Augustine's arguments in an attempt to define the conditions under which a war could be just.[34]
Theodicy 39
Irenaean theodicy
Main article: Irenaean theodicy
Irenaeus (died c. 202), born in the early second century, expressed ideas which explained the existence of evil as
necessary for human development. Irenaeus argued that human creation comprised two parts: humans were made
first in the image, then in the likeness, of God. The image of God consists of having the potential to achieve moral
perfection, whereas the likeness of God is the achievement of that perfection. To achieve moral perfection, Irenaeus
suggested that humans must have free will. To achieve such free will, humans must experience suffering and God
must be at an epistemic distance (a distance of knowledge) from humanity. Therefore, evil exists to allow humans to
develop as moral agents.[35] In the twentieth century, John Hick collated the ideas of Irenaeus into a distinct
theodicy. He argued that the world exists as a "vale of soul-making" (a phrase that he drew from John Keats), and
that suffering and evil must therefore occur. He argued that human goodness develops through the experience of evil
and suffering.[36]
Origenian theodicy
In direct response to John Hick's description of theodicy, Mark Scott has indicated that neither Augustine nor
Irenaeus provide an appropriate context for the discussion of Hick's theistic version of theodicy. As a theologian
supporting universal salvation among the discredited Church Fathers, Origen provides a more direct theological
comparison for the discussion of Hick's presentation of universal salvation and theodicy. Neither Irenaeus nor
Augustine endorsed a theology of universal salvation in any form comparable to that of John Hick.[37]
Alternatives
Jewish anti-theodicy
Main article: Holocaust theology
In 1998, Jewish theologian Zachary Braiterman coined the term anti-theodicy in his book (God) After Auschwitz to
describe Jews, both in a biblical and post-Holocaust context, whose response to the problem of evil is protest and
refusal to investigate the relationship between God and suffering. An anti-theodicy acts in opposition to a theodicy
and places full blame for all experience of evil onto God, but must rise from an individual's belief in and love of
God. Anti-theodicy has been likened to Job's protests in the Book of Job.[38] Braiterman wrote that an anti-theodicy
rejects the idea that there is a meaningful relationship between God and evil or that God could be justified for the
experience of evil.[39]
The Holocaust prompted a reconsideration of theodicy in some Jewish circles.[40] French Jewish philosopher
Emmanuel Levinas, who had himself been a prisoner of war in Nazi Germany, declared theodicy to be
"blasphemous", arguing that it is the "source of all immorality", and demanded that the project of theodicy be ended.
Levinas asked whether the idea of absolutism survived after the Holocaust, which he proposed it did. He argued that
humans are not called to justify God in the face of evil, but to attempt to live godly lives; rather than considering
whether God was present during the Holocaust, the duty of humans is to build a world where goodness will
prevail.[41]
Professor of theology David R. Blumenthal, in his book Facing the Abusing God, supports the "theology of protest",
which he saw as presented in the play, The Trial of God. He supports the view that survivors of the Holocaust cannot
forgive God and so must protest about it. Blumenthal believes that a similar theology is presented in the book of Job,
in which Job does not question God's existence or power, but his morality and justice.[42] Other prominent voices in
the Jewish tradition commenting on the justification of God in the presence of the Holocaust have been the Nobel
prize winning author Elie Wiesel and Richard L. Rubinstein in his book The Cunning of History.[43]
Theodicy 40
Christian alternatives to theodicy

A number of Christian writers oppose theodicies. Todd Billings deems constructing theodicies to be a destructive
practice.[44] In the same vein, Nick Trakakis observes that theodical discourse can only add to the worlds evils, not
remove or illuminate them.[45] Wendy Farley also finds the solutions of classical Christian theodicy unhelpful.
She believes that a desire for justice and anger and pity at suffering should replace theodicys cool justifications
of evil.[46] Sarah K. Pinnock opposes abstract theodicies that would legitimize evil and suffering. However, she
endorses theodicy discussions in which people ponder God, evil, and suffering from a practical faith perspective.[47]
Karl Barth viewed the evil of human suffering as ultimately in the control of divine providence.[48] Given this
view, Barth deemed it impossible for humans to devise a theodicy that establishes "the idea of the goodness of
God."[49] For Barth only the crucifixion could establish the goodness of God. In the crucifixion, God bears and
suffers what humanity suffers.[50] This suffering by God Himself makes human theodicies anticlimactic.[51] Barth
found a twofold justification in the crucifixion:[52] the justification of sinful humanity and the justification in
which God justifies Himself.[53]
According to Ben Dupre, Christian Science offers a rational, though widely unacceptable, solution to the problem by
denying that evil ultimately exists.[54] Yet, said rational denial is not a facile dismissal, as evidenced by the entry of
the word 'evil' in more than six pages of citations by Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science.[55] Eddy, and
Mark Twain had some contrasting views on theodicy and suffering, which are well-described by Stephen
Gottschalk.[56] Gottschalk authored an essay "Theodicy after Auschwitz and the Reality of God," Union Seminary
Quarterly Review 1987, nos. 34, pp.7791.
Free will defense

As an alternative to a theodicy, a defence may be offered as a response to the problem of evil. A defence attempts to
show that God's existence is not made logically impossible by the existence of evil; it does not need to be true or
plausible, merely logically possible. American philosopher Alvin Plantinga offers a free will defence which argues
that human free will sufficiently explains the existence of evil while maintaining that God's existence remains
logically possible.[57] He argues that, if God's existence and the existence of evil are to be logically inconsistent, a
premise must be provided which, if true, would make them inconsistent; as none has been provided, the existence of
God and evil must be consistent. Free will furthers this argument by providing a premise which, in conjunction with
the existence of evil, entails that God's existence remains consistent.[58] A common rebuttal to this defence is the
inconsistency between omniscience and free will. If God is omniscient, then humans merely have the illusion of free
will. Since the Bible states that God created humans, it logically follows that God created humans with the
knowledge of every action and decision that they will make. The question of who then is ultimately responsible for
evil points back towards God.
Cosmodicy and anthropodicy

A cosmodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil, and an anthropodicy
attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature in the face of the evils produced by
humans.Wikipedia:Citation needed
Considering the relationship between theodicy and cosmodicy, Johannes van der Ven argued that the choice between
theodicy and cosmodicy is a false dilemma.[59] Philip E. Devenish proposed what he described as "a nuanced view in
which theodicy and cosmodicy are rendered complementary, rather than alternative concepts".[60] Theologian J.
Matthew Ashley described the relationship between theodicy, cosmodicy and anthropodicy:
In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the
presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question
rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes
anthropodicy justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the
Theodicy 41
suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes.[61]
Cosmodicy has been identified as a major theme in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.Wikipedia:Citation needed
References
[1] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:God& action=edit
[2] Mackie, John (1971). "Evil and Omnipotence," in The Philosophy of Religion, ed. Basil Mitchell (London: Oxford University Press), p. 92.
[3] Plantinga, Alvin (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 10.
[4] http:/ / www. thefreedictionary. com/ theodicy and
[5] http:/ / www. blueletterbible. org/ lang/ Lexicon/ lexicon. cfm?strongs=G1349& t=KJV and http:/ / www. blueletterbible. org/ lang/ Lexicon/
Lexicon. cfm?strongs=G2316& t=KJV
[6] Encyclopdia Britannica Online, s. v. "theodicy," accessed October 20, 2013, http:/ / 0-www. britannica. com. librarycatalog. vts. edu/
EBchecked/ topic/ 590596/ theodicy
[7] Bunnin & Tsui-James 2002, p. 481
[8] Geivett 1995, pp. 60-61
[9] Swedberg 2005, pp. 273-274
[10] Scott 2009, p. 2
[11] Swedberg 2005, p. 275
[12] Scott 2009, p. 4
[13] Scott 2009, pp. 5-7
[14] Woodhead 2001, p. 74
[15] Leibniz 1734
[16] Voltaire, Candide and Pome sur le dsastre de Lisbonne
[17] Mason (1992), p. 10
[18] Cheetham 2003, p. 40
[19] Hall 2003, p. 132
[20] Johnston 2004, pp. 531-547
[21] The Old Testament. Modern Library Edition, Introduction, authored by George Steiner.
[22] http:/ / www. biblegateway. com/ passage/ ?search=Isaiah+ 45%3A7& version=KJV
[23] The Old Testament. Modern Library Edition, Introduction, authored by George Steiner, p. v-xvi.
[24] 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (King James Version).
[25] Plantinga, Alvin (1974). God, Freedom and Evil, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp.45-48.
[26] Menn 2002, p. 170
[27] Corey 2000, p. 177-178
[28] Green 2011, p. 779
[29] Geivett 1995, p. 19
[30] A Time For War? (http:/ / www. christianitytoday. com/ ct/ 2001/ septemberweb-only/ 9-17-55. 0. html) Christianity Today (2001-01-09).
Retrieved on 2013-04-28.
[31] Augustine of Hippo (http:/ / www. crusades-encyclopedia. com/ augustineofhippo. html). Crusades-encyclopedia.com. Retrieved on
2013-04-28.
[32] St. Augustine of Hippo (http:/ / www. crusades-encyclopedia. com/ augustineofhippo. html), Crusades-Encyclopedia
[33] Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War (http:/ / www. jknirp. com/ mattox. htm). Jknirp.com (2007-01-23). Retrieved on 2013-04-28.
[34] The Just War (http:/ / www. catholiceducation. org/ articles/ politics/ pg0029. html). Catholiceducation.org. Retrieved on 2013-04-28.
[35] Davis 2001, pp. 40-42
[36] Stump 1999, pp. 222-227
[37] Scott, Mark (2012). Origen and the Problem of Evil, Oxford University Press.
[38] Marty & Taliaferro 2010, p. 17
[39] Gibbs & Wolfson 2002, p. 38
[40] Pinnock 2002, p. 8
[41] Patterson & Roth 2005, pp. 189-190
[42] Blumenthal 1993, pp. 250-251
[43] Rubinstein, Richard L. The Cunning of History.
[44] Todd Billings, "Theodicy as a 'Lived Question': Moving Beyond a Theoretical Approach to Theodicy," http:/ / www. luthersem. edu/ ctrf/
JCTR/ Vol05/ billings. htm Accessed September 25, 2013. About the author: http:/ / www. westernsem. edu/ about/ faculty-staff/ .
[45] Nick Trakakis, Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil, or Part of the Problem?, Springerlink.com (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/
content/ 72023480656648g2/ ), accessed December 19, 2009.
[46] Wendy Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: a Contemporary Theodicy (Westminster John Knox Press, 1990) 12, 23.
[47] Sarah Katherine Pinnock, Beyond Theodicy (SUNY Press, 2002), 135, 141.
Theodicy 42
[48] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (T & T Clark, 1957), IV-1, 246.
[49] Barth, Church Dogmatics, III-1, 368.
[50] Barth, Church Dogmatics, II-2, 165.
[51] Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV-1, 246.
[52] Barth, Church Dogmatics, II-2, 223.
[53] Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV-1, 564.
[54] Ben Dupre, "The Problem of Evil," 50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know, London, Quercus, 2007, p. 166: "Denying that there is
ultimately any such thing as evil, as advocated by Christian Scientists, solves the problem at a stroke, but such a remedy is too hard for most to
swallow."
[55] "A Complete Concordance to the Works of Mary Baker Eddy" (Trustees under the will of Mary Baker Eddy, Boston MA) 163-66, 314-19.
[56] "Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy's Challenge to Materialism" (Indiana University Press, 2006) 83, 123, etc.
[57] McGrath 1995, p. 193
[58] Plantinga & Sennett 1998, pp. 22-24
[59] van der Ven 1989, p. 205
[60] Devenish 1992, pp. 5-23
[61] Ashley 2010, pp. 870902
Bibliography
Adams, Marilyn McCord (1999). Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Cornell University Press.
ISBN978-0-80148-686-9.
Ashley, J. Matthew (2010). "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative
imagination". Theological Studies 71 (4).
Blumenthal, David R. (1993). Facing the Abusing God: A Theology of Protest. Westminster John Knox Press.
ISBN978-0-66425-464-3.
Bunnin, Nicholas; Tsui James, E. P. (2002). The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN9780631219088.
Cheetham, David (2003). John Hick: a critical introduction and reflection. Ashgate Publishing.
ISBN978-0-7546-1599-6.
Davis, Stephen T. (2001). Encountering evil: live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press.
ISBN978-0-664-22251-2.
Devenish, Philip E. (1992). "Theodicy and Cosmodicy: The Contribution of Neoclassical Theism". Journal of
Empirical Theology 4.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2008). God's Problem:How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We
Suffer. HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN978-0-06-117397-4.
Geiviett, R. Douglas (1995). Evil & the Evidence For God: The Challenge of John Hick's Theodicy. Temple
University Press. ISBN978-1-56639-397-3.
Gibbs, Robert; Wolfson, Elliot (2002). Suffering religion. Psychology Press. ISBN978-0-415-26612-3.
Hall, Lindsey (2003). Swinburne's hell and Hick's universalism: are we free to reject God?. Ashgate Publishing.
ISBN978-0-7546-3400-3.
Johnston, Sarah Iles (2004). Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Harvard University Press.
ISBN978-0-674-01517-3.
Leibniz, Gottfried (1734). Theodicy.
Marty, Charles; Taliaferro (2010). Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion. Continuum International Publishing
Group. ISBN978-1-4411-1197-5.
McGrath, Alister (1995). The Blackwell encyclopedia of modern Christian thought. Wiley-Blackwell.
ISBN978-0-631-19896-3.
Patterson, David; Roth, John (2005). Fire in the ashes: God, evil, and the Holocaust. University of Washington
Press. ISBN978-0-295-98547-3.
Pinnock, Sarah Katherine (2002). Beyond theodicy: Jewish and Christian continental thinkers respond to the
Holocaust. SUNY Press. ISBN978-0-7914-5523-4.
Theodicy 43
Plantinga, Alvin; Sennett, James (1998). The analytic theist: an Alvin Plantinga reader. Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing. ISBN978-0-8028-4229-9.
Scott, Mark S. M. (2009). "Theorising Theodicy in the Study of Religion" (http://divinity.uchicago.edu/
martycenter/publications/webforum/112009/Theorizing Theodicy .pdf). University of Chicago Divinity
School.
Sharma, Arvind (2006). A primal perspective on the philosophy of religion. Springer. ISBN978-1-4020-5013-8.
Stump, Eleonore (1999). Philosophy of religion: the big questions. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN978-0-631-20604-0.
Svendsen, Lars Fr. H.; Pierce, Kerri A. (2010). A philosophy of evil. Dalkey Archive Press. ISBN1-56478-571-8.
Swedberg, Richard (2005). The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts. Stanford University
Press. ISBN978-0-80475-095-0.
van der Ven, Johannes A. (1989). "Theodicy or cosmodicy: a false dilemma?". Journal of Empirical Theology 2
(1).
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?Jonathan Edwardss Theodicy" (https://www.academia.
edu/5972518/_Is_God_the_Author_of_Sin_-Jonathan_Edwardss_Theodicy_Puritan_Reformed_Journal_6_no.
1_2014_98-123). Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98123.
Woodhead, Linda (2001). Peter Berger and the Study of Religion. Routledge. ISBN978-0-41521-532-9.
External links
Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality" (http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/rel.m.html), Mind, 1963.
Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality: a Reply to Flew and Campbell" (http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/
reply.html), Mind, 1964.
Brown, Paterson. "God and the Good" (http://www.metalog.org/files/tpb/god.g.html), Religious Studies,
1967.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Theodicy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
The Polkinghorne Reader (http://templetonpress.org/content/polkinghorne-reader-0): Science, Faith, and the
Search for Meaning (Edited by Thomas Jay Oord) (SPCK and Templeton Foundation Press, 2010) ISBN
1-59947-315-1 and ISBN 978-0-281-06053-5.
Why Does God Allow It? (http://www.christians.eu/why-does-god-allow-it/) Article discussing men's
responsibility on the one hand and his powerlessness regarding natural disasters on the other hand.
Transcendental law of homogeneity 44
Transcendental law of homogeneity

The Transcendental Law of Homogeneity (TLH) is a heuristic principle enunciated by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
most clearly in a 1710 text entitled Symbolismus memorabilis calculi algebraici et infinitesimalis in comparatione
potentiarum et differentiarum, et de lege homogeneorum transcendentali (see Leibniz Mathematische Schriften,
(1863), edited by C. I. Gerhardt, volume V, pages 377-382). Henk J. M. Bos describes it as the principle to the effect
that in a sum involving infinitesimals of different orders, only the lowest-order term must be retained, and the
remainder discarded. Thus, if is finite and is infinitesimal, then one sets
.
Similarly,
where the higher-order term du dv is discarded in accordance with the TLH. A recent study argues that Leibniz's
TLH was a precursor of the standard part function over the hyperreals.
References
Vis viva
In the history of science, vis viva (from the Latin for living force) is an obsolete scientific theory that served as an
elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy. It was the first [known]
description of what we now call kinetic energy or of energy related to sensible motions.
Proposed by Gottfried Leibniz over the period 16761689, the theory was controversial as it seemed to oppose the
theory of conservation of momentum advocated by Sir Isaac Newton and Ren Descartes. The two theories are now
understood to be complementary.
The theory was eventually absorbed into the modern theory of energy though the term still survives in the context of
celestial mechanics through the vis viva equation.
History
Although ancient philosophers as far back as Thales of Miletus had inklings of the law of conservation of
energyWikipedia:Citation needed, it was the German Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz during 16761689 who first
attempted a mathematical formulation. Leibniz noticed that in many mechanical systems (of several masses, mi each
with velocity vi) the quantity:
was conserved. He called this quantity the vis viva or living force of the system. The principle, it is now realised,
represents an accurate statement of the conservation of kinetic energy in elastic collisions, and is independent of the
conservation of momentum. However, many physicists at the time were unaware of this fact and, instead, were
influenced by the prestige of Sir Isaac Newton in England and of Ren Descartes in France, both of whom had set
great store by the conservation of momentum as a guiding principle. Thus the momentum:
was held by the rival camp to be the conserved vis viva. It was largely engineers such as John Smeaton, Peter Ewart,
Karl Holtzmann, Gustave-Adolphe Hirn and Marc Sguin who objected that conservation of momentum alone was
Vis viva 45
not adequate for practical calculation and who made use of Leibniz's principle. The principle was also championed
by some chemists such as William Hyde Wollaston.
The French mathematician milie du Chtelet, who had a sound grasp of Newtonian mechanics, developed Leibniz's
concept and, combining it with the observations of Willem 's Gravesande, showed that vis viva was dependent on the
square of the velocities.
Members of the academic establishment such as John Playfair were quick to point out that kinetic energy is clearly
not conserved. This is obvious to a modern analysis based on the second law of thermodynamics but in the 18th and
19th centuries, the fate of the lost energy was still unknown. Gradually it came to be suspected that the heat
inevitably generated by motion was another form of vis viva. In 1783, Antoine Lavoisier and Pierre-Simon Laplace
reviewed the two competing theories of vis viva and caloric theory.[1] Count Rumford's 1798 observations of heat
generation during the boring of cannons added more weight to the view that mechanical motion could be converted
into heat. Vis viva now started to be known as energy, after the term was first used in that sense by Thomas Young in
1807.
The recalibration of vis viva to include the coefficient of a half,
namely:
An excerpt from D.Bernoulli's article, published

in 1741, with the definition of vis viva with 1/2
was largely the result of the work of Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis and multiplier.
Jean-Victor Poncelet over the period 18191839, although present-day

definition can occasionally be found earlier (e.g., in Daniel Bernoulli texts).
The former called the quantit de travail (quantity of work) and the latter, travail mcanique (mechanical work) and
both championed its use in engineering calculation.
References
[1] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Vis_viva#endnote_LL
George E. Smith, "The Vis Viva Dispute: A Controversy at the Dawn of Dynamics" (http://ptonline.aip.org/
getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000059000010000031000001&idtype=cvips),
Physics Today 59 (October 2006) Issue 10 pp 3136. (http://ptonline.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/
GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000059000010000031000001&idtype=cvips) (see also erratum
(http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-12/p16.html))
Characteristica universalis
"Universal characteristic" redirects here. For the concept of the "three universal characteristics" in Buddhism, see
Three marks of existence.
The Latin term characteristica universalis, commonly interpreted as universal characteristic, or universal character
in English, is a universal and formal language imagined by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz able to express
mathematical, scientific, and metaphysical concepts. Leibniz thus hoped to create a language usable within the
framework of a universal logical calculation or calculus ratiocinator.
The characteristica universalis is a recurring concept in the writings of Gottfried Leibniz. When writing in French,
he sometimes employed the phrase spcieuse gnrale to the same effect. The concept is sometimes paired with his
notion of a calculus ratiocinator and with his plans for an encyclopaedia as a compendium of all human knowledge.
A universal pictographic language: the key to all the sciences
International communication
Many Leibniz scholars writing in English seem to agree that he intended his characteristica universalis or "universal
character" to be a form of pasigraphy, or ideographic language. This was to be based on a rationalised version of the
'principles' of Chinese characters, as Europeans understood these characters in the seventeenth century. From this
perspective it is common to find the characteristica universalis associated with contemporary universal language
projects like Esperanto, auxiliary languages like Interlingua, and formal logic projects like Frege's Begriffsschrift.
The global expansion of European commerce in Leibniz's time provided mercantilist motivations for a universal
language of trade so that traders could communicate with any natural language.
Others, such as Jaenecke, for example, have observed that Leibniz also had other intentions for the characteristica
universalis, and these aspects appear to be a source of the aforementioned vagueness and inconsistency in modern
interpretations. According to Jaenecke,
the Leibniz project is not a matter of logic but rather one of knowledge representation, a field largely
unexploited in today's logic-oriented epistemology and philosophy of science. It is precisely this
one-sided orientation of these disciplines, which is responsible for the distorted picture of Leibniz's work
found in the literature.[1]
As Couturat wrote, Leibniz criticized the linguistic systems of George Dalgarno and John Wilkins for this reason
since they focused on
...practical uses rather than scientific utility, that is, for being chiefly artificial languages intended for
international communication and not philosophical languages that would express the logical relations of
concepts. He favors, and opposes to them, the true "real characteristic," which would express the
composition of concepts by the combination of signs representing their simple elements, such that the
correspondence between composite ideas and their symbols would be natural and no longer
conventional.[2]
A universal language of science

Leibniz said that his goal was an alphabet of human thought, a universal symbolic language (characteristic) for
science, mathematics and metaphysics. According to Couturat, "In May 1676, he once again identified the universal
language with the characteristic and dreamed of a language that would also be a calculusa sort of algebra of
thought." (1901, chp 3.). This characteristic was a universalisation of the various "real characteristics". Couturat
wrote that Leibniz gave Egyptian and Chinese hieroglyphics and chemical signs as examples of real characteristics
writing:
This shows that the real characteristic was for him an ideography, that is, a system of signs that directly
represent things (or, rather, ideas) and not words, in such a way that each nation could read them and
translate them into its own language.[3]
In a footnote Couturat added:
Elsewhere Leibniz even includes among the types of signs musical notes and astronomical signs (the
signs of the zodiac and those of the planets, including the sun and the moon). It should be noted that
Leibniz sometimes employs planetary signs in place of letters in his algebraic calculations.[4]
Metaphysics
Hartley Rogers emphasised the metaphysical aspect of the characteristica universalis by relating it to the
"elementary theory of the ordering of the reals," defining it as "a precisely definable system for making statements of
science" (Rogers 1963: 934). Universal language projects like Esperanto, and formal logic projects like Frege's
Begriffsschrift are not commonly concerned with the epistemic synthesis of empirical science, mathematics,
pictographs and metaphysics in the way Leibniz described. Hence scholars have had difficulty in showing how
projects such as the Begriffsschrift and Esperanto embody the full vision Leibniz had for his characteristica.
The writings of Alexander Gode suggested that Leibniz' characteristica had a metaphysical bias which prevented it
from reflecting reality faithfully. Gode emphasized that Leibniz established certain goals or functions first, and then
developed the characteristica to fulfill those functions.
Science
In the domain of science, Leibniz aimed for his characteristica to form diagrams or pictures, depicting any system at
any scale, and understood by all regardless of native language. Leibniz wrote:
And although learned men have long since thought of some kind of language or universal characteristic
by which all concepts and things can be put into beautiful order, and with whose help different nations
might communicate their thoughts and each read in his own language what another has written in his,
yet no one has attempted a language or characteristic which includes at once both the arts of discovery
and judgement, that is, one whose signs and characters serve the same purpose that arithmetical signs
serve for numbers, and algebraic signs for quantities taken abstractly. Yet it does seem that since God
has bestowed these two sciences on mankind, he has sought to notify us that a far greater secret lies
hidden in our understanding, of which these are but the shadows.[5]
P. P. Weiner raised an example of a large scale application of Leibniz's characteristica to climatic science. A
weather-forecaster invented by Athanasius Kirchner, "interested Leibniz in connection with his own attempts to
invent a universal language" (1940).
Leibniz talked about his dream of a universal scientific language at the very dawn of his career, as follows:
We have spoken of the art of complication of the sciences, i.e., of inventive logic... But when the tables
of categories of our art of complication have been formed, something greater will emerge. For let the
first terms, of the combination of which all others consist, be designated by signs; these signs will be a
kind of alphabet. It will be convenient for the signs to be as natural as possiblee.g., for one, a point;
for numbers, points; for the relations of one entity with another, lines; for the variation of angles and of
extremities in lines, kinds of relations. If these are correctly and ingeniously established, this universal
writing will be as easy as it is common,and will be capable of being read without any dictionary; at the
same time, a fundamental knowledge of all things will be obtained. The whole of such a writing will be
made of geometrical figures, as it were, and of a kind of pictures just as the ancient Egyptians did,
and the Chinese do today. Their pictures, however, are not reduced to a fixed alphabet... with the result
that a tremendous strain on the memory is necessary, which is the contrary of what we propose.[6]
Rescher, reviewing Cohen's 1954 article, wrote that:

Leibniz's program of a universal science (scientia universalis) for coordinating all human knowledge
into a systematic whole comprises two parts: (1) a universal notation (characteristica universalis) by use
of which any item of information whatever can be recorded in a natural and systematic way, and (2) a
means of manipulating the knowledge thus recorded in a computational fashion, so as to reveal its
logical interrelations and consequences (the calculus ratiocinator).[7]
Near the end of his life, Leibniz wrote that combining metaphysics with mathematics and science through a universal
character would require creating what he called:
"... a kind of general algebra in which all truths of reason would be reduced to a kind of calculus. At the
same time, this would be a kind of universal language or writing, though infinitely different from all
such languages which have thus far been proposed; for the characters and the words themselves would
direct the mind, and the errors excepting those of fact would only be calculation mistakes. It
would be very difficult to form or invent this language or characteristic, but very easy to learn it without
any dictionaries.[8]
The universal "representation" of knowledge would therefore combine lines and points with "a kind of pictures"
(pictographs or logograms) to be manipulated by means of his calculus ratiocinator. He hoped his pictorial algebra
would advance the scientific treatment of qualitative phenomena, thereby constituting "that science in which are
treated the forms or formulas of things in general, that is, quality in general".[9]
His diagrammatic reasoning

Since the characteristica universalis is
diagrammatic and employs pictograms (below
left), the diagrams in Leibniz's work warrant close
study. On at least two occasions, Leibniz
illustrated his philosophical reasoning with
diagrams. One diagram, the frontispiece to his
1666 De Arte Combinatoria (On the Art of
Combinations), represents the Aristotelian theory
of how all material things are formed from
combinations of the elements earth, water, air, and
fire.
Leibniz's diagrammatic reasoning.
These four elements make up the four corners of a

diamond (see picture to right). Opposing pairs of
these are joined by a bar labeled "contraries"
(earth-air, fire-water). At the four corners of the
Basic elements of Leibniz's pictograms. superimposed square are the four qualities defining
the elements. Each adjacent pair of these is joined by a bar labeled "possible combination"; the diagonals joining
them are labeled "impossible combination". Starting from the top, fire is formed from the combination of dryness
and heat; air from wetness and heat; water from coldness and wetness; earth from coldness and dryness. This
diagram is reproduced in several texts including Saemtliche Schriften und Briefe.[10]
Leibniz loses will

Leibniz rightly saw that creating the characteristica would be difficult, fixing the time required for devising it as
follows: "I think that some selected men could finish the matter in five years",[11][12] later remarking: "And so I
repeat, what I have often said, that a man who is neither a prophet nor a prince can ever undertake any thing of
greater good to mankind of more fitting for divine glory".[13] But later in life, a more sober note emerged. In a March
1706 letter to the Electress Sophia of Hanover, the spouse of his patron, he wrote:
It is true that in the past I planned a new way of calculating suitable for matters which have nothing in
common with mathematics, and if this kind of logic were put into practice, every reasoning, even
probabilistic ones, would be like that of the mathematician: if need be, the lesser minds which had
application and good will could, if not accompany the greatest minds, then at least follow them. For one
could always say: let us calculate, and judge correctly through this, as much as the data and reason can
provide us with the means for it. But I do not know if I will ever be in a position to carry out such a
project, which requires more than one hand; and it even seems that mankind is still not mature enough to
lay claim to the advantages which this method could provide.[14]
In another 1714 letter to Nicholas Remond, he wrote:
I have spoken to the Marquis de l'Hpital and others about my general algebra, but they have paid no
more attention to it than if I had told them about a dream of mine. I should have to support it too by
some obvious application, but to achieve this it would be necessary to work out at least a part of my
characteristic, a task which is not easy, especially in my present condition and without the advantage of
discussions with men who could stimulate and help me in work of this nature.[15]
Three criteria
C. J. Cohen (1954) set out three criteria which any project for a philosophical language would need to meet before it
could be considered a version of the characteristica universalis. In setting out these criteria, Cohen made reference
to the concept of "logistic". This concept is not the same as that used in statistical analysis. In 1918, Clarence Irving
Lewis, the first English-speaking logician to translate and discuss some of Leibniz's logical writings, elaborated on
"logistic" as follows:
Logistic may be defined as the science which deals with types of order as such. It is not so much a subject as a
method. Although most logistic is either founded upon or makes large use of the principles of symbolic logic,
still as science of order in general does not necessarily presuppose or begin with symbolic logic.
[16]
Following from this Cohen stipulated that the universal character would have to serve as a:
"International auxiliary language" enabling persons speaking different languages to communicate with one
another;
Symbolism for the exact and systematic expression of all present knowledge, making possible a "logistic"
treatment of science in general. This symbolism could also be expanded to accommodate future knowledge;
Instrument of discovery and demonstration.
These criteria together with the notion of logistic reveal that Cohen and Lewis both associated the characteristica
with the methods and objectives of General systems theory.
A common scientific language

Inconsistency, vagueness, and a lack of specifics in both English language translations and modern English language
interpretations of Leibniz's writings render a clear exposition difficult. As with Leibniz's calculus ratiocinator two
different schools of philosophical thought have come to emphasise two different aspects that can be found in
Leibniz's writing. The first point of view emphasizes logic and language, and is associated with analytic philosophy
and rationalism. The second point of view is more in tune with Couturat's views as expressed above, which
emphasize science and engineering. This point of view is associated with synthetic philosophy and empiricism.
Either or both of these aspects Leibniz hoped would guide human reasoning like Ariadne's thread and thereby
suggest solutions to many of humanity's urgent problems.
Gdel alleges conspiracy

Because Leibniz never described the characteristica universalis in operational detail, many philosophers have
deemed it an absurd fantasy. In this vein, Parkinson wrote:
Leibniz's views about the systematic character of all knowledge are linked with his plans for a universal
symbolism, a Characteristica Universalis. This was to be a calculus which would cover all thought, and
replace controversy by calculation. The ideal now seems absurdly optimistic..."[17]
The logician Kurt Gdel, on the other hand, believed that the characteristica universalis was feasible, and that its
development would revolutionize mathematical practice.[18] He noticed, however, that a detailed treatment of the
characteristica was conspicuously absent from Leibniz's publications. It appears that Gdel assembled all of
Leibniz's texts mentioning the characteristica, and convinced himself that some sort of systematic and conspiratorial
censoring had taken place, a belief that became obsessional. Gdel may have failed to appreciate the magnitude of
the task facing the editors of Leibniz's manuscripts, given that Leibniz left about 15000 letters and 40000 pages of
other manuscripts. Even now, most of this huge Nachlass remains unpublished.
Related 17th century projects

Others in the 17th century, such as George Dalgarno, attempted similar philosophical and linguistic projects, some
under the heading of mathesis universalis. A notable example was John Wilkins, the author of An Essay towards a
Real Character and a Philosophical Language, who wrote a thesaurus as a first step towards a universal language.
He intended to add to his thesaurus an alphabet of human thought (an organisational scheme, similar to a thesaurus
or the Dewey decimal system), and an "algebra of thought," allowing rule-based manipulation. The philosophers and
linguists who undertook such projects often belonged to pansophical (universal knowledge) and scientific knowledge
groups in London and Oxford, collectively known as the "Invisible College" and now seen as forerunners of the
Royal Society.
More recent projects

A wide variety of constructed languages have emerged over the past 150 years which appear to support many of
Leibniz's intuitions. If indeed they do support Leibniz's vision of unified science, then the remaining question is
whether Ariadne's unifying thread can be discerned among these various projects, leading to their integration.
Raymond F. Piper (1957; 432433) claimed that O.L. Reiser's Unified Symbolism for World Understanding in
Science (1955), an expansion of his A Philosophy for World Unification (1946), was inspired by Leibniz's
Characteristica Universalis, and believed necessary for world understanding and unbiased communications so
that "war may eventually be eliminated and that a worldwide organism of peaceful human beings may gradually
be established" (Piper Ibid.).
The study of Boolean algebras and group theory in the 19th century proved correct Leibniz's intuition that
algebraic methods could be used to reason about qualitative and non-numerical phenomena. Specifically, the
members of the universal set of a Boolean algebra or group need not be numbers. Moreover, a fair bit of
philosophy and theoretical science can be formalized as axiomatic theories embodying first-order logic and set
theory. Note also how model theory has been employed to formalize and reason about such emphatically
nonnumerical subjects as semantics and pragmatics of natural languages. But these approaches have yet to result
in any pictographic notations.
Fearnley-Sander (1986) went one step further, defining Leibniz's characteristica as a combination of the algebra
of logic (which Fearnley-Sander defined as the calculus ratiocinator) and the algebra of geometry (defined as the
characteristica geometrica). Fearnley-Sander suggested that this combination had "come to pass" with the rise of
universal algebra. Some people other than Fearnley-Sander working in the area of "universal algebra," the study
of the mathematical and logical properties of algebraic structures generally, do not believe that universal algebra
has anything to do with the characteristica.
Palko, Gy Bulcsu (1986) considered structured analysis for analyzing and designing hierarchic systems by using
an iconic language, and suggested that such was an application of the universal characteristics Leibniz's project to
the language of structured analysis and the formalization of an iconic control system.
Kluge (1980) argued that Frege's landmark Begriffsschrift was consciously inspired by the characteristica
universalis.
Even though Charles Sanders Peirce, a founder of semiotics, believed that all reasoning was diagrammatic, the
relation, if any, of the characteristica to his existential graphs and to semiotics has yet to be explored in the
English literature.
Several aspects of logical positivism, specifically:
The first-order theories of Rudolf Carnap's Aufbau (1928, English translation 1967) and of its successor,
Goodman (1977), are Leibnizian in their sweep and ambition, although Leibniz would have taken strenuous
exception to Carnap's resolute hostility to all metaphysics.
The unification of science movement of the 1930s, led by Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, and Charles W.
Morris, and later by Edward Haskell et al., bears comparison with the characteristica.
Otto Neurath's isotype pictogram system, and "international picture language." [19]
The following attempts to recast parts of theoretical science as axiomatic first-order theories can be viewed as
attempts to develop parts of the characteristica:
Special relativity, by Hans Reichenbach, Rudolf Carnap, and others during the 1920s (Carnap 1958: 197212);
Biology, by Joseph Woodger (1937), also during the 1930s (Carnap 1958: 21320):
Mechanics, by Suppes (1957: 291305) and others during the 1950s.
The objectives of the 'Symbolator' or 'idea-computer' (Goppold 1994) resemble in some respects a less ambitious
version of the characteristica universalis.
Connections with the Jewish Cabbala, and the International auxiliary language policy of the Bah' Faith have
also been made.
The characteristic has also been claimed as an ancestor of the pictographic Energy Systems Language and
associated Emergy Synthesis of Odum's Systems Ecology (Cevolatti and Maud, 2004). The Energy Systems
Language combines lines and points with "a kind of pictures" manipulated by means of digital computers and
software packages like EXTEND(tm) (Odum, Odum, and Peterson 1995), and Valyi's Emergy Simulator [20]. It
was designed to provide a general systems language affording quantitative accounting and mathematical
simulation of qualitative energy relationships between ecological entities: "that science in which are treated the
forms or formulas of things in general, that is, quality in general". A general algebra known as the emergy algebra
emerged from the repeated use of this language in modelling and simulating the energetic principles of ecological
relations. In particular it afforded the discovery and demonstration of the maximum power principle, suggested as
the fourth law of thermodynamics. If this ancestral claim is granted, then simulation software like EXTEND(tm)
and Valyi's Emergy Simulator can be seen as combining the characteristica and the Calculus ratiocinator, if and
only if the digital computer is interpreted as a physical embodiment of the calculus ratiocinator.
The work of Mario Bunge on the border of physics and metaphysics seems grounded in metaphysical
presuppositions similar to those of Leibniz's characterisitica.
Lojban (and its older version Loglan) are both artificial languages derived from predicate logic, and intended for
use in human communication.
Charles K. Bliss's Blissymbolics, presently used as an 'alternative and augmentative language' for disabled people
but originally intended as an International 'Auxlang', is said to be in the mold of the Characteristica.[21]
Citations
[1] Jaenecke 1996
[2] Couturat, 1901. chp 3
[3] Couturat, 1901, chpt. 3
[4] Couturat, 1901, chpt. 3
[5] Leibniz, Zur allgemeinen Charakteristik. Hauptschriften zur Grundlegung der Philosophie. Philosophische Werke Band 1. page 30-31.
Translated by Artur Buchenau. Reviewed and with introduction and notes published by Ernst Cassirer. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. 1966. (Unless
stated otherwise, all Leibniz quotations are from his On the General Characteristic as translated in Loemker 1969: 22125. This passage is
from p. 222.)
[6] On The Art of Combination, 1666, translated in Parkinson 1966: 1011
[7] Rescher 1954
[8] Leibniz, letter to Nicolas Remond, 10 January 1714, in Loemker 1969: 654. Translation revised.
[9] On Universal Synthesis and Analysis, 1679, in Loemker 1969: 233
[10] Saemtliche Schriften und Briefe, Reihe VI, Band 1: 166, Loemker 1969: 83, 366, Karl Popp and Erwin Stein 2000: 33.
[11] Loemker 1969: 224
[12] Leibniz, Zur allgemeinen Charakteristik. Hauptschriften zur Grundlegung der Philosophie. Philosophische Werke Band 1. page 35.
Translated by Artur Buchenau. Reviewed and with introduction and notes published by Ernst Cassirer. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. 1966.
[13] Loemker 1969: 225
[14] Lloyd Strickland's Leibniz and the two Sophies : the philosophical correspondence, 2011, page 355
[15] Loemker 1969: 656
[16] Lewis 1960: 3. Also see pp. 79
[17] Parkinson 1973: ix
[18] Dawson 1997
[19] http:/ / www. fulltable. com/ iso/ is03. htm
[20] http:/ / emsim. sourceforge. net/
[21] See Bliss, Charles K. 1978. Semantography: Blissymbolics. 3rd enlarged edition. Sydney: Semantography-Blissymbolics Publications.
ISBN 0-9595870-0-4 (Blissymbolics Communication International.)
References
On Leibniz's lifelong interest in the characteristica and the like, see the following texts in Loemker (1969): 16566,
19295, 22128, 24850, and 65466. On the characteristica, see Rutherford (1995) and the still-classic discussion
in Couturat (1901: chpts. 3,4). Also relevant to the characteristica is Mates's (1986: 18388) discussion of what he
called the lingua philosophica.
Brown, M. T., 2004, "A picture is worth a thousand words: energy systems language and simulation," Ecological
Modelling 178: 83100.
Bulcsu P. G., 1986, "Formalization of the Iconic Language for Structured Analysis and Symbolic Logic," [A
STRUKTURALT ANALIZIS (SA) IKONIKUS NYELVENEK FORMALIZALASA ES A SZIMBOLIKUS
LOGIKA.] Meres es Automatika 34: 31522.
Rudolf Carnap, 1958. Introduction to Symbolic Logic with Applications. Dover.
, 1967. The Logical Structure of the World: Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. University of California Press.
Translation of his 1928 Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Leipzig: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Cevolatti, D., and Maud, S., 2004, "Realising the Enlightenment: H. T. Odum's Energy Systems Language qua G.
W. v. Leibniz's Characteristica Universalis", Ecological Modelling 178: 27992.
Cohen, C. Jonathan., 1954, "On the project of a universal character," Mind (New Series) 63: 249.
Louis Couturat, 1901. La Logique de Leibniz. Paris: Felix Alcan. Donald Rutherford's English translation in
progress. (http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rutherford/Leibniz/intro.htm)
Louis Couturat, O. Jespersen, R. Lorenz, Wilhelm Ostwald and L.Pfaundler 1910, International Language and
Science: Considerations on the Introduction of an International Language into Science", Constable and Company
Limited, London.
Dascal, M., 1987. Leibniz: Language, Signs and Thought, A Collection of Essays. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Martin Davis, 2001. Engines of Logic: Mathematicians and the Origin of the Computer. W W Norton.
Dawson, J. W. Jr., 1997. Logical Dilemmas: The Life and Work of Kurt Gdel. Wellesley MA: A. K. Peters.
Fearnley-Sander, Desmond, 1982, "Hermann Grassmann and the Prehistory of Universal Algebra," The American
Mathematical Monthly 89: 16166.
Gode, Alexander, 1951, Interlingua-English: A Dictionary of the International language. New York: Storm
Publishers.
Nelson Goodman, 1977 (1951). The Structure of Appearance. Reidel.
Jaakko Hintikka, 1997. Lingua Universalis vs. Calculus Ratiocinator. An ultimate presupposition of
Twentieth-century philosophy. Kluwer.
Jaenecke, P., 1996, "Elementary principles for representing knowledge," Knowledge Organization 23: 88102.
Kluge, E. H. W., 1980, "Frege, Leibniz and the notion of an ideal language," Studia Leibnitiana 12: 14054.
Clarence Irving Lewis, 1960 (1918). A Survey of Symbolic Logic. Dover.
Loemker, Leroy, ed. and trans., 1969. Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Synthese Historical Library.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Mates, Benson, 1986. The Philosophy of Leibniz. Oxford Univ. Press.
Odum, E.C., Odum, H.T. and Peterson, N.S., 1995, "Using Simulation to Introduce the Systems Approach in
Education" in Hall, C.S., ed., Maximum Power: The Ideas and Applications of H. T. Odum. Colorado Univ. Press:
34652.
Parkinson, G. H. R., ed. and trans., 1966. Leibniz: Logical Papers. Oxford Univ. Press.
, and Mary Morris, trans., 1973. Leibniz: Philosophical Writings. London: J M Dent.
Piper, R. F. 1957, "Review of 'Unified Symbolism for World Understanding in Science' by Oliver L. Reiser,"
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 17: 43233.
Reiser, Oliver Leslie 1946. A philosophy for world unification;: Scientific humanismas an ideology for cultural
integration, Haldeman-Julius Publications.
, 1940. The Promise of Scientific Humanism Toward a Unification of Scientific, Religious, Social and
Economic Thought, Oskar Piest.
, 1955. Unified symbolism for world understanding in science: Including Bliss symbols (semantography) and
logic, cybernetics and semantics, Semantography Pub. Co.
Nicholas Rescher, 1954, "Review of On the Project of a Universal Character by Jonathan Cohen," Journal of
Symbolic Logic 19: 133.
Hartley Rogers, Jr., 1963, "An Example in Mathematical Logic," The American Mathematical Monthly 70:
92945.
Rutherford, Donald, 1995, "Philosophy and language" in Jolley, N., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz.
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Patrick Suppes, 1999 (1957). Introduction to Logic. Dover.
Jean van Heijenoort, 1967, "Logic as calculus and logic as language," Synthese 17: 324330. Reprinted in
Hintikka (1997).
Wiener, Philip P., 1940, "Leibniz's Project of a Public Exhibition of Scientific Inventions," Journal of the History
of Ideas 1: 232240.
Woodger, Joseph H., 1937, The axiomatic method in biology, Cambridge University Press.
Yen, D.C., Huang, S.-M., Ku, C.-Y. 2002, The impact and implementation of XML on business-to-business
commerce, Computer Standards and Interfaces 24: 34762.
External links
Corazzon, Raul, 2010, " Language as Calculus vs. Language as Universal Medium (http://www.ontology.co/
two-views-language.htm)". Includes bibliography, links to online papers, and passages from the writings of
Jaakko Hintikka and Jean Van Heijenoort.
Rotha, Paul, 1946, " From Hieroglyphs to Isotypes (http://www.fulltable.com/iso/is03.htm)".
Smith, Barry, 1978, " An Essay in Formal Ontology, (http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/EinFO.
pdf)PDF(936KiB)" Grazer Philosophische Studien 6: 3962.
, 1990, " Characteristica Universalis (http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//articles/charuniv.
pdf)PDF(207KiB)" in K. Mulligan, ed., Language, Truth and Ontology, (Philosophical Studies Series). Kluwer:
5081.
Leibniz wheel
A Leibniz wheel or stepped drum was a cylinder with a set of teeth of
incremental lengths which, when coupled to a counting wheel, was
used in the calculating engine of a class of mechanical calculators.
Invented by Leibniz in 1673, it was used for three centuries until the
advent of the electronic calculator in the mid-1970s.
Leibniz built a machine called the Stepped Reckoner based on that
design in 1694.[1] It was made famous by Thomas de Colmar when he
used it, a century and a half later, in his Arithmometer, the first
mass-produced calculating machine.[2] It was also used in the Curta
calculator, a very popular portable calculator introduced in the second
part of the 20th century.
In the position shown, the counting wheel meshes
with three of the nine teeth of the Leibniz wheel.
Concept
By coupling a Leibniz wheel with a counting wheel free to move up and down its length, the counting wheel can
mesh with any number of teeth.
The animation on the side shows a nine-tooth Leibniz wheel coupled to a red counting wheel. It is set to mesh with
three teeth at each rotation and therefore would add or subtract 3 from the counter at each rotation.
The computing engine of an Arithmometer has a set of linked Leibniz wheels coupled to a crank handle. Each turn of
the crank handle rotates all the Leibniz wheels by one full turn. The input sliders move counting wheels up and down
the Leibniz wheels which are themselves linked by a carry mechanism.
Eventually these wheels were replaced by pinwheels which are similar in function but with a more compact design.
Leibniz wheel 55
Machines built using this principle

Gottfried Leibniz built his first stepped reckoner in 1694 and
another one in 1706.[3]
Philipp-Matthus Hahn, a German pastor, built two circular
machines in 1770.[4][5]
J.C. Schuster, Hahn's brother in law, built a few machines of
Hahn's design into the early 19th century.[6]
Lord Stanhope designed a machine using Leibniz wheels in
1777. He also designed a pinwheel calculator in 1775.[7]
Replica of Leibniz's Stepped Reckoner in the
Johann-Helfrich Mller built a machine very similar to
Deutsches Museum.
Hahn's machine in 1783.
Thomas de Colmar invented his Arithmometer in 1820 but it took him 30 years of development before it
was commercialized in 1851. It was manufactured until 1915. Louis Payen, Veuve L. Payen and Darras were
successive owners and distributors of the Arithmometer.
Timoleon Maurel invented his Arithmaurel in 1842. The complexity of its design limited its capacity and
doomed its production, but it could multiply two numbers by the simple fact of setting them on its dials.
About twenty clones of the Arithmometer were manufactured in Europe starting with Burkhardt in 1878
then came Layton, Saxonia, Grber, Peerless, Mercedes-Euklid, XxX, Archimedes, TIM, Bunzel, Austria, Tate,
Madas etc... These clones, often more sophisticated than the original arithmometer, were built until the beginning
of WWII.
Joseph Edmondson invented and manufactured a circular calculator in 1885.[8]
Friden and Monroe calculators used a biquinary variant of this mechanism. Both were made in large
numbers; Monroe started early in the 20th century; Friden in the 1930s. (The Marchant used a radically different
and unique mechanism.) The variant mechanism worked with numbers 1..4 were as shown in the animation;
numbers 5..9 engaged a five-tooth gear as well as 0..4 teeth of the Leibniz wheel. This made it unnecessary for the
sliding gear to travel longer distances for the higher-number digits. Otherwise, pressing a 5..9 key would require
either a longer stroke (as in a Comptometer) or excessive force combined with a gently sloping cam surface.
Neither was desirable.
Curt Herzstark introduced his Curta portable calculator in 1948, it was very popular until the introduction
of electronic calculators in the 1970s.
Notes
[1] Ifrah, p. 125 (2001)
[2] Chase, p.204 (1980)
[3] Marguin, p.65 (1994)
[4] Marguin, p.83 (1994)
[5] Picture of Hahn's Calculator (http:/ / www-03. ibm. com/ ibm/ history/ exhibits/ attic/ attic_137. html) IBM Collection of mechanical
calculators
[6] Marguin, p.84-86 (1994)
[7] Door E. Felt, p.15-16 (1916)
[8] Pictures of the Edmonson calculator (http:/ / www. rechenmaschinen-illustrated. com/ Edmondson. htm)
www.rechenmaschinen-illustrated.com
Leibniz wheel 56
Sources
Chase, George C (July 1980). History of Mechanical Computing Machinery. Volume 2, Number 3. IEEE Annals
of the History of Computing.
Ifrah, Georges (2001). The Universal History of Computing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN0-471-39671-0.
de Brabandere, Luc (1995). Calculus (in French). Paris: Mardaga. pp.114125. ISBN978-2-87009-591-1.
Marguin, Jean (1994). Histoire des instruments et machines calculer, trois sicles de mcanique pensante
1642-1942 (in French). Hermann. ISBN978-2-7056-6166-3.
External links
Arithmometre.org - Main page (http://www.arithmometre.org/indexEnglish.html) - The first commercially
successful machine that used Leibniz wheels
ami19.org (http://www.ami19.org/indexEnglish.html) - A great site for patents and articles on 19th century
mechanical calculators
Rechenmaschinen-Illustrated (http://www.rechenmaschinen-illustrated.com/pictures_Thomas.htm) - A large
display of mechanical calculators
Leibniz's gap
Leibniz's gap is a philosophy of mind term that is used to refer to the problem that thoughts cannot be observed or
perceived solely by examining brain properties, events, and processes. Here the word 'gap' is a metaphor of a
subquestion regarding the mindbody problem that allegedly must be answered in order to reach more profound
understanding of consciousness and emergence. A theory that could correlate brain phenomena with psychological
phenomena would "bridge the Gap." The term is named after Gottfried Leibniz who first presented the problem in
his work The Monadology in 1714. Leibniz's passage describing the Gap goes as follows:

It must be confessed, moreover, that perception, and that which depends on it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is, by figures and
motions, And, supposing that there were a mechanism so constructed as to think, feel and have perception, we might enter it as into a mill.
And this granted, we should only find on visiting it, pieces which push one against another, but never anything by which to explain a
perception. This must be sought, therefore, in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine.
[1]
Gottfried Leibniz, Monadology
Leibniz himself sought to bridge the Gap by introducing monads to explain the existence of immaterial, eternal
souls. Leibniz's Gap, however, applies to materialism and dualism alike. This brought late 19th century scientists to
conclude that psychology must build on introspection; thus introspectionism was born. Computationalism seeks to
answer the problem proposed by Leibniz's Gap through functional analysis of the brain and its processes. Today the
term Leibniz's gap is still in wide use in scientific debate as the mind body problem remains unsolved.
References
[1] http:/ / people. uvawise. edu/ philosophy/ phil206/ Leibniz. html
Law of Continuity 57
Law of Continuity
The Law of Continuity is a heuristic principle introduced by Leibniz based on earlier work by Nicholas of Cusa and
Johannes Kepler. It is the principle that "whatever succeeds for the finite, also succeeds for the infinite".[1] Kepler
used it to calculate the area of the circle by representing the latter as an infinite-sided polygon with infinitesimal
sides, and adding the areas of infinitely many triangles with infinitesimal bases. Leibniz used the principle to extend
concepts such as arithmetic operations, from ordinary numbers to infinitesimals, laying the groundwork for
infinitesimal calculus. A mathematical implementation of the law of continuity is provided by the transfer principle
in the context of the hyperreal numbers.
Leibniz's formulation
Leibniz expressed the law in the following terms in 1701:
In any supposed continuous transition, ending in any terminus, it is permissible to institute a general reasoning,
in which the final terminus may also be included (Cum Prodiisset).[2]
He means here that, in a continuous phenomenon of any kind (be it motion in space or change in a mathematical
function) the maxima and minima can be included as valid points. Leibniz provided several examples. He asserted
that, for any quantities A and B such that A is greater than B where A is continually diminished, until A becomes
equal to B, then it is permissible to include under a general reasoning both the prior cases where A > B and the
final terminus where A = B. [3]
In a 1702 letter to French mathematician Pierre Varignon subtitled Justification of the Infinitesimal Calculus by that
of Ordinary Algebra," Leibniz adequately summed up the true meaning of his law, stating that "the rules of the finite
are found to succeed in the infinite."[4] In the example above, he refers to the fact that, when A = B, the difference
between the two is infinitely small; the Law of Continuity assures Leibniz that an infinitely small difference can be
treated as an equality and hence compared to finite differences (or inequalities). Thus Leibniz asserts that the infinite
and the finite can be treated alike.
The Law of Continuity became important to Leibniz's justification and conceptualization of the infinitesimal
calculus, although the manuscript (see above) in which he develops the continuity-based version of calculus was
never published during his lifetime.
References
[1] Karin Usadi Katz and Mikhail G. Katz (2011) A Burgessian Critique of Nominalistic Tendencies in Contemporary Mathematics and its
Historiography. Foundations of Science. (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ tj7j2810n8223p43/ ) See arxiv (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/
1104. 0375)
[2] Child, J. M. (ed.): The early mathematical manuscripts of Leibniz. Translated from the Latin texts published by Carl Immanuel Gerhardt with
critical and historical notes by J. M. Child. Chicago-London: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1920.
[3] Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, J. M. Child, and C. I. Gerhardt. The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz; translated from the Latin texts
published by Carl Immanuel Gerhardt with critical and historical notes. Chicago: Open court Pub. Co., 1920, p. 147.
[4] Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, and Leroy E. Loemker. Philosophical Papers and Letters. 2d ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1970, p. 544
De Arte Combinatoria
The Dissertatio de arte combinatoria is an early work by Gottfried Leibniz published in 1666 in Leipzig.[1] It is an
extended version of his doctoral dissertation, written before the author had seriously undertaken the study of
mathematics.[2] The booklet was reissued without Leibniz' consent in 1690, which prompted him to publish a brief
explanatory notice in the Acta Eruditorum.[3] During the following years he repeatedly expressed regrets about its
being circulated as he considered it immature.[4] Nevertheless it was a very original work and it provided the author
the first glimpse of fame among the scholars of his time.
The main idea behind the text is that of an alphabet of human thought, which is attributed to Descartes. All concepts
are nothing but combinations of a relatively small number of simple concepts, just as words are combinations of
letters. All truths may be expressed as appropriate combinations of concepts, which can in turn be decomposed into
simple ideas, rendering the analysis much easier. Therefore, this alphabet would provide a logic of invention,
opposed to that of demonstration which was known so far. Since all sentences are composed of a subject and a
predicate, one might
Find all the predicates which are appropriate to a given subject, or
Find all the subjects which are convenient to a given predicate.
For this, Leibniz was inspired in the Ars Magna of Ramon Llull, although he criticized this author because of the
arbitrariness of his categories and his indexing.
Leibniz discusses in this work some combinatorial concepts. He had read Clavius' comments to the Tractatus de
Sphaera of Sacrobosco, and some other contemporary works. He introduced the term variationes ordinis for the
permutations, combinationes for the combinations of two elements, con3nationes (shorthand for conternationes) for
those of three elements, etc. His general term for combinations was complexions. He found the formula
which he thought was original.

The first examples of use of his ars combinatoria are taken from law, the musical registry of an organ, and the
Aristotelian theory of generation of elements from the four primary qualities. But philosophical applications are of
greater importance. He cites the idea of Hobbes that all reasoning is just a computation.
The most careful example is taken from geometry, from where we shall give some definitions. He introduces the
Class I concepts, which are primitive.
Class I
1 point, 2 space, 3 included, [...] 9 parts, 10 total, [...] 14 number, 15 various [...]
Class II contains simple combinations.
Class II.1
Quantity is 14 9
Where means "of the" (from AncientGreek: ). Thus, "Quantity" is the number of the parts. Class III
contains the con3nationes:
Class III.1
Interval is 2.3.10
Thus, "Interval" is the space included in total. Of course, concepts deriving from former classes may also be defined.
Class IV.1
Line is 1/3 2
Where 1/3 means the first concept of class III. Thus, a "line" is the interval of (between) points.
Leibniz compares his system to the Chinese and Egyptian languages, although he did not really understand them at
this point. For him, this is a first step towards the Characteristica Universalis, the perfect language which would
provide a direct representation of ideas along with a calculus for the philosophical reasoning.
As a preface, the work begins with a proof of the existence of God, cast in geometrical form, and based on the
Argument from Motion.
Notes
[1] G.W. Leibniz, Dissertatio de arte combinatoria, 1666, Smtliche Schriften und Briefe (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1923) A VI 1, p.163;
Philosophische Schriften (Gerhardt) Bd. IV S.30;
[2] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Hauptschriften zur Grundlegung der Philosophie. Zur allgemeinen Charakteristik. Philosophische Werke Band 1.
page 32. Translated by Artur Buchenau. Published, reviewed and added an introduction and notes by Ernst Cassirer. Publishing company of
Felix Meiner. Hamburg. 1966, p.32.
[3] G.G.L. Ars Combinatoria, Acta Eruditorum, Feb., 1691, p.63
[4] Leibniz complained to various correspondents, e.g., to Morell (1 October 1697) or to Meier (23 January 1699); see Akademie I.14, p. 548 or
I.16, p. 540.
References
E.J. Aiton, Leibniz: A Biography. Hilger, Bristol, 1985. ISBN 0-85274-470-6.
Discourse on Metaphysics
The Discourse on Metaphysics (Discours de mtaphysique, 1686) is a short (60 pages in translation) treatise by
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in which he develops a philosophy concerning physical substance, motion and resistance
of bodies, and God's role within the universe. It is one of the few texts presenting in a consistent form the earlier
philosophy of Leibniz.
The Discourse is closely connected to the epistolary discussion which he carried with Antoine Arnauld.[1] However
Leibniz refrained from sending the full text and it remained unpublished until the mid 19th century.[2] Arnauld
received only an abridged version in 37 points which resumed whole paragraphs and steered their discussion.
The metaphysical considerations proceed from God to the substantial world and back to the spiritual realm. The
starting point for the work is the conception of God as an absolutely perfect being (I), that God is good but goodness
exists independently of God (a rejection of divine command theory) (II), and that God has created the world in an
ordered and perfect fashion (III-VII).
At the time of its writing Discourse made the controversial claim That the opinions of... scholastic philosophers are
not to be wholly despised (XI). Early work in modern philosophy during the 17th century were based on a rejection
of many of the precepts of medieval philosophy. Leibniz saw the failures of scholasticism merely as one of rigor. [If]
some careful and meditative mind were to take the trouble to clarify and direct their thoughts in the manner of
analytic geometers, he would find a great treasure of important truths, wholly demonstrable.
Leibniz claimed that God's omnipotence was in no way impugned by the thought of evil, but was rather solidified.
He endorsed the view that God chose the best of all possible worlds. In other words, Leibniz believed this world (or
reality) to be the best there possibly could be taking all facts into account, no better world could be imagined,
even if we believed that we could think of something more perfect.
Leibniz's conception of physical substance is expanded upon in The Monadology.
Discourse on Metaphysics 60
References
[1] Sleigh R., Leibniz and Arnauld, New haven: Yale, 1990.
[2] The first edition (in 1846 by Pertz) was from a copy but later the original manuscript was found and Henri Lestrienne published it in 1907;
now it is printed in the Akademie Ausgabe, Reihe VI, Vierter Band, S.1529
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Discourse on Metaphysics and the Monadology (trans. George R. Montgomery).
Prometheus Books, 1992 (first published by Open Court, 1902).
External links
Discourse on Metaphysics (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/Leibniz-Discourse.htm). A complete
English translation by George R. Montgomery.
A version of this work, lightly edited for easier reading (http://www.earlymoderntexts.com)
New Essays on Human Understanding

New Essays on Human Understanding (French: Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain) is a chapter-by-chapter
rebuttal by Gottfried Leibniz of John Locke's major work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. It is one of
only two full-length works by Leibniz (the other being the Theodicy). It was finished in 1704 but Locke's death was
the cause alleged by Leibniz to withhold its publication. The book appeared some sixty years later.[1] Like many
philosophical works of the time, it is written in dialogue form.
The two speakers in the book are Theophilus ("loving God" in Greek),[2] who represents the views of Leibniz, and
Philalethes ("loving truth" in Greek),[3] who represents those of Locke. The famous rebuttal to the empiricist thesis
about the provenance of ideas appears at the beginning of Book II: "Nothing is in the mind without being first in the
senses, except for the mind itself".[4]
Editions
New Essays on Human Understanding, Cambridge University Press, 1996, ISBN 0-521-57660-1.
References
[1] Oeuvres philosophiques, latines et franoises, de feu Mr. de Leibnitz, tires de ses manuscrits, qui se conservent dans la bibliothque royale
Hanovre, et publiees par Rud. Eric Raspe, Amsterdam et Leipzig, 1765.
[2] "" (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ morph?l=qeo/ fil-os& la=greek& can=qeo/ fil-os0). LSJ.
[3] "" (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ morph?l=filalh/ qhs& la=greek). LSJ.
[4] Book II, Ch. 1, 2: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu excipe: nisi ipse intellectus".
Sources
Leibniz, Akademie-Ausgabe (1999): Vol. VI, 6
External links
French Wikisource has original text related to this article: Nouveaux Essais sur l'entendement humain
John Dewey, Leibniz's New Essays Concerning the Human Understanding A Critical Exposition (http://www.
gutenberg.org/files/40957/40957-h/40957-h.htm), 1888
The New Essays, slightly modified for easier reading (http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/authors/leibniz.
html)
__notoc__
Thodice 61
Thodice
Essais de Thodice sur la bont de Dieu, la libert de l'homme et
l'origine du mal (French: Essays of theodicy on the goodness of God,
the freedom of man and the origin of evil), more simply known as
Thodice, is a book of philosophy by the German polymath Gottfried
Leibniz. The book, published in 1710, introduced the term theodicy,
and its optimistic approach to the problem of evil is thought to have
inspired Candide (albeit satirically). Much of the work consists of a
response to the ideas of Pierre Bayle, with whom Leibniz carried on a
debate for many years.
Thodice was the only book Leibniz published during his lifetime; his
other book, New Essays on Human Understanding, was not published
until after his death.
References
External links
Freiherr von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Theodicy at Project
Gutenberg
Thodice title page from a 1734 version
Monadology 62
Monadology
The Monadology (originally titled La Monadologie, 1714) is one of Gottfried Leibnizs best known works
representing his later philosophy. It is a short text which sketches in some 90 paragraphs a metaphysics of simple
substances, or monads.
Text
During his last stay in Vienna from 1712 to September 1714, Leibniz
wrote two short texts which were meant as concise expositions of his
philosophy. After his death Principes de la Nature et de la Grace
fonds en raison, which was intended for prince Eugene of Savoy,
appeared in French in the Netherlands. Christian Wolff and
collaborators published translations in German and Latin of the second
text which came to be known as The Monadology. Without having seen
the Dutch publication they had assumed that it was the French original
which in fact remained unpublished until 1840. The German
translation appeared in 1720 as Lehrstze ber die Monadologie and
the following year the Acta Eruditorum printed the Latin version as
Principia philosophiae.[1] There are three original manuscripts of the
text: the first written by Leibniz and overcharged with corrections and
two further emended copies with some corrections appearing in one
but not the other.[2] Leibniz himself inserted references to the
paragraphs of his Thodice ("Theodicy", i.e. a justification of God),
sending the interested reader there for more details. The first manuscript page of the Monadology
The metaphysics of The Monadology
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the western philosophical tradition and has been used by various
authors.[3] Leibniz, who was exceptionally well read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until
mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.[4] Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expose
his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of
occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances
individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each program being coordinated with all the others. This is
the pre-established harmony which solved the mind body problem at the cost of declaring any interaction between
substances a mere appearance, something which Leibniz accepted. Indeed it was space itself which became an
appearance as in his system there was no need for distinguishing inside from outside. True substances were
explained as metaphysical points which, Leibniz asserted, are both real and exact mathematical points being exact
but not real and physical ones being real but not exact.[5] Clearly, besides metaphysics, the developing of calculus
had also provided some grounds for seeking universal elementary constituents. At the empirical level, use of the
microscope also corroborated Leibniz's view. "Scientists have had great difficulties over the origin of forms,
entelechies or souls" notes 74 of The Monadology[6] while displaying his synonyms for "monad".
Monadology 63
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text
begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The
unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy [7]' and described as 'a simple substance' (1,
19). Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (18),[8] Leibniz posits quantitative differences in
perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or
created monads (48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (19), and (3) spirits or rational souls
(82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not the
obverse. As none of them is without a body (72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either (2) non-reasonable or (3) reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to
psychic abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (47) but it is the only one which is necessary (38-9) and without a
body attached (72). Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual
fulgurations [9] of the Divinity" (47).[10] Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation
of nature (42).
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their
infinitesimal parts (65). A notorious passage (67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a
garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its
bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor
between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (78-9). Leibniz
concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the
wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is not merely in respect of the whole
in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (90).
Interpretation
Controversy in rationalism
When it was written, the Monadology tried to put an end from a monist point of view to the main question of what is
reality, and particularly to the problem of communication of substances, both studied by Descartes called mind-body
dualism. Thus, Leibniz offered a new solution to mind and matter interaction by means of a pre-established harmony
expressed as the Best of all possible worlds form of optimism; in other words, he drew the relationship between the
kingdom of final causes, or teleological ones, and the kingdom of efficient causes, or mechanical ones, which was
not causal, but synchronous. So, monads and matter are only apparently linked, and there is not even any
communication between different monads, as far as they act according to their degree of distinction only, as they
were influenced by bodies, and vice versa.
Leibniz fought against the Cartesian dualist system in his Monadology and tried to surpass it through a metaphysical
system considered at the same time monist (since only the unextended is substantial) and pluralist (as far as
substances are disseminated in the world in an infinite number). For that reason the monad is an irreducible force,
which makes it possible for the bodies to have the characteristics of inertia and impenetrability, and which contains
in itself the source of all its actions. Monads are the first elements of every composed thing.
Monadology 64
Paradoxes
Monads are manifest, since they are everywhere, and there is no extension without monads. They are, then, the
plenum, that is to say, the condition of an infinitely dense universe, but nevertheless they are unextended. However,
this doesnt mean that they lack of any function (as far as they project and reflect force), matter (since they come
with it) or that they are extended (considering that they dont interact with anything in the world).
Extended matter would be the impenetrable quality of the unextendedthe monad, without any doors or
windowsas passively transmitted according to movements which, together with perception and apperception,
compose action. In spite of that, a monad cannot remain placed in matter, which follows the monad itself, previously
to the generation of matter in time. So, extension and monads coexist acausally by the means of a timeless creation,
although they are reciprocally bound according to the appearances.
Philosophical conclusions
This theory leads to:
1. Idealism, since it denies things in themselves (besides monads) and multiplies them in different points of view.
Monads are perpetual living mirrors of the universe.
2. Metaphysical optimism, through the principle of sufficient reason, developed as follows:
a) Everything exists according to a reason (by the axiom "Nothing arises from nothing");
b) Everything which exists has a sufficient reason to exist;
c) Everything which exists is better than anything non-existent (by the first point: since it is more rational, it also has
more reality), and, consequently, it is the best possible being in the best of all possible worlds (by the axiom: "That
which contains more reality is better than that which contains less reality").
References and notes

[1] Lamarra A., Contexte Gntique et Premire Rception de la Monadologie, Revue de Synthese 128 (2007) 311-323
[2] Leibniz G.W., La Monadologie, edition tablie par E. Boutroux, Paris LGF 1991
[3] There is no indication that Leibniz has 'borrowed' it from a particular author, e.g. Giordano Bruno or John Dee, to mention just two popular
sources
[4] Woolhouse R. and Francks R., Leibniz's "New System" and associated contemporary texts, Cambridge Univ. Press 1997
[5] New System 11
[6] Leibniz G., The Monadology translated by George MacDonald Ross, 1999; further references are given by paragraph number
[7] http:/ / en. wiktionary. org/ wiki/ entelechy
[8] On pourrait donner le nom dentlchies toutes les substances simples ou Monades cres, car elles ont en elles une certaine perfection
( )
[9] http:/ / en. wiktionary. org/ wiki/ fulgur
[10] trans. Hedge. "Leibniz's vestige view of God's creative act is employed to support his view of substance as an inherently active being
possessed of its own dynamic force" Scott D., Leibniz model of creation and his doctrine of substance, Animus 3 (1998) (http:/ / www2. swgc.
mun. ca/ animus/ Articles/ Volume 3/ scott3. pdf)
Nicholas Rescher N., G. W. Leibniz's Monadology, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8229-5449-4,
ISBN 978-0-8229-5449-1
Savile A., Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Leibniz and the Monadology, Routledge (2000), ISBN
0-415-17113-X, ISBN 978-0-415-17113-7
Monadology 65
External links
The Monadology (http://home.datacomm.ch/kerguelen/monadology/), English translation, links, scalable text
and printable version. Downloadable as pdf, doc or djvu files.
English translation (http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm) (1898), by Robert
Latta
Audio version of the Latta translation (http://librivox.org/the-monadology-by-gottfried-wilhelm-leibniz/) from
LibriVox
English translation (http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/leibniz/monadology/
monadology.html) and commentary (http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/leibniz/
monadology/monexpl.html) (1999), by George MacDonald Ross
A version of this work, lightly edited for easier reading (http://www.earlymoderntexts.com)
French, Latin and Spanish edition (http://www.helicon.es/pen/8542205.htm) (1981), with facsimil of
Leibniz's manuscript, and introduction by Gustavo Bueno
"Monad". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
LeibnizClarke correspondence
The LeibnizClarke correspondence was a scientific, theological and
philosophical debate conducted in an exchange of letters between the
German thinker Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, an
English supporter of Isaac Newton during the years 1715 and 1716.
The exchange began because of a letter Leibniz wrote to Caroline of
Ansbach, in which he remarked that Newtonian physics was
detrimental to natural theology. Eager to defend the Newtonian view,
Clarke responded, and the correspondence continued until the death of
Leibniz in 1716.[1]
Although a variety of subjects is touched on in the letters, the main

interest for modern readers is in the dispute between the absolute
theory of space favoured by Newton and Clarke, and Leibniz's
relational approach. Also important is the conflict between Clarke's
and Leibniz's opinions on free will and whether God must create the
best of all possible worlds.[2] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Leibniz had published only a book on moral matters, the Theodice

(1710), and his more metaphysical views had never been exposed to a sufficient extent, so the collected letters were
met with interest by their contemporaries. The priority dispute between Leibniz and Newton about the calculus was
still fresh in the public's mind and it was taken as a matter of course that it was Newton himself who stood behind
Clarke's replies.
LeibnizClarke correspondence 66
Editions
The Leibniz-Clarke letters were first published under Clarke's name in
the year following Leibniz' death.[3] He wrote a preface, took care of
the translation from French, added notes and some of his own writing.
In 1720 Pierre Desmaizeaux published a similar volume in a French
translation,[4] including quotes from Newton's work. It is rather certain
that for both editions the opinion of Newton himself has been sought
and Leibniz left at a disadvantage.[5] However the German translation
of the correspondence published by Kohler, also in 1720,[6] contained a
reply to Clarke's last letter which Leibniz had not been able to answer.
The letters have been reprinted in most collections of Leibniz' works
and regularly published in stand alone editions.[7]
Samuel Clarke.
Notes
[1] Rowe, p. 8
[2] Rowe, p. 4
[3] A Collection of Papers, which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leibniz, and Dr. Clarke, In the Years 1715 and 1716, by Samuel Clarke
D.D. (London: James Knapton, 1717)
[4] Recueil de pices diverses sur la philosophie la religion et l'histoire par Leibnitz, Clarke et Newton, publies par Pierre Desmaizeaux,
Amsterdam, 1720
[5] Bertoloni-Melli D., Newton and the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, The Cambridge Companion to Newton, eds. I. B. Cohen and G. E.
Smith, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[6] Merckwurdige Schriften welche . . . zwischen dem Herrn Baron von Leibniz und dem Herrn D. Clarke ber besondere Materien der
naturlichen Religion in Franzos. und Englischer Sprache gewechselt und . . . in teutscher Sprache herausgegeben worden von Heinrich Kohler,
Frankfurt and Leipzig (Jena), 1720: there was a preface by Christian Wolff and a reply to Clarke's last letter in behalf of Leibniz by Ludwig
Philipp Thmmig; it appeared also in the latin translation from 1740.
[7] A full list is given in Alexander H., The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, with extracts from Newton's Principia and Opticks, edited with an
introduction and notes, Manchester, 1955 (and reeditions); for a more recent edition see e.g. G. W. Leibniz and Samuel Clarke:
Correspondence, Edited, with Introduction, by Roger Ariew, Hackett Publishing Co. Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2000.
References
G.V. Leroy, Die philosophische Probleme in dem Briefwechsel Leibniz und Clarke, Giessen, 1893.
Vailati E., Leibniz and Clarke: A Study of Their Correspondence, Oxford UP, 1997.
Rowe, William L., "Can God Be Free?", Oxford UP, 2004. ISBN 0198250452.
External links
Complete transcription of the 1717 edition at The Newton Project (http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/
catalogue/viewcat.php?id=THEM00224)
Almost full, annotated, rendition of the correspondence (http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/
leibniz-clarke.html)
Course notes by Dr Andrew Gregory (MS word) (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/gregory/215/handouts/h16_lcc.
doc)
Modernized and edited rendition of the correspondence (http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/leibclar.html)
Standford encyclopedia of philosophy - Divine Freedom (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-freedom/)
Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis 67
Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis

Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis is the first published work on the subject of calculus. It was published in
by Gottfried Leibniz in the Acta Eruditorum in 1684. It is considered to be the birth of infinitesimal calculus.[1]
Full title
The full title of the published work is Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis, itemque tangentibus, quae nec fractas
nec irrationales quantitates moratur, et singulare pro illis calculi genus. In English, the full title can be translated as
New method for maxima and minima, and for tangents, that is not hindered by fractional or irrational quantities,
and a singular kind of calculus for the above mentioned.[2] It is from this title that this branch of mathematics takes
the name calculus from.
Influence
Although calculus was independently co-invented by Isaac Newton, most of the notation in modern calculus is from
Leibniz.[3] Leibniz's careful attention to his notation makes some believe that "his contribution to calculus was much
more influential than Newton's."[4]
References
[1] Newton and Leibniz: the birth of calculus (http:/ / web. math. unifi. it/ archimede/ archimede_NEW_inglese/ mostra_calcolo/ pannelli/ 3.
html)
[2] Newton and Leibniz: the birth of calculus (http:/ / web. math. unifi. it/ archimede/ archimede_NEW_inglese/ mostra_calcolo/ pannelli/ 3.
html)
[3] The History of Calculus (http:/ / www. uiowa. edu/ ~c22m025c/ history. html)
[4] Greatest Mathematicians of All Time (http:/ / fabpedigree. com/ james/ mathmen. htm#Leibniz)
Article Sources and Contributors

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=612503882 Contributors: 10metreh, 127, 271828182, 2over0, 32' Bombarde, 345Kai, 4C, 65.4.222.xxx,
8ty3hree, A bit iffy, A412, ACW, AThing, AVIosad, Aarhayes, Aberwulf, Abimelech, Ace of Spades, Acroterion, Active Banana, Adam Conover, Adashiel, Addshore, Aditsu, Ael 2, Aeusoes1,
AgadaUrbanit, AgentCDE, Ahoerstemeier, Aitias, Ak hepcat, Alan Liefting, Alan smithee, Alcmaeonid, Ale jrb, Aletheia, Alexjohnc3, Alexrexpvt, Algorithme, Alicne, Aljoa Avani, Altenmann,
Anarchist42, AndreasPraefcke, Andy85719, Andycjp, Angusmclellan, Anskas, Antandrus, Anteriorlobe, Anthony Krupp, Anthrophilos, Antidote, Arbitrarily0, Arcadian, Areicher, Arjayay,
Arjun01, Arminius, Arms & Hearts, Arno, Aronzak, Arthur Rubin, Artie p, Arturo 7, Astynax, Attilios, Aubreybardo, AugPi, Aur, Austriacus, AxelBoldt, Ayla, Azurengar, B4hand, BBar,
BD2412, Baldghoti, Barce, Batmanand, Baubri, Being blunt, Ben-Zin, Bender235, Beno1000, BethNaught, Bethpage89, Billinghurst, Bilorv, BlondeFire777, Bloodshedder, Bo Lindbergh,
BoNoMoJo (old), Bob Burkhardt, Bobblehead, Bobblewik, Bocachete2, Boing! said Zebedee, Boomur, Boothy443, Borisblue, BrEdWhite, Bradeos Graphon, Bradgib, Brandon, Brentt, Brion
VIBBER, Brufydsy, BurgererSF, C. A. Russell, CQJ, CRGreathouse, CSvBibra, CTU Kyoto, CUSENZA Mario, Caknuck, Caliprincess, Canihaveacookie, Capmelon, Causesobad, Cb77305,
Cdyson37, Cerebellum, Cflm001, Charles Matthews, Chetvorno, Chicheley, Chricho, ChrisGualtieri, Chrism, Christian List, Christian Roess, Christian Storm, Christophenstein, Chuck Sirloin,
Ckatz, Clasqm, Clconway, Clever Hans, CloudNine, Cobi, Cognition, Colinsweet, Concerned cynic, Connelly, Connormah, Conversion script, Coretheapple, Courcelles, Craig Pemberton,
CredensJustitiam, CsDix, Curps, Cutler, D6, DRLB, DVD R W, DVdm, DaQuirin, Dalakov, Damiens.rf, Damnedkingdom, Daniel Quinlan, Danny lost, Dardar777, Darouet, David Eppstein,
David Ludwig, David Sneek, Dcepelik, DeadEyeArrow, Deadbarnacle, Delldot, Delta x, Demicx, Den fjttrade ankan, DerHexer, Dersonlwd, Dethomas, Deville, Devin.chaloux, Devinwoff,
Dimadick, Dj Capricorn, Djordjes, Dmcq, Doceddi, Domino theory, Don4of4, Donner60, DoorsAjar, Dougofborg, Dr. Gabriel Gojon, Dr. Gary Carter, Dr. Submillimeter, Dr.enh, DrKiernan,
Dragonflare82, Drestros power, DrewAires, Drift chambers, Drmies, Drolz09, Drumguy8800, Drunken Pirate, Dsp13, Duncharris, Dwade3strahan9, Dysprosia, ESkog, EamonnPKeane,
Eastfrisian, Eastlaw, Eduen, Edward, Edward Vielmetti, Eiler7, El Roih, Emnipass, Environnement2100, Epicgenius, Epistemocrata, Erianna, Eric Shalov, Ericross, Erika.a.brennan.2, Esperant,
Etale, EuroCarGT, Eusebeus, Euyyn, Evercat, Everyking, Ewifey1998, Ewlyahoocom, Excirial, Existential instantiation, Eyrian, Ezhiki, Ezrdr, FF2010, Fabrictramp, Falcon8765, Fama Clamosa,
Farosdaughter, Favonian, FeanorStar7, Fedro, Fer cool, Firefly322, Flamingspinach, FlavrSavr, Flooey, Fluffernutter, Flyingspuds, Fnlayson, Fpahl, Frank, FranksValli, Fred Bauder,
Frederick12, Fredrik, FreeKnowledgeCreator, FrigidNinja, Fumitol, GTBacchus, Gabbe, Gaius Cornelius, Gakrivas, Gandalf61, Gap9551, Garzo, Gauss, Geoff.powers, Geometry guy, Georg
Muntingh, Georgelazenby, Georgepauljohnringo, GertsiJuanzaitaste, Gesslein, Giftlite, Gilliam, Gimmetrow, Ginsuloft, Gj3490tjiojew, Goclenius, Goethean, Gogo Dodo, Good Olfactory,
GoogleKnowledge, Graham87, Granf, Gratitudejoy, Green Giant, Greg Kuperberg, Gregbard, GregorB, Grison, Grstain, Grunge6910, Grunt, Guingu, Gummieworm, Guppyfinsoup, Gurch,
Gwalla, Gtz, Hadal, Hadija, Hairy Dude, HairyFotr, HalfShadow, Haloplaya57, Hannges, Hanse, Harrypotter123456789, Headbomb, Henry Flower, Heron, Heyitspeter, Hikingkyle393,
Histoboy95, Hmains, Horselover Frost, Howardjp, Howcheng, Hqb, Hu12, Husond, Hyperboreer, I dream of horses, IDK112, IJzeren Jan, Iceager, Icey, Idran, Igiffin, Imnotminkus, Imusade,
Inhumandecency, Insanity Incarnate, InsufficientData, InverseHypercube, Inwind, Iokseng, Iridescent, Isilanes, Island Monkey, Iulianu, J M Rice, J.delanoy, JALockhart, JLaTondre, JNW, JTN,
JYolkowski, Ja 62, Jab843, Jack34576, Jacob2342, JakeComeau, JamesHenstridge, Jamesx12345, Jamrifis, Jarble, Jaredwf, Jasperdoomen, JayJasper, Jazoid, Jcbutler, Jchatter, Jdeluxh, Jdog456,
Jerryfrancis, Jespinos, Jfbennett, JimWae, Jitse Niesen, Jlawniczak, Joanjoc, John, John Broughton, John Reaves, John254, JohnLobell, Johnnycatt, Johnor, Jojit fb, Jon Awbrey, Jose77,
Josephci250, Josve05a, Jrgetsin, Jrnproj, Js2081, Jtalledo, Judicatus, Jumbuck, Jusdafax, Jwalden, KSmrq, Kablammo, Kafziel, Kaisershatner, Kait, Kaldari, Kam Solusar, Karenjc, Kate,
Katzmik, Kazvorpal, Keith Edkins, Kelisi, Kenb215, Kevin Ryde, Kevintran6655, Khoikhoi, Kikadue, Kipala, Kirachinmoku, Kkm010, Klemen Kocjancic, Kmaguir1, Knight1993, Knucmo2,
Koavf, Kpjas, Krabby23, Krich, Kripkenstein, Kristen Eriksen, Krosanas, Kross, Ksnow, Kudz, Kusma, Kusunose, Kwamikagami, KyleJeanMichelle, Kzollman, L Kensington, Lahiru k,
Lajollaca, Largoplazo, Le vin blanc, LeadSongDog, LeaveSleaves, Leibniz, Leon2323, Leroi henri christophe, Lessthanideal, Lestrade, Lfh, Liberatus, Lieutenant of Melkor, Lightdarkness,
Ligulem, Likebox, Lir, Lleux, Lord Horatio Nelson, Lotje, LouI, Lph, Lucidish, Lundse, Lupo, Lycurgus, MK8, Mac Davis, Macevoy, Magere Hein, Magioladitis, Magnus Manske, Majorly,
Makecat, Mani1, MarcoTolo, MarkAnthonyBoyle, Markhurd, Mary473, Master shepherd, Masterpiece2000, Mateat, Mateoee, Materialscientist, Mattharding, Matthew Fennell, Mattiej, Maurice
Carbonaro, Mayfly may fly, Mdrine, Meegs, Mentifisto, Merlthepearl, Metakraid, Mets501, Michael Hardy, Mijelliott, MikeVitale, Milton Stanley, Miranda, Mirzaa, Mlbtaz, Mndstrm,
MobyDikc, Moink, Morgan Leigh, Motorneuron, Mporch, Mr. Zdeeck, MrSerif, Mschlindwein, Muhwahahahaha, Mukogodo, Mungo Kitsch, Muon, Mzamora2, N5iln, NOOBSLAYER69,
NakedCelt, Napoca15, Nbarth, Needlenose, Nemu, Nenya17, Nephron, Netizen, Neutrality, NewEnglandYankee, Niceguyedc, Nicolaennio, Nihil novi, Nijdam, Nimetapoeg, Ninmacer20,
Nixdorf, NoSalt, Noon, Northamerica1000, Northfox, Ocanter, Oleg Alexandrov, Olessi, Olivier, Ollieollieollie, Omcnew, Omnipaedista, Oneidman, Oni.Baloney, Ontoraul, Osarius, Oskar
Sigvardsson, OwenX, Oxymoron83, Ozob, PFHLai, PStrait, Pangloss1, Pappapippa, Parableman, Paradoctor, PatriotSpeed, Paul August, Paulatim, Pegship, Peter James, Pgan002, Pgecaj, Pharos,
Phil Bordelon, PhilipDSullivan, Piano non troppo, Pifactorial, Pigman, Piledhigheranddeeper, Piotrpazdro, Pizza Puzzle, Plinkit, Plucas58, Pmanderson, Poetaris, Pollinosisss, Polly, Poor Yorick,
Porcher, Possum, Potatoswatter, PrimeFan, Pritegges, Proteus, Pthag, Pdraic MacUidhir, Quamaretto, Qwertyus, R. S. Shaw, R.e.b., RDBury, Radagast3, Radgeek, Ragesoss, Raintrees,
Ramujeb, RandomCritic, RandomP, Raymondwinn, Rbclough, Rbonvall, Reaper Eternal, Recentchanges, Recognizance, Reconsider the static, Rescherpa, Retired username, RexNL, Rhalah,
Ricky81682, Riddhi143, Rkmlai, Rlee0001, Robin klein, Robsteadman, Rocketrod1960, Rodasmith, Romanm, Ronhjones, Rrburke, Rsperez1, Russw, S Roper, SHIMONSHA, SJP, Saddhiyama,
Saforrest, Saizai, Salix alba, SaltyBoatr, Salvidrim!, Sam Spade, SamuelDay1, Santa Sangre, Sardanaphalus, Saruha, Scarapella, Schlier22, SchreyP, Science History, Scientizzle, SeanNemetz,
Seaphoto, Seb az86556, Seektrue, Semplice123, Sepiolo, Sepiraph, Sethmahoney, Shadowjams, Shakesphere17, Shanoman, ShelfSkewed, Shell Kinney, Shimmera, Shimonnyman, Shirulashem,
Shoeofdeath, Sholto Maud, SilverSurfer314, Simetrical, Simonides, SirIbus, Skomorokh, SkyMachine, Sligocki, Slovinan, Smallweed, Smaug123, Smithpith, SmooveJ, Snoyes, Solarra,
Sonett72, Sonia, Sonjaaa, Special-T, SpeedyGonsales, Spliffy, Spoxox, Srich32977, Srnec, Ssd, StAnselm, SteinbDJ, Steven Zhang, Stone, Studerby, Suffusion of Yellow, Suisui, Supadawg,
SureFire, Surtsicna, Sushiflinger, Symane, Svnti fav, T. Anthony, TPK, Taarten, Tanthalas39, Tarotcards, Tcarmell, Tdadamemd, Teatimefortodd, TeleComNasSprVen, TenOfAllTrades, The
Alzabo, The Evil IP address, The Tetrast, The Thing That Should Not Be, The wub, TheMadBaron, Thehotelambush, Thenub314, Thesloth, Thomas Ruefner, Thryduulf, Tide rolls, Tim Ivorson,
Tim1357, TimBentley, TimShell, Timmothy Blazinhower, TjonesCairo, Tkuvho, Toadsmith, Tobias Bergemann, Toby Bartels, Toddst1, Tolly4bolly, Tom harrison, Tomisti, Tommstein,
Top.Squark, Torc2, Totalenlightenment, TotientDragooned, Tpbradbury, TreasuryTag, Treisijs, Trevayne08, Trleonard, Trollingdom2222, Trovatore, Tyrol5, Tzhau, Ukexpat, Ultracobalt,
Unschool, Urmom12345, Vanished user 1234567890, Vanished user lp09qa86ft, Vary, Vdjj1960, Vegaswikian, Veledan, Vikaszt, Viperphantom, Viriditas, Vishahu, VivaEmilyDavies, Vivio
Testarossa, Vojvodaen, Vontafeijos, Vorv, Vrenator, WETaylor, Wallsace, Wapcaplet, Wapondaponda, Warshy, Watsonksuplayer, Wavelength, Weirdy, Wesley, WhatamIdoing, Whiskeydog,
Who.was.phone, Whoistheroach, Whosyourjudas, Widr, Wiki alf, WikiPedant, WikipedianMarlith, Wikiwikifast, Will Beback, WillowW, Willtron, Witbyt, Wknight94, Wolfdog, Woodstein52,
Woohookitty, Wwoods, XJaM, XTerminator2000, Xanchester, Xjy, Xod, Xpjenkins, Yamamoto Ichiro, YellowMonkey, Yintan, Yondonjamts, Yummygummybear, Zfr, Zgadot, Zifnabxar,
Zirland, Zizonus, var Arnfjr Bjarmason, , , , 1769 anonymous edits
Pre-established harmony Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=609910128 Contributors: Ael 2, Byelf2007, Cacycle, DabMachine, Eequor, Erianna, Evercat, Impsswoon, Karada,
Kpearce, Mporch, Nagelfar, Nbarth, Peterdjones, Redheylin, SchreiberBike, Skalchemist, Tomisti, Viriditas, Xanchester, 9 anonymous edits
Principle of sufficient reason Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=611602631 Contributors: Alfred Centauri, Barbarasurates, Bejnar, Bgwhite, Btyner, Cerebellum, Chalst,
Charles Matthews, Cpiral, DVD R W, E235, Gerhardvalentin, Ginsuloft, Goodnightmush, Gregbard, Hmains, I am James A, It Is Me Here, J.reed, KnightRider, Krzys kurd, Lestrade, LilyKitty,
Magioladitis, Nicec0cky, Omnipaedista, Ontoraul, Pascal's Revenge, Rickard Vogelberg, Robinsonmb, SHCarter, Santa Sangre, Stephen G. Brown, Straif, Tark99, Velho, Viriditas, Waltigs,
Waynehayes, WhiteC, WikiPedant, Xanchester, 56 anonymous edits
Salva veritate Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=576870615 Contributors: CRGreathouse, Dionyziz, Fan Singh Long, Fordmadoxfraud, Gobonobo, Gregbard, Jason Quinn,
Lestrade, Mreges, Nigellwh, Poleris, Rmhermen, SebastianHelm, Sjolin1, TheProject, Viriditas, Xanchester, 5 anonymous edits
Well-founded phenomenon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=610632947 Contributors: Adavidb, Amitie 10g, Beliar666, Belovedfreak, Gregbard, Heron, Kiesewetter,
Knucmo2, Lestrade, LoveMonkey, Mel Etitis, Omnipaedista, Rjwilmsi, SchreiberBike, Troll6996, Viriditas, Xanchester
Best of all possible worlds Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=599081758 Contributors: Allens, Amicuspublilius, Aur, Aykantspel, Banno, Black Falcon, Cantaire87,
CharlesMartel, Colinmorley1000, Craig Pemberton, DarkAdonis255, David Sneek, Deathsushi, DeistCosmos, Doc glasgow, DrFree, Earth, Editor2020, Evansandsmark, Filippowiki,
FoCuSandLeArN, Gregbard, ItsZippy, Jacob1207, Jbessie, JimWae, Jimmaths, Johnuniq, Jules.LT, Julescubtree, K.C. Tang, LoveMonkey, Mel Etitis, Mild Bill Hiccup, Momergil, Nagelfar,
Narssarssuaq, Olaf Simons, OpenToppedBus, Oshin, PeepP, Penbat, Phantomsteve, Phthoggos, Powelldinho, Richard001, Rjwilmsi, SomeGuy11112, Starblind, Steveprutz, Viriditas, Walkiped,
Wikipelli, Wrightaa, Xanchester, Zeimusu, Zenohockey, 68 anonymous edits
Dynamism (metaphysics) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=611045915 Contributors: Anggoro, Flyer22, Gregbard, J04n, Machine Elf 1735, Magioladitis, Omnipaedista,
SchreiberBike, Skomorokh, Stevenmitchell, Tomisti, Woohookitty, Xanchester, 7 anonymous edits
Theodicy Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=610463029 Contributors: 207.93.56.xxx, 271828182, Acadmica Orientlis, Ace Class Shadow, Adam Bishop, Albany NY,
AllanLee, Allens, Amillar, Andkore, Andrew c, AndyHe829, AndyKali, Andycjp, Angela, Angr, Annelid, Anthony on Stilts, Anville, ArCgon, Aranel, Arjayay, Arkuat, Art LaPella, Ashley Y,
Athanasius1, Avenue, Ayecee, Aykantspel, BM, Back2back2back, Becks028, Beestonsteve, Benanhalt, Bensaccount, Bensin, BillMoyers, Blainster, Blue Dinosaur Jr, Bob Hu, Bongwarrior,
Brian0918, Brophykid08, Byelf2007, C777, CPRice, Calabe1992, Carlj7, Causa sui, CenozoicEra, Charles Matthews, Cheapy, Chris 73, Chris the speller, Christum, Cmdrjameson, Conversion
script, CosineKitty, Crisco 1492, Csernica, Cybercobra, CyrusCoriogan, Dadisawesome, DanMS, DancingPhilosopher, Darkbluewaters37, Dave souza, DavidBirnbaum, DavidBofinger, DavidH,
Davrids, Dbachmann, Dbtfz, Dcoetzee, Deadcorpse, Decemberette, Deflective, Deipnosophista, Delirium, DennisDaniels, DieWeisseRose, Dino, Doremtzwr, Dougher, DrRetard,
DragonflySixtyseven, Dream of Nyx, Dumbo1010, Duncan Keith, EagerToddler39, Editor2020, Edwardamo, Egern, Eldamorie, Elembis, Elonka, F. Simon Grant, FoCuSandLeArN, Franc28,
Funnyfarmofdoom, FurrySings, Gabbe, Gabbiedear, GangofOne, Gaspar van der Sar, Gene Ward Smith, George100, Ghewgill, Glrawle, Goethean, Gogo Dodo, GoldenMeadows, Graham87,
Grayfell, Gregbard, Griit, Hairy Dude, Heitzmte, Henry1792, Hephaestos, Hgilbert, Honeydew, Ht686rg90, Humus sapiens, IPSOS, Iacobus, Ikant, Ildoryu, InverseHypercube, Irene1949,
ItsZippy, J.P. Sloane, Jack Daw, Jade Knight, Jandalhandler, Jasonglchu, Jayrav, Jbamb, Jcbos, Jennavecia, JerryFriedman, Jhmoore, Jimmaths, Joachimv, John D. Croft, John R. Durant,
Johnpseudo, Joshkap18, Julian Mendez, KHM03, Kale200, Kartik J, Kdbuffalo, Keith Edkins, Kelly Martin, Kered77, Kerrow, King of Hearts, Kipholbeck, Kmbush40, Knobbly, Knotwork,
Koavf, Krj373, KrytenKoro, Kwamikagami, L33tminion, Lakefall, Lapaz, Larrybob, Levn09, Liftarn, LilHelpa, Lkinkade, Lotje, LoveMonkey, LtNOWIS, Lue3378, LukeH, Lumbercutter,
MBisanz, Magog the Ogre, Manuel Anastcio, Manwiththemasterplan, Maqs, Marchije, Marco funk, Markewilliams, Marudubshinki, Mazin07, Mccready, Mchlmicy, Mdumas43073, Mel Etitis,
Mercury543210, Merzul, Michaelpremsrirat, Michelle J. Kinnucan, Mike1024, Milkunderwood, Mjangle, Mkmcconn, MrMontag, NBeale, Natgoo, Naufana, Neelix, Netesq, Nikil44, Nikola
Smolenski, Nirvana2013, Noogster, Oatmeal batman, Ojcb2, Olivia Curtis, Olivier, PT70Vanya, Paterson Brown, Paul Murray, Pearle, Peter M Gerdes, Phi beta, Photon Man62, Piano non
troppo, Pigman, Pip25, Plebmonk, Plumbago, Pollinosisss, Populus, Potosino, Preost, Prodvocalist, Prosthetic Head, Psychoelf, R'n'B, RJFJR, RK, Raj2004, Rayni Lee, ReaverFlash,
ReformedArsenal, Rfl, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Rjwilmsi, Robert Daoust, Rocketrod1960, Rossami, S Marshall, Sagaciousuk, Saint Midge, Salome777, Sam Hocevar, Sam Spade,
SarahStierch, SchreiberBike, Sdaconsulting, Sderose, Sehrgut, Sensidon, Sethmahoney, Shadowthedog, Shlomital, Signalhead, Sky Diva, Skywalker, Slrubenstein, Sluzzelin, Smartiger, Snoyes,
Soulpatch, SquirleyWurley, StAnselm, Staszek Lem, Stevertigo, Surnl, TCRNews.com, THB, Taam, Talkingtomypocket, Tarotcards, Tatarize, Tcarmell, Tentatio21, Texture, The persistent
invincible, ThePedanticPrick, Thekingpin68, Tjoord, Tlroche, Tom harrison, Tonescary, Tony Sidaway, Tracerbullet11, Trevayne08, Trivial, UnHoly, Uncle G, Ungtss, Username12321,
Valley2city, Vegetator, Vejlefjord, Vincekd, Viriditas, VolatileChemical, Volition, Wackojacko1138, Waggers, Wereon, Wesley, Whoistheroach, Wiendietry, Wik, Wikipelli, William M.
Connolley, Winterbadger, Wolfdog, Woohookitty, Wrennasong, Wwwwolf, Xanchester, ZackMartin, Zain Ebrahim111, Zickzack, Ziggypowe, Zoicon5, 431 anonymous edits
Transcendental law of homogeneity Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=600446431 Contributors: CsDix, Giftlite, Ontoraul, Rjwilmsi, Stevertigo, Tkuvho, Xanchester, 1
anonymous edits
Vis viva Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=595321215 Contributors: Adrian Firth, Airplaneman, Ajrocke, Albina-belenkaya, Bcartolo, Boothy443, Chetvorno, ChrisGualtieri,
Cutler, Dhollm, Hamoudafg, Joselotl, K igor k, Kropotkine 113, Linas, Lotje, Machine Elf 1735, Marianika, Michael C Price, Mmeijeri, Necromancer44, PC78, PMLawrence, Pokipsy76, Robert
K S, Rod57, Sadi Carnot, Seanoleary, Supremeaim, Suspekt, Tegla, Tjlafave, Viriditas, Weleepoxypoo, Xanchester, 11 anonymous edits
Characteristica universalis Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=578287181 Contributors: Accounting4Taste, BrainMagMo, Cal Evans, Crystallina, Danny lost, Dar-Ape,
Dominus, Download, Edward, Erkan Yilmaz, FSII, General Reader, George The Dragon, Harvestman, Heron, IJzeren Jan, Ian Pitchford, Koavf, Lambiam, Linforest, Lumturo, Marcos,
Marokwitz, Martpol, Mdd, Michael Devore, Michael Hardy, N-true, Nagelfar, Omnipaedista, Ontoraul, Pi zero, Piet Delport, Qetuth, Rhododendrites, Rjwilmsi, Sholto Maud, Smkolins, Srice13,
The Anome, The Tetrast, Tonyfaull, Trovatore, Uppland, Viriditas, WRK, Waldir, Watasenia, Woohookitty, Xanchester, 153 anonymous edits
Leibniz wheel Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=594519477 Contributors: Chris the speller, DaltonCastle, Ezrdr, Faizan, Hmains, Jake Wartenberg, LilHelpa,
Materialscientist, Mild Bill Hiccup, Morn, Nikevich, Thumperward, 9 anonymous edits
Leibniz's gap Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=583125562 Contributors: Gregbard, JustAGal, Redheylin, Tony1, Vegaswikian, Xanchester, Zinjixmaggir, 1 anonymous edits
Law of Continuity Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=603368338 Contributors: CsDix, Giftlite, Gregbard, Ian Burnet, Rjwilmsi, Tkuvho, Xanchester, 9 anonymous edits
De Arte Combinatoria Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=586594653 Contributors: Abiyoyo, Altenmann, Anarchia, AnonMoos, Banno, Cacophony, Charles Matthews, Erkan
Yilmaz, Good Olfactory, GrahamHardy, Gregbard, Javirl, Khazar, MarkBuckles, MathMartin, Omnipaedista, Renamed user 4, Viriditas, Wallpaperit, Xanchester, , 6 anonymous edits
Discourse on Metaphysics Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=542561751 Contributors: Abiyoyo, Aranel, Bjankuloski06en, Bryan Derksen, Chalst, Dulytaxcuts, Good
Olfactory, Gregbard, Ingram, Jerryfrancis, Kilternom, Krich, MakeRocketGoNow, Santa Sangre, Srich32977, Tomisti, Vanished user lp09qa86ft, Viriditas, WereSpielChequers, Xanchester, 9
anonymous edits
New Essays on Human Understanding Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=606768455 Contributors: Abiyoyo, Aranel, Arcadian, Artisticidea, Ben Ben, CapitalR, Charles
Matthews, David Sneek, Everyking, Gilquentin, Good Olfactory, Iridescent, Jerryfrancis, Jk2232, KYPark, Mac Davis, MakeRocketGoNow, Omnipaedista, Peter Damian, Polisher of Cobwebs,
Saddhiyama, Shoeofdeath, Srich32977, Tomisti, Viriditas, Wetzel95, Will Beback, Xanchester, 11 anonymous edits
Thodice Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=606760828 Contributors: Abiyoyo, Arcadian, Aronzak, Bjankuloski06en, Cerebellum, D6, Fayenatic london, Gene Nygaard,
Good Olfactory, Gregbard, InverseHypercube, ItsZippy, Lenoxus, Omnipaedista, Tony1, Xanchester, 6 anonymous edits
Monadology Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=609723380 Contributors: Abiyoyo, Adetaylor, Ael 2, Al.Glitch, Altenmann, Andres, Batmanand, Belovedfreak, Boombaard,
Chiswick Chap, Clerks, D6, Dbachmann, Deor, Dicklyon, Erika.a.brennan.2, Erkan Yilmaz, Euchiasmus, F. Armstrong Green, Fedro, FluffyWhiteCat, Gblaz, Good Olfactory, Gpvos, Gregbard,
IanOsgood, Ilya, Ingram, JASpencer, JW1805, JaGa, Jaymay, Jenblower, Jerryfrancis, Jevansen, KYPark, Karisade, Knucmo2, LilyKitty, Ljguthri, Logologist, LoveMonkey, Mabsal, Machine
Elf 1735, Mmayer, Mordicai, Mr. Granger, Mr.Xen, Nagelfar, Neutrality, Ocaasi, Omnipaedista, Oyd11, Papovik, Piet Delport, Polisher of Cobwebs, Rigadoun, Shandris, ShaneWilton,
Srich32977, Stoljaroff1987, Tabletop, Tevildo, Tomisti, Vegetator, Viriditas, Wallpaperit, Wazronk, Wetzel95, Xanchester, Yrithinnd, Zosimus, 95 anonymous edits
LeibnizClarke correspondence Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=610613558 Contributors: BD2412, Banno, Cerebellum, Dajon, Dgetzin, Drift chambers, Farnhamian,
Headbomb, Hhhippo, Lantonov, Lesonyrra, Mandarax, Michael Hardy, Misheu, Nickst, Omnipaedista, Ontoraul, PaddyLeahy, Peterdjones, Redheylin, Tcamps42, The Anome, Woohookitty,
Xanchester, 7 anonymous edits
Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=590873233 Contributors: Gregbard, Kolbasz, Largoplazo, MatthewVanitas, Xenfreak, 3
anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 70
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

File:Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gottfried_Wilhelm_von_Leibniz.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: AndreasPraefcke,
Auntof6, Beria, Bernd Schwabe in Hannover, Beyond My Ken, Boo-Boo Baroo, Cirt, Davidlud, Ecummenic, Eusebius, Factumquintus, FalconL, Gabor, Jianhui67, Leyo, Luestling, Mattes,
Rilegator, Schaengel89, Shakko, Svencb, Tomisti, Trijnstel, 12 anonymous edits
File:Leibnitz signature.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leibnitz_signature.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: AndreasPraefcke, Connormah, Florentyna,
McSush, Shaddim
File:Leibnitzrechenmaschine.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leibnitzrechenmaschine.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Contributors: User:Kolossos
File:Korespondencja Gottfrieda Leibniza.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Korespondencja_Gottfrieda_Leibniza.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors:
AndreasPraefcke, BurgererSF
Image:Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gottfried_Wilhelm_von_Leibniz.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors:
AndreasPraefcke, Auntof6, Beria, Bernd Schwabe in Hannover, Beyond My Ken, Boo-Boo Baroo, Cirt, Davidlud, Ecummenic, Eusebius, Factumquintus, FalconL, Gabor, Jianhui67, Leyo,
Luestling, Mattes, Rilegator, Schaengel89, Shakko, Svencb, Tomisti, Trijnstel, 12 anonymous edits
File:Bernoulli-vis-viva-with-0.5-multiplier-1736 (1741).gif Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bernoulli-vis-viva-with-0.5-multiplier-1736_(1741).gif License: Public
Domain Contributors: Albina-belenkaya
Image:Characteristica universalis diagram.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Characteristica_universalis_diagram.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors:
User:Sholto_Maud
Image:LeibnizCharacters.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LeibnizCharacters.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Sholto Maud
File:Cylindre de Leibniz anim.gif Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cylindre_de_Leibniz_anim.gif License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0
Contributors: Ezrdr
File:Flag of Germany.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_Germany.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Anomie
File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Anomie, Good
Olfactory, MSGJ, Mifter
File:Flag of France.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_France.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Anomie
File:Flag of Europe.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_Europe.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Verdy p, User:-xfi-, User:Paddu,
User:Nightstallion, User:Funakoshi, User:Jeltz, User:Dbenbenn, User:Zscout370
File:Flag of the United States.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Anomie
File:Flag of Austria.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_Austria.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:SKopp
File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikisource-logo.svg License: logo Contributors: ChrisiPK, Guillom, INeverCry, Jarekt, Leyo, MichaelMaggs,
NielsF, Rei-artur, Rocket000, Steinsplitter
File:Thodice title page.jpeg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Thodice_title_page.jpeg License: Public Domain Contributors: AndreasPraefcke, InverseHypercube
File:Leibniz Monadology 2.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leibniz_Monadology_2.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Erkan Yilmaz, FSII, Tomisti
Image:wikisource-logo.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikisource-logo.svg License: logo Contributors: ChrisiPK, Guillom, INeverCry, Jarekt, Leyo,
MichaelMaggs, NielsF, Rei-artur, Rocket000, Steinsplitter
Image:Samuel Clarke.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Samuel_Clarke.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User Magnus Manske on en.wikipedia
License 71
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Leibnizζζ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leibnizζζ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Born July 1, 1646

Died November 14, 1716 (aged70)

Era 17th-/18th-century philosophy

Region Western Philosophy

Maininterests Mathematics, metaphysics, logic, theodicy, universal language

Leibniz promptly returned to Paris and not, as had been

House of Hanover, 16761716

and analytic and linguistic philosophy of the 20th century.

Theodicy and optimism

But Hideaki Hirano argues differently, quoting Mandelbrot:

Scientist and engineer

The vis viva

Other natural science

Advocate of scientific societies

As a mathematician and philosopher

Writings and edition

[38] Magill, Frank (ed.) (1990)

Principle of sufficient reason

Schopenhauer's Four Forms

(1) Giorgione = Barbarelli,

(2) Giorgione was so-called because of his size

Best of all possible worlds

Gottfried Leibniz, the philosopher who coined the term

The problem of evil

Free will versus determinism

20th Century and Contemporary Use

Gottfried Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' in an

Reasons for theodicy

suffering, becomes the problem of suffering.[12]

Christian alternatives to theodicy

Free will defense

Cosmodicy and anthropodicy

Transcendental law of homogeneity

An excerpt from D.Bernoulli's article, published

Jean-Victor Poncelet over the period 18191839, although present-day

A universal pictographic language: the key to all the sciences

A universal language of science

Rescher, reviewing Cohen's 1954 article, wrote that:

His diagrammatic reasoning

Leibniz's diagrammatic reasoning.

These four elements make up the four corners of a

Leibniz loses will

A common scientific language

Gdel alleges conspiracy

Related 17th century projects

More recent projects

Machines built using this principle

which he thought was original.

New Essays on Human Understanding

The metaphysics of The Monadology

References and notes

Although a variety of subjects is touched on in the letters, the main

Leibniz had published only a book on moral matters, the Theodice

Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis

Article Sources and Contributors

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

You might also like