The Monadology

by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

The Monadology is one of Gottfried Leibniz's 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. In it, he offers 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.

Genres: Philosophy

23 pages, Kindle Edition

Published April 21, 2020

About the author

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

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

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

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 Various learned journals, tens of thousands of letters, and unpublished manuscripts scattered contributions of Leibniz to this vast array of subjects.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

Reviews

[Starch · Rating 3 out of 5]

It always breaks my heart when a brilliant man tries to rationally prove that which he already believes irrationally. Especially when that man is Leibniz, one of the greatest geniuses in human history.

"38. Thus the final reason of things must be in a necessary substance, in which the
variety of particular changes exists only eminently, as in its source; and this
substance we call God."

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that the logic itself is sound. But simply change "and this substance we call God" to "and this substance we call Bob", and see how little is being proven here. By naming two different things "God" -- the deity described in Christianity and the necessary substance he discovered logically -- Leibniz thinks he has proven them to be one and the same. But the magic is in the act of naming alone.

And that this "necessary substance" happens to share the character and moral views of the God of Christianity does not raise an issue in Leibniz's mind -- because it was the hidden, fundamental, and wholly irrational axiom of his entire argument. The argument itself is merely a magician's stage-act for the purpose of hiding this axiom, most likely even from Leibniz himself.

The rest is similarly flawed. Leibniz takes some preached quality of the Christian God as an axiom, then either uses logic to build on it further or works sideways to show how this axiom fits everything else perfectly. His logic itself is often clear and sound, and some of his observations are brilliant. If only he weren't a Christian.

[Melika Khoshnezhad · Rating 3 out of 5]

لایب‌نیتس واقعاً فیلسوف جالبی است، اما حقیقتاً با فیلسوفی مثل اسپینوزا مثلاً قابل‌مقایسه نیست. منظورم از لحاظ هوش یا نبوغ نیست، منظورم از لحاظ سیستماتیک بودن مباحثی است که مطرح می‌کنند. به‌ویژه خواندن «مونادولوژی» بعد از «اخلاق» اسپینوزا با آن نظم و دقت و چهارچوب‌بندی مفصلش، کمی سخت بود. چون لایب‌نیتس دنبال چرایی‌ها نمی‌رود و نمی‌توان از او انتظار صورت‌بندی استدلالی داشت. بیشتر تبیین می‌کند. تلاش می‌کند چگونگی وجود داشتن چیزها را با جهان‌بینی فلسفی خلاقانه‌اش توضیح بدهد، اما در بند چرایی نیست و شاید به همین دلیل مونادولوژی را باید به شیوه‌ای متفاوت با اثری همچون اخلاق اسپینوزا خواند و فهمید. لایب‌نیتس مرا یاد داوینچی می‌اندازد که در همه‌چیز دستی داشته و آن‌قدر احتمالاً پرش فکری داشته که هیچ‌وقت روی هیچ‌کدام عمیق نشده و به همین دلیل هم شاید هیچ اثر منسجم و بزرگی ندارد و حرف‌هایش در حد ایده‌های بسیار درخشان باقی مانده‌اند، اما وجه شگفت‌انگیز اندیشه‌اش همین است که با این‌که آن‌قدر کوتاه‌اند و پرداخت آن‌چنانی ندارند، چنان حیرت‌برانگیزند که همچنان اهمیت زیادی دارد برای فهم فیلسوفان بعدی به‌ویژه کانت و هگل حتماً و حتماً باید لایب‌نیتس را خواند.

به‌نظرم خلاقانه‌ترین وجه فلسفه‌ی لایب‌نیتس این است که امتداد را از ذات جوهر می‌گیرد. مونادها به‌عنوان اتم‌های راستین یا اتم‌های متافیزیکی غیرمادی‌اند. امتداد گویی وجه پدیداری آن‌هاست و هر موناد منظری منحصربه‌فرد روی به کلِ جهان دارد. این‌که مونادها آینه‌‌های ابدی‌اند که کل جهان را متجلی می‌سازند و همگی ادراک و شوق دارند و به تعبیری کل جهان در نظام لایب‌نیستی ارگانیسمی زنده‌ است بسیار زیبا و منحصربه‌فرد است و به‌نظرم لایب‌نیتس با نسبی کردن زمان و مکان و درآوردن‌شان از حالت مطلق نیوتونی، نقش پررنگی در پیش‌روی فیزیک و ریاضیات مدرن داشته است.

[Anusha · Rating 2 out of 5]

Prou d'intentar justificar el que creus irracionalment amb mètodes racionals. Pots estar-te tranquil i acceptar que ho creus i punt? És el teu guilty pleasure o simplement no pots acceptar que ets un ésser humà dels collons?
no sé si és falta d'humilitat, arrogància intel·lectual o simplement por però que trist que Leibniz, en teoria una de les ments més brillants de tota la història, no hagi pogut veure això.
A més, el Déu d'aquest senyor no és el concepte de totalitat, il.limitació i aquestes marranades com ho volen fer veure. Són els axiomes i les regles del pensament. Com pots dir que un ésser il·limitat està regit per axiomes i que només abarca tot allò lògic?! llavors com dius que és il·limitat?!
estic farta dels homes

[Matt C · Rating 5 out of 5]

What are monads? They are “simple substances,” meaning that they are irreducible. A monad changes over time through a process called an “appetite” that adheres to the “law of continuity.” Monads allude to the existence of an unembodied mind that brought everything into being, a “final reason for all things.” What would such a Creator’s attributes be? Infinite power, infinite knowledge, and always does what is best in all things. Leibniz argues that if we hold to this idea of a Maker, then we occupy a universe that is the best of all possible universes. We must attach ourselves to the “Author of all!”

[Gary W · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leibniz explains his "Best of All Possible Worlds"

I prefer this summary to his much more verbose "Theodicy". His physics are of course quite primitive, and his metaphysics are very much compatible with the Scholastics centuries before him. It's as if he is trying to make Epicurean physics fit into the Theology of Thomas Aquinas.

Still, he does try to summarize his views on why there is Evil in a Universe ruled by a Perfect God. It's up to the reader to decide whether Leibniz successfully resolved this classic paradox.

[Maty Candelaria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Geometrical Simplicity.

[Abigail Franklin · Rating 3 out of 5]

We are all just ponds made of ponds, huh

[Gautam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Monads: windowless and multiple monads?! Harmonized though divine plan.

[Ayush · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting metaphysical exercise --- far from perfect, of course, but still deserving of a careful read in how it differs from crude Cartesianism.

[Joel Olsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Han är mer lätt förståelig än Descartes antagligen för att han inte är en franska filosof

3,2/5

[Parker Trager · Rating 3 out of 5]

Voltaire was right. Ts mad confusing.