What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #490
Leibniz: A Very Short Introduction
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a man of extraordinary intellectual creativity who lived an exceptionally rich and varied intellectual life in troubled times. More than anything else, he was a man who wanted to improve the life of his fellow human beings through the advancement of all the sciences and the establishment of a stable and just political order.In this Very Short Introduction Maria Rosa Antognazza outlines the central features of Leibniz's philosophy in the context of his overarching intellectual vision and aspirations. Against the backdrop of Leibniz's encompassing scientific ambitions, she introduces the fundamental principles of Leibniz's thought, as well as his theory of truth and theory of knowledge. Exploring Leibniz's contributions to logic, mathematics, physics, and metaphysics, she considers how his theories satalongside his concerns with politics, diplomacy, and a broad range of practical juridical, economic, administrative, technological, medical, and ecclesiastical. Discussing Leinbniz's theories of possible worlds, she concludes by looking at what is ultimately real in this actual world that we experience,the good and evil there is in it, and Leibniz's response to the problem of evil through his theodicy.ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
160 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 14, 2016
38 people are currently reading
240 people want to read
About the author
Maria Rosa Antognazza
10 books4 followersProfessor Maria Rosa Antognazza is Professor of Philosophy at King's College London. She was educated at the Catholic University of Milan and has held research and visiting fellowships in Italy, Germany, Israel, Great Britain, and the USA, including a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship, a two-year research fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust, and the Leibniz-Professorship in Leipzig in 2016.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 21, 2021
3.5* for the author, who clearly knows her Leibniz, but who could have made it more of an "Introduction" (more context, more on the reception of his thought by his contemporaries, etc.) and less of an at-times repetitive (and not always clarifyingly-so) summary of the components of L's mystifications, I mean metaphysics of course.
1* for the reader, whose thots clearly never strayed far beyond saying "Ich leibe, I mean, liebe dich" to a very different smart little cookie...
...but who will nonetheless now proceed to dip into some non-chocolate-based primary* matter
*I mean something L actually wrote himself. He would call that "secondary matter" in metaphysical terms, I think (meaning really I dunno).
1* for the reader, whose thots clearly never strayed far beyond saying "Ich leibe, I mean, liebe dich" to a very different smart little cookie...
...but who will nonetheless now proceed to dip into some non-chocolate-based primary* matter
*I mean something L actually wrote himself. He would call that "secondary matter" in metaphysical terms, I think (meaning really I dunno).
February 23, 2018
Leibniz was Der Meister Denker. I was reading her Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography at the same time, and this little book helped in reading the more hefty book. Best to have some philosophy studies before reading this introduction, though she does an excellent job--with help from colleagues noted in "Further Reading," particularly R. M. Adams, M. Mugnai and D. Rutherford--of summarizing different scholarly views of this genius's life and thought. Having a recent review of how scholars understand his theodicy, monads, the controversy with Newton, the great dialogue with Locke, and Leibniz's endless work in math, science, theology, politics and especially his advanced thoughts on various levels of unity, is helpful. The study of Leibniz will go on forever, because his works will run to 120 volumes at least when finally published, though he only published one full-length book in his lifetime, Essays on Theodicy, still needing a decent English translation. No philosopher in history corresponded with more thinkers--regardless of their points of view--than Leibniz. As a result, he would refine his thought. No philosopher was more in the world and wanted philosophy to work and be useful than Leibniz. I really don't know how someone could do a better job of clarifying his thought in a hundred and sixteen pages than Antognazza. One fact you realize when finishing this and her biography: If we had to name one person as the greatest thinker of all time, it would have to be the polyglot Leibniz.
February 21, 2021
MRA has done a commendable, if uneven job of covering Leibniz’s extensive oeuvre in circa 140 pages. The early sections on logic leaves questions open and has me wanting to know more. GLs theodicy seems to be follow the circular structure:
1 Build a system based on the presumption of a beneficent god
2 Invoke that system to demonstrate the presumption of a beneficent god.
Much of religious justification works in this way. Clever people, like GL, merely invoking more complicated systems obscuring the circularity.
The weakest content comes in the last chapter, which presents, then attempts to counter various objections to GLs metaphysics. Like the logical positivists, I found myself losing patience with such castles in the clouds lacking grounding or falsifiability.
Finally, there is an excellent epilogue discussing GLs influences and followers which, unfortunately, was too brief.
GL holds an odd place in the history of philosophy. His ideas carry weight and promise, but he seems to be a kind of dead end. Anyway, despite some insights anticipating ideas of modern physics (such as the multiverse) and fascinating notions like monads, he died without any clear followers.
1 Build a system based on the presumption of a beneficent god
2 Invoke that system to demonstrate the presumption of a beneficent god.
Much of religious justification works in this way. Clever people, like GL, merely invoking more complicated systems obscuring the circularity.
The weakest content comes in the last chapter, which presents, then attempts to counter various objections to GLs metaphysics. Like the logical positivists, I found myself losing patience with such castles in the clouds lacking grounding or falsifiability.
Finally, there is an excellent epilogue discussing GLs influences and followers which, unfortunately, was too brief.
GL holds an odd place in the history of philosophy. His ideas carry weight and promise, but he seems to be a kind of dead end. Anyway, despite some insights anticipating ideas of modern physics (such as the multiverse) and fascinating notions like monads, he died without any clear followers.
November 5, 2018
A brisk, refreshing saunter through the splendid resume of one of Western Civilization's greatest thinkers. Leibniz is a wiz; and the VSI series chalks up another win. Love this library! Always good to have Leibniz at hand in these trouble times ...when no one is sure of a damn thing anymore!
November 18, 2021
Good start if you want to read her much bigger and extensive biography on Leibniz.
January 9, 2023
I have several ambitious reading projects ahead of me, which will require many detours, re-reads and side-reads. This is just one such very quick, or "very short" side-read, though I notice that its author has written a much more extensive "intellectual biography" of Leibniz.
June 23, 2020
Been dawdling on a project to do a parallel study of western and eastern schools of logic. Leibniz was well versed with eastern philosophy like Taoism and supposedly used his knowledge of hexagrams to postulate rules of binary logic, thought this might be a good bridge to start off my parallel study. The book itself had very little of the bridge, and I was quite disappointed by the lack of biographical elements from the fascinating life of one of our greatest ever polymaths. Instead of linking his life with his ideas, the evolution of his thought with the trajectory of his experiences and correspondences and influences, this book is just a sterile list of his main ideas, all of which are presented without any synthesis like examples, links with future developments and modern knowledge, or any sort of meaningful development of ideas. A book-sized table of contents. On the bright side, it was so unsatisfying that I ended up finding this incredible resource: https://www.denizcemonduygu.com/philo...
The range of Leibniz’s ideas is astounding, and the couple of introductory passages about his restless mind and body were enough to stoke substantial curiosity into Leibniz the man rather than the philosopher and scientist. Sounds far more interesting than Newton, unfortunately James Gleick chose to write about the latter so that’s who I’ll be reading next.
Notes
Principle of sufficient reason: All things that exist can be traced to a foundation of reason. Truths of reason, like triangle has 180degs cannot be otherwise, false and impossible. Truths of fact, like I’m wearing a t-shirt, can be otherwise, false but possible.
There cannot be 2 perfectly similar things, it is our failure of abstraction to figure out their dissimilarity.
Theory of relations: Relations are truths built on foundations of individual objects when 2 of them are thought of together - Carl Rogers, Instrumental?
While relations depend on foundations of intrinsic properties of substance, modifications (color, height), and a mind comparing objects, the last is not necessary for existence of relations because already conceived in the mind of god.
I am sum of various identities. There is possible a ‘complete concept’ of me that includes every single property (predicate) that I have, past present future. By ‘universal harmony’ and ‘sufficient reason’, this will connect me to everything else in the universe.
Is there really a difference between truth of reason and truth of fact? 1) Absolute necessity: opposite cannot be understood, triangle cannot have more than 3 sides. Hypothetical necessity: can be understood under different set of circumstances, I don’t have umbrella but if were raining I’d have an umbrella. 2) Former can be demonstrated in finite steps, latter needs infinite regress of explanations, so me+umbrella is not a reason truth subject-predicate pair.
But god can demonstrate, so technically no difference? Leibniz explains through infinite worlds. Contingent truths don’t exist in all worlds. Truths of reason exist in all, because they could not not-exist.
Knowledge is seeing all the predicates of a subject.
Obscure knowledge: Cannot recognize when placed in front of me. Clear: I can recognize. Clear but confused: Recognize but cannot represent the differences, like telling a blind man to recognize red. Clear and distinct: Recognize and can represent. Adequate: When all predicates are made distinct.
Sense-perception is necessary but not sufficient. Merely give us instances/particulars, cannot be extrapolated to universals.
Similarly, experience is necessary but not sufficient. Merely actualizes innate inclinations, dispositions and potentialities. Contrast with Locke’s tabula rasa.
Theodicy is poorly understood and therefore caricatured, like with Pangloss by Voltaire’s Candide. It’s actually rooted in complex logical steps. If all-powerful god is possible (doesn’t lead to contradiction), then it must exist somewhere. If omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, then knows what is best of all possible worlds, wants it, and can bring it about.
What if the best of all possible worlds is a world of all possible worlds rather than just the best world? And in that world of worlds, we are in one of the shittiest ones? It is true we are in the scenario of the best of all possible world of worlds, but our world itself is not the best of all possible worlds.
If contingent truths are only those reason-truths which we haven’t properly proven, then the fact that no-God doesn’t throw up a contradiction isn’t proof that he can exist.
Happiness/Lasting pleasure is perception of perfection. Harmony, unity in multiplicity, is expression of perfection, maximizing for most essences in harmony.
3 Christian virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Charity + wisdom = Justice. Wisdom is knowledge of path to happiness.
3 evils: metaphysical evil (creatures must have limitations, otherwise they’d be god. Limitations cause suffering. Earthquakes/Tsunamis/Blindness all result of limitation. Birds not affected by earthquake). Physical evil: Suffering, consequence of moral evil (sin) and not god’s fault. Moral evil: Consequence of free choice.
Are things just because God made it so, or did God make it so because they are just (Plato’s Euthyphro). If God was to choose, then he could make such that an innocent person being punished was actually just, it isn’t so God has not chosen.
Physics explains physical phenomena. These are manifestations of some ultimate phenomena, explained by metaphysics. The physics of physics.
Aristotle’s ‘entelechy’, force that actualizes potential. Derivative force studied by physics. Primitive force by metaphysics, substances that are manifested as modified phenomena.
Entire section on Monads was clear in a confusing way, in that I understood its individual tenets but couldn’t quite figure out what to distill as notes. Best I could do is compare it with Nagel’s idea that evolution isn’t necessary for consciousness, and Chalmer’s idea of quantum consciousness. In oppositon to Descarte’s view of mind vs body dualism. Leibniz preferred unity
The range of Leibniz’s ideas is astounding, and the couple of introductory passages about his restless mind and body were enough to stoke substantial curiosity into Leibniz the man rather than the philosopher and scientist. Sounds far more interesting than Newton, unfortunately James Gleick chose to write about the latter so that’s who I’ll be reading next.
Notes
Principle of sufficient reason: All things that exist can be traced to a foundation of reason. Truths of reason, like triangle has 180degs cannot be otherwise, false and impossible. Truths of fact, like I’m wearing a t-shirt, can be otherwise, false but possible.
There cannot be 2 perfectly similar things, it is our failure of abstraction to figure out their dissimilarity.
Theory of relations: Relations are truths built on foundations of individual objects when 2 of them are thought of together - Carl Rogers, Instrumental?
While relations depend on foundations of intrinsic properties of substance, modifications (color, height), and a mind comparing objects, the last is not necessary for existence of relations because already conceived in the mind of god.
I am sum of various identities. There is possible a ‘complete concept’ of me that includes every single property (predicate) that I have, past present future. By ‘universal harmony’ and ‘sufficient reason’, this will connect me to everything else in the universe.
Is there really a difference between truth of reason and truth of fact? 1) Absolute necessity: opposite cannot be understood, triangle cannot have more than 3 sides. Hypothetical necessity: can be understood under different set of circumstances, I don’t have umbrella but if were raining I’d have an umbrella. 2) Former can be demonstrated in finite steps, latter needs infinite regress of explanations, so me+umbrella is not a reason truth subject-predicate pair.
But god can demonstrate, so technically no difference? Leibniz explains through infinite worlds. Contingent truths don’t exist in all worlds. Truths of reason exist in all, because they could not not-exist.
Knowledge is seeing all the predicates of a subject.
Obscure knowledge: Cannot recognize when placed in front of me. Clear: I can recognize. Clear but confused: Recognize but cannot represent the differences, like telling a blind man to recognize red. Clear and distinct: Recognize and can represent. Adequate: When all predicates are made distinct.
Sense-perception is necessary but not sufficient. Merely give us instances/particulars, cannot be extrapolated to universals.
Similarly, experience is necessary but not sufficient. Merely actualizes innate inclinations, dispositions and potentialities. Contrast with Locke’s tabula rasa.
Theodicy is poorly understood and therefore caricatured, like with Pangloss by Voltaire’s Candide. It’s actually rooted in complex logical steps. If all-powerful god is possible (doesn’t lead to contradiction), then it must exist somewhere. If omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, then knows what is best of all possible worlds, wants it, and can bring it about.
What if the best of all possible worlds is a world of all possible worlds rather than just the best world? And in that world of worlds, we are in one of the shittiest ones? It is true we are in the scenario of the best of all possible world of worlds, but our world itself is not the best of all possible worlds.
If contingent truths are only those reason-truths which we haven’t properly proven, then the fact that no-God doesn’t throw up a contradiction isn’t proof that he can exist.
Happiness/Lasting pleasure is perception of perfection. Harmony, unity in multiplicity, is expression of perfection, maximizing for most essences in harmony.
3 Christian virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Charity + wisdom = Justice. Wisdom is knowledge of path to happiness.
3 evils: metaphysical evil (creatures must have limitations, otherwise they’d be god. Limitations cause suffering. Earthquakes/Tsunamis/Blindness all result of limitation. Birds not affected by earthquake). Physical evil: Suffering, consequence of moral evil (sin) and not god’s fault. Moral evil: Consequence of free choice.
Are things just because God made it so, or did God make it so because they are just (Plato’s Euthyphro). If God was to choose, then he could make such that an innocent person being punished was actually just, it isn’t so God has not chosen.
Physics explains physical phenomena. These are manifestations of some ultimate phenomena, explained by metaphysics. The physics of physics.
Aristotle’s ‘entelechy’, force that actualizes potential. Derivative force studied by physics. Primitive force by metaphysics, substances that are manifested as modified phenomena.
Entire section on Monads was clear in a confusing way, in that I understood its individual tenets but couldn’t quite figure out what to distill as notes. Best I could do is compare it with Nagel’s idea that evolution isn’t necessary for consciousness, and Chalmer’s idea of quantum consciousness. In oppositon to Descarte’s view of mind vs body dualism. Leibniz preferred unity
August 8, 2019
Perhaps a fine example of a postrenaissance man, Leibniz had a lot going on in his life, plenty to write about yet barely enough pages to collect his many thoughts. One of his main motives for the multiple mathematical, philosophical and scientific discoveries he makes is to make the world a better place according to God’s ideal form of the universe. It is too bad he made these declarations at such a treacherous time in Europe, where there were just enough conniving power players like Newton and savage wits like Voltaire to diminish the importance of his theories.
June 18, 2023
It was such a pleasure to read about the thought of Leibniz, in particular because he was slandered so cruelly by Newton, who took pleasure in destroying Leibniz's reputation through lies (Newton was a huge jerk and curmudgeon).
Leibniz, who developed calculus independently of Newton, but at the same time, was always interested in bettering the lives of people through educational access, whereas Newton was more interested simply in the science. In many ways, this book shows how much of a humanist Leibniz was, and how important his thoughts were to society (unlike Newton, who was a loner who could care less about other people).
During his life, and still today, Leibniz was and still is overshadowed by Newton. In many ways that was by the design of Newton, which is unfortunate. This book shows just how important this often overlooked thinker was and still is to humanity and learning.
Leibniz, who developed calculus independently of Newton, but at the same time, was always interested in bettering the lives of people through educational access, whereas Newton was more interested simply in the science. In many ways, this book shows how much of a humanist Leibniz was, and how important his thoughts were to society (unlike Newton, who was a loner who could care less about other people).
During his life, and still today, Leibniz was and still is overshadowed by Newton. In many ways that was by the design of Newton, which is unfortunate. This book shows just how important this often overlooked thinker was and still is to humanity and learning.
June 22, 2017
This was a great introduction to Leibniz' ideas. It starts off with his grand desire to formulate a universal language to mathematically express natural phenomenon and how most of his ventures stemmed from this desire, including the development of calculus, binary representation and "geometry with symbols instead of figures" (the beginnings of vector-spaces).
The metaphysical concepts of monads, activity and unity were quite close to those expressed in the first few chapters of "The Selfish Gene" by Prof Dakwins. However Leibniz was a religious man of the 17th century and saw God as "unity", a "perfect" substance and that is precisely where Dawkins deviates (rightly so, if I might add).
Although a good understanding of Leibniz' metaphysics practically eludes me, this book gives a good introduction.
The metaphysical concepts of monads, activity and unity were quite close to those expressed in the first few chapters of "The Selfish Gene" by Prof Dakwins. However Leibniz was a religious man of the 17th century and saw God as "unity", a "perfect" substance and that is precisely where Dawkins deviates (rightly so, if I might add).
Although a good understanding of Leibniz' metaphysics practically eludes me, this book gives a good introduction.
July 18, 2019
I have read parts or the whole of a few of these "very short introductions" published by Oxford University Press. This is the best one I've read so far, because it fulfills its promise. It's a fairly short introduction to the life and thought of Leibniz by a leading Leibniz scholar, Maria Rosa Antognazza. (She is the editor of the recently published Oxford Handbook of Leibniz.) The author covers all the basics, from Leibniz's work in calculus to his writings on metaphysics and the problem of evil. That's no small feat, considering that Leibniz was a great polymath whose work is hard to summarize. If you want to know more about this great philosopher, start here.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 28, 2020
It may have been a 'very short introduction', but gosh, that was a philosophy too far for me. Maybe I'm just not cut out for metaphysics at that level, or maybe I should have led up to Leibniz by reading a hundred other books on metaphysics first! Can't imagine how much more difficult something that wasn't 'a short introduction' might be. Not sure I'm much wiser, and it's taken a long time to get here.
April 28, 2021
Tough sledding getting through that prose. A severe allergy to academic English and obfuscatory language had me rushing for the exit. Where does Maria mention that Leibniz was onto the chaos theory butterfly metaphor centuries ago? Where does she mention the I-Ching and its possible influence on binary numeral systems? I started to fear that if she thought something was interesting, she had to leave it out.
December 22, 2022
I got a collection of Leibniz’ writings for my birthday so I decided to read this prior to dipping into those. Covering Leibniz has seemingly become my goal for this winter break. I thought the author did a fine job. I think this book could’ve dipped more into the time period and also could’ve been less repetitive towards the end. But it is a SHORT introduction so I’m not mad about it. If I wanted something longer in scope and book length I would’ve looked for something else.
September 14, 2025
It’s relatively dense and scholarly, packing in a lot of content despite the promise of a brief introduction. Chapters are structured by topic and rough chronology, hence treating calculus first, monads at the end, etc. I would have appreciated more of a systematic and opinionated treatment, as is done at certain points when discussing how Leibniz’s “dense network of ideas” comes into force in dealing with the Theodicy, etc. Overall a decent intellectual and biographical sketch.
June 30, 2021
Damn this guy was a genius! Glad i decided to read it! Interesting fact, computer was made possible because of his thinking. Amazing guy!
December 13, 2016
Leibniz - A Very Short Introduction (2016) by Maria Rosa Antognazza looks at the life and thought of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz who was co-discoverer of calculus and an important philosopher. The book goes very quickly over Leibniz's life and his mathematical achievements and concentrates on his philosophy and his attempt to systematically redo all the sciences and his theories of monads. It's interesting how the book concentrates on his philosophy where as it is his math work that has probably had greater impact.
December 28, 2025
I have never read Leibniz but plan to in 2025. This book provides a very helpful summary of his main ideas and arguments.
Update in late 2025: I read this book again after having read a good amount of Leibniz. Same rating.
Update in late 2025: I read this book again after having read a good amount of Leibniz. Same rating.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews