Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
View on Wikipedia
Key Information
| Part of a series on |
| Theodicy |
|---|
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (or Leibnitz;[a] 1 July 1646 [O.S. 21 June] – 14 November 1716) was a German polymath active as a mathematician, philosopher, scientist and diplomat who is credited, alongside Isaac Newton, with the creation of calculus in addition to many other branches of mathematics, such as binary arithmetic and statistics. Leibniz has been called the "last universal genius" due to his vast expertise across fields, which became a rarity after his lifetime with the coming of the Industrial Revolution and the spread of specialized labour.[15] He is a prominent figure in both the history of philosophy and the history of mathematics. He wrote works on philosophy, theology, ethics, politics, law, history, philology, games, music, and other studies. Leibniz also made major contributions to physics and technology, and anticipated notions that surfaced much later in probability theory, biology, medicine, geology, psychology, linguistics and computer science.
Leibniz contributed to the field of library science, developing a cataloguing system (at the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel, Germany) that came to serve as a model for many of Europe's largest libraries.[16][17] His contributions to a wide range of subjects were scattered in various learned journals, in tens of thousands of letters and in unpublished manuscripts. He wrote in several languages, primarily in Latin, French and German.[b][c]
As a philosopher, he was a leading representative of 17th-century rationalism and idealism. As a mathematician, his major achievement was the development of differential and integral calculus, independently of Newton's contemporaneous developments.[20] Leibniz's notation has been favoured as the conventional and more exact expression of calculus.[21][22][23] In addition to his work on calculus, he is credited with devising the modern binary number system[24] which is the basis of modern communications and digital computing[25] (though the English astronomer Thomas Harriot had devised the same system decades before[26]). He envisioned the field of combinatorial topology as early as 1679,[27] and helped initiate the field of fractional calculus.[28][29][page needed]
In the 20th century, Leibniz's notions of the law of continuity and the transcendental law of homogeneity found a consistent mathematical formulation by means of non-standard analysis. He was also a pioneer 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[30] and invented the Leibniz wheel, later used in the arithmometer, the first mass-produced mechanical calculator.
In philosophy and theology, Leibniz is most noted for his optimism, i.e. his conclusion that our world is, in a qualified sense, the best possible world that God could have created, a view sometimes lampooned by other thinkers, such as Voltaire in his satirical novella Candide. Leibniz, along with René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, was one of the three influential early modern rationalists. His philosophy also assimilates elements of the scholastic tradition, notably the assumption that some substantive knowledge of reality can be achieved by reasoning from first principles or prior definitions. The work of Leibniz anticipated modern logic and still influences contemporary analytic philosophy, such as its adopted use of the term possible world to define modal notions.
Biography
[edit]Early life
[edit]Gottfried Leibniz was born on 1 July [OS: 21 June] 1646, in Leipzig, in the Electorate of Saxony of the Holy Roman Empire (now in the German state of Saxony) to Friedrich Leibniz (1597–1652) and Catharina Schmuck (1621–1664).[31][page needed] He was baptized two days later at St. Nicholas Church, Leipzig; his godfather was the Lutheran theologian Martin Geier.[32] His father died when he was six years old, and Leibniz was raised by his mother.[33][failed verification]
Leibniz's father had been a Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Leipzig, where he also served as dean of philosophy. The boy inherited his father's personal library. He was given free access to it from the age of seven, shortly after his father's death. While Leibniz's schoolwork was largely confined to the study of 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.[34] 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. At the age of 13 he composed 300 hexameters of Latin verse in a single morning for a special event at school.[35]
In April 1661 he enrolled in his father's former university at age 14.[36][1][37] There he was guided, among others, by Jakob Thomasius, previously a student of Friedrich. Leibniz completed his bachelor's degree in Philosophy in December 1662. He defended his Disputatio Metaphysical de Principio Individual ('Metaphysical Disputation on the Principle of Individuation'),[38] which addressed the principle of individuation, on 9 June 1663 [O.S. 30 May], presenting an early version of monadic substance theory. Leibniz earned his master's degree in Philosophy on 7 February 1664. In December 1664 he published and defended a dissertation Specimen Quaestionum Philosophicarum ex Jure collectarum (transl. An Essay of Collected Philosophical Problems of Right),[38] arguing for both a theoretical and a pedagogical relationship between philosophy and law. After one year of legal studies, he was awarded his bachelor's degree in Law on 28 September 1665.[39] His dissertation was titled De conditionibus (transl. On Conditions).[38]
In early 1666, at age 19, Leibniz wrote his first book, De Arte Combinatoria (transl. On the Combinatorial Art), the first part of which was also his habilitation thesis in Philosophy, which he defended in March 1666.[38][d] De Arte Combinatoria was inspired by Ramon Llull's Ars Magna[40] and contained a proof of the existence of God, cast in geometrical form, and based on the argument from motion.[citation needed]
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.[41][42] Leibniz subsequently left Leipzig.[43]
Leibniz then enrolled in the University of Altdorf and quickly submitted a thesis, which he had probably been working on earlier in Leipzig.[44] The title of his thesis was Disputatio Inauguralis de Casibus Perplexis in Jure (transl. Inaugural Disputation on Ambiguous Legal Cases).[38] 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".[45]
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.[46]
1666–1676
[edit]
Leibniz's first position was as a salaried secretary to an alchemical society in Nuremberg.[47] He knew fairly little about the subject at that time but presented himself as deeply learned. He soon met Johann Christian von Boyneburg (1622–1672), the dismissed chief minister of the Elector of Mainz, Johann Philipp von Schönborn.[48] 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 the Electorate.[49] 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.[50]
Von Boyneburg did much to promote Leibniz's reputation, and the latter's memoranda and letters began to attract favourable notice. After Leibniz's service to the Elector there 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, 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,[51] 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.
Thus Leibniz went to Paris in 1672. Soon after arriving, he met Dutch physicist and mathematician Christiaan Huygens and realised that his own knowledge of mathematics and physics was lacking. With Huygens as his 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.[52] He befriended a German mathematician, Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus; they corresponded for the rest of their lives.[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.[53] There Leibniz met 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.[24] The machine was able to execute all four basic operations (adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing), and the society quickly made him an external member.[citation needed]
The mission ended quickly when news of the Elector's death (12 February 1673) reached them. Leibniz promptly returned to Paris and not, as had been planned, to Mainz.[54] The sudden deaths of his two patrons in the same winter meant that Leibniz had to find a new basis for his career.[citation needed]
In this regard, a 1669 invitation from Duke John Frederick of Brunswick to visit Hanover proved to have been fateful. Leibniz had declined the invitation, but had begun corresponding with the duke in 1671. In 1673, the duke offered Leibniz the post of counsellor. Leibniz very reluctantly accepted the position two years later, only after it became clear that no employment was forthcoming in Paris, whose intellectual stimulation he relished, or with the Habsburg imperial court.[55]
In 1675 he tried to get admitted to the French Academy of Sciences as a foreign honorary member, but it was considered that there were already enough foreigners there and so no invitation came. He left Paris in October 1676.
House of Hanover, 1676–1716
[edit]
Leibniz managed to delay his arrival in Hanover until the end of 1676 after making one more short journey to London, where Newton accused him of having seen his unpublished work on calculus in advance.[e] This was alleged to be evidence supporting the accusation, made decades later, that he had stolen calculus from Newton. On the journey from London to Hanover, Leibniz stopped in The Hague where he met van Leeuwenhoek, the discoverer of microorganisms. He also spent several days in intense discussion with Spinoza, who had just completed, but had not published, his masterwork, the Ethics.[57] Spinoza died very shortly after Leibniz's visit.
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.
Leibniz began promoting a project to use windmills to improve the mining operations in the Harz mountains. This project did little to improve mining operations and was shut down by Duke Ernst August in 1685.[55]

Among the few people in north Germany to accept Leibniz were the Electress Sophia of Hanover (1630–1714), her daughter Sophia Charlotte of Hanover (1668–1705), 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.[f]
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 honour, 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 calculus, writing about other mathematics, logic, physics, and philosophy, and keeping up a vast correspondence. He began working on 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. Leibniz was appointed Librarian of the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel, Lower Saxony, in 1691. Three volumes of the Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium were published from 1707 to 1711.[59][page needed]
In 1708, John Keill, writing in the journal of the Royal Society and with Newton's presumed blessing, accused Leibniz of having plagiarised Newton's calculus.[60] 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 calculus.
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 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. In 1716, while traveling in northern Europe, the Russian Tsar Peter the Great stopped in Bad Pyrmont and met Leibniz, who took interest in Russian matters since 1708 and was appointed advisor in 1711.[61]
Death
[edit]
Leibniz died in Hanover in 1716, and was interred in the New Town Church (Neustädter Kirche). At the time, he was so out of favour 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 honour his death. His grave went unmarked for more than 50 years. He was, however, eulogized by Fontenelle, before the French Academy of 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
[edit]Leibniz never married. He proposed to an unknown woman at age 50, but changed his mind when she took too long to decide.[62] 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 paid him fairly well. In his diplomatic endeavors, he at times verged on the unscrupulous, as was 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.[63]
He was charming, well-mannered, and not without humor and imagination.[g] He had many friends and admirers all over Europe. He was identified as a Protestant and a philosophical theist.[67][68][69][70] Leibniz remained committed to Trinitarian Christianity throughout his life.[71]
Philosophy
[edit]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 letters to correspondents. He wrote two book-length philosophical treatises, of which only the Théodicée ('theodicy') 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 correspondence with Arnauld;[72][73] it and the Discourse were not published until the 19th century. In 1695, Leibniz made his public entrée into European philosophy with a journal article titled "New System of the Nature and Communication of Substances".[74][75][76] 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 also wrote a short paper, "Primae veritates" ('first truths'), first published by Louis Couturat in 1903[77][h] summarizing his views on metaphysics. The paper is undated; that he wrote it while in Vienna in 1689 was determined only in 1999, when the ongoing historical-critical scholarly editing of the collected papers of Leibniz by the editorial project Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe ('Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Complete Writings and Letters'), the Leibniz-Edition ('Leibniz edition') colloqually, finally published Leibniz's philosophical writings for the period 1677–1690.[80] Couturat's reading of this paper influenced much 20th-century thinking about Leibniz, especially among analytic philosophers. After a meticulous study (informed by the 1999 additions to the Leibniz-Edition) of all of Leibniz's philosophical writings up to 1688, Mercer (2001) disagreed with Couturat's reading.[clarification needed]
Leibniz met Baruch Spinoza in 1676, read some of his unpublished writings, and was influenced by some of Spinoza's ideas.[citation needed] While Leibniz befriended Spinoza and admired his powerful intellect, he was also dismayed by Spinoza's conclusions,[81][82][83] especially when these were inconsistent with Christian orthodoxy.
Unlike Descartes and Spinoza, Leibniz had a university education in philosophy. He was influenced by his Leipzig professor Jakob Thomasius, who also supervised his Bachelor of Arts thesis in philosophy.[9] Leibniz also read Francisco Suárez, 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 the established philosophical ideas in which he was educated influenced his view of their work.
Principles
[edit]Leibniz variously invoked one or another of seven fundamental philosophical Principles:[84]
- 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. The "identity of indiscernibles" is frequently invoked in modern logic and philosophy. It has attracted the most controversy and criticism, especially from corpuscular philosophy and quantum mechanics. The converse of this is often called Leibniz's law, or the indiscernibility of identicals, which is mostly uncontroversial.
- Sufficient reason. "There must be a sufficient reason for anything to exist, for any event to occur, for any truth to obtain."[85]
- Pre-established harmony.[86][i] "[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).[citation needed] 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 facit saltus[87][j][90][91] (lit. 'Nature does not make jumps').
- Optimism. "God assuredly always chooses the best."[92]
- Plenitude. Leibniz believed that the best of all possible worlds would actualize every genuine possibility, and argued in his Théodicée 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.[93]
Leibniz would on occasion give a rational defense of a specific principle, but more often took them for granted.[k]
Monads
[edit]
Leibniz's best known contribution to metaphysics is his theory of monads, as exposited in Monadologie. He proposes his theory that the universe is made of an infinite number of simple substances known as monads.[95] Monads can also be compared to the corpuscles of the mechanical philosophy of René Descartes and others. These simple substances or monads are the "ultimate units of existence in nature". Monads have no parts but still exist by the qualities that they have. These qualities are continuously changing over time, and each monad is unique. They are also not affected by time and are subject to only creation and annihilation.[96] Monads are centers of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal. He argued, against Newton, that space, time, and motion are completely relative:[97] "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."[98] Einstein, who called himself a "Leibnizian", wrote in the introduction to Max Jammer's book Concepts of Space that Leibnizianism was superior to Newtonianism, and his ideas would have dominated over Newton's had it not been for the poor technological tools of the time; Joseph Agassi argues that Leibniz paved the way for Einstein's theory of relativity.[99]
Leibniz's proof of God can be summarized in the Théodicée.[100] Reason is governed by the principle of contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason. Using the principle of reasoning, Leibniz concluded that the first reason of all things is God.[100] All that we see and experience is subject to change, and the fact that this world is contingent can be explained by the possibility of the world being arranged differently in space and time. The contingent world must have some necessary reason for its existence. Leibniz uses a geometry book as an example to explain his reasoning. If this book was copied from an infinite chain of copies, there must be some reason for the content of the book.[101] Leibniz concluded that there must be the "monas monadum" or God.
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 pre-programmed set of "instructions" peculiar to itself, so that a monad "knows" what to do at each moment. 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
[edit]The Théodicée[l] 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.[102]
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 Théodicée is Leibniz's attempt to reconcile his personal philosophical system with his interpretation of the tenets of Christianity.[103][page needed] This project was motivated in part by Leibniz's belief, shared by many philosophers and theologians during the Enlightenment, in the rational and enlightened nature of the Christian religion. 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).
In the view of Leibniz, 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:[103][page needed] if God is all good, all wise, and all powerful, then 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.[104]
Further, although human actions flow from prior causes that ultimately arise in God and therefore are known to God as metaphysical certainties, an individual's free will is exercised within natural laws, where choices are merely contingently necessary and to be decided in the event by a "wonderful spontaneity" that provides individuals with an escape from rigorous predestination.
Discourse on Metaphysics
[edit]For Leibniz, "God is an absolutely perfect being". He describes this perfection later in section VI as the simplest form of something with the most substantial outcome (VI[full citation needed]). Along these lines, he declares that every type of perfection "pertains to him (God) in the highest degree" (I[full citation needed]). Even though his types of perfections are not specifically drawn out, Leibniz highlights the one thing that, to him, does certify imperfections and proves that God is perfect: "that one acts imperfectly if he acts with less perfection than he is capable of", and since God is a perfect being, he cannot act imperfectly (III[full citation needed]). Because God cannot act imperfectly, the decisions he makes pertaining to the world must be perfect. Leibniz also comforts readers, stating that because he has done everything to the most perfect degree; those who love him cannot be injured. However, to love God is a subject of difficulty as Leibniz believes that we are "not disposed to wish for that which God desires" because we have the ability to alter our disposition (IV[full citation needed]). In accordance with this, many act as rebels, but Leibniz says that the only way we can truly love God is by being content "with all that comes to us according to his will" (IV[full citation needed]).
Because God is "an absolutely perfect being" (I[full citation needed]), Leibniz argues that God would be acting imperfectly if he acted with any less perfection than what he is able of (III[full citation needed]). His syllogism then ends with the statement that God has made the world perfectly in all ways. This also affects how we should view God and his will. Leibniz states that, in lieu of God's will, we have to understand that God "is the best of all masters" and he will know when his good succeeds, so we, therefore, must act in conformity to his good will – or as much of it as we understand (IV[full citation needed]). In our view of God, Leibniz declares that we cannot admire the work solely because of the maker, lest we mar the glory and love God in doing so. Instead, we must admire the maker for the work he has done (II[full citation needed]). Effectively, Leibniz states that if we say the earth is good because of the will of God, and not good according to some standards of goodness, then how can we praise God for what he has done if contrary actions are also praiseworthy by this definition (II[full citation needed]). Leibniz then asserts that different principles and geometry cannot simply be from the will of God, but must follow from his understanding.[105]
Leibniz wrote: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason ... is found in a substance which ... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[106] Martin Heidegger called this question "the fundamental question of metaphysics".[107][108]
Symbolic thought and rational resolution of disputes
[edit]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:[dubious – discuss][109][110][111]
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, without further ado, to see who is right.
Leibniz's calculus ratiocinator, which resembles symbolic logic, can be viewed as a way of making such calculations feasible. Leibniz wrote memoranda[m] that can now be read as groping attempts to get symbolic logic – and thus his calculus – off the ground. These writings remained unpublished until the appearance of a selection edited by Carl Immanuel Gerhardt (1859). Louis Couturat published a selection in 1901; by this time the main developments of modern logic had been created by Charles Sanders Peirce and by Gottlob Frege.
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 calculus is an example of his skill in this regard. Leibniz's passion for symbols and notation, as well as his belief that these are essential to a well-running logic and mathematics, made him a precursor of semiotics.[112]
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.[n] 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:[o]
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.
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 Gödel numbering. Granted, there is no intuitive or mnemonic way to number any set of elementary concepts using the prime numbers.
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 calculus, may never be established.[p] Leibniz's idea of reasoning through a universal language of symbols and calculations 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).
Formal logic
[edit]Leibniz has been noted as one of the most important logicians between the times of Aristotle and Gottlob Frege.[117] 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:
- All our ideas are compounded from a very small number of simple ideas, which form the alphabet of human thought.
- 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 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.
Russell's principal work on Leibniz found that many of Leibniz's most startling philosophical ideas and claims (e.g., that each of the fundamental monads mirrors the whole universe) follow logically from Leibniz's conscious choice to reject relations between things as unreal. He regarded such relations as (real) qualities of things (Leibniz admitted unary predicates only): For him, "Mary is the mother of John" describes separate qualities of Mary and of John. This view contrasts with the relational logic of De Morgan, Peirce, Schröder and Russell himself, now standard in predicate logic. Notably, Leibniz also declared space and time to be inherently relational.[118]
Leibniz's 1690 discovery of his algebra of concepts[119][120] (deductively equivalent to the Boolean algebra)[121] and the associated metaphysics, are of interest in present-day computational metaphysics.[122]
Mathematics
[edit]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 (see History of the function concept).[123] In the 18th century, "function" lost these geometrical associations. Leibniz was also one of the pioneers in actuarial science, calculating the purchase price of life annuities and the liquidation of a state's debt.[124]
Leibniz's research into formal logic, also relevant to mathematics, is discussed in the preceding section. The best overview of Leibniz's writings on calculus may be found in Bos (1974).[125]
Leibniz, who invented one of the earliest mechanical calculators, said of calculation:[126] "For it is unworthy of excellent men to lose hours like slaves in the labour of calculation which could safely be relegated to anyone else if machines were used."[127]
Linear systems
[edit]Leibniz arranged the coefficients of a system of linear equations into an array, now called a matrix, in order to find a solution to the system if it existed.[128] This method was later called Gaussian elimination. Leibniz laid down the foundations and theory of determinants, although the Japanese mathematician Seki Takakazu also discovered determinants independently of Leibniz.[129][130] His works show calculating the determinants using cofactors.[131] Calculating the determinant using cofactors is named the Leibniz formula. Finding the determinant of a matrix using this method proves impractical with large n, requiring to calculate n! products and the number of n-permutations.[132] He also solved systems of linear equations using determinants, which is now called Cramer's rule. This method for solving systems of linear equations based on determinants was found in 1684 by Leibniz (Gabriel Cramer published his findings in 1750).[130] Although Gaussian elimination requires arithmetic operations, linear algebra textbooks still teach cofactor expansion before LU factorization.[133][134]
Geometry
[edit]The Leibniz formula for π states that
Leibniz wrote that circles "can most simply be expressed by this series, that is, the aggregate of fractions alternately added and subtracted".[135] However this formula is only accurate with a large number of terms, using 10,000,000 terms to obtain the correct value of π/4 to 8 decimal places.[136] Leibniz attempted to create a definition for a straight line while attempting to prove the parallel postulate.[137] While most mathematicians defined a straight line as the shortest line between two points, Leibniz believed that this was merely a property of a straight line rather than the definition.[138]
Calculus
[edit]Leibniz is credited, along with Isaac Newton, with the invention of calculus (differential and integral calculus). According to Leibniz's notebooks, a critical breakthrough occurred on 11 November 1675, when he employed integral calculus for the first time to find the area under the graph of a function y = f(x).[139] 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. Leibniz did not publish anything about his calculus until 1684.[q] Leibniz expressed the inverse relation of integration and differentiation, later called the fundamental theorem of calculus, by means of a figure[141] in his 1693 paper Supplementum geometriae dimensoriae....[142] However, James Gregory is credited for the theorem's discovery in geometric form, Isaac Barrow proved a more generalized geometric version, and Newton developed supporting theory. The concept became more transparent as developed through Leibniz's formalism and new notation.[143] 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 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.[144]
Leibniz introduced fractional calculus in a letter written to Guillaume de l'Hôpital in 1695.[29][page needed] At the same time, Leibniz wrote to Johann Bernoulli about derivatives of "general order".[28] In the correspondence between Leibniz and John Wallis in 1697, Wallis's infinite product for π is discussed. Leibniz suggested using differential calculus to achieve this result. Leibniz further used the notation to denote the derivative of order .[28]
From 1711 until his death, Leibniz was engaged in a dispute with John Keill, Newton and others, over whether Leibniz had invented calculus independently of Newton.
The use of infinitesimals in mathematics was frowned upon by followers of Karl Weierstrass,[145] 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
[edit]Leibniz was the first to use the term analysis situs,[146] 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:[147]
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 Königsberg 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.
But Hideaki Hirano argues differently, quoting Mandelbrot:[148]
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.
Thus the fractal geometry promoted by Mandelbrot drew on Leibniz's notions of self-similarity and the principle of continuity: Natura non facit saltus.[87][r][90][91] 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 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.
He envisioned the field of combinatorial topology as early as 1679, in his work titled Characteristica Geometrica, as he "tried to formulate basic geometric properties of figures, to use special symbols to represent them, and to combine these properties under operations so as to produce new ones."[27]
Science and engineering
[edit]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
[edit]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.[149][150][151][s]
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."[98]
Leibniz held a relational notion of space and time, against Newton's substantivalist views.[152][153][154] According to Newton's substantivalism, space and time are entities in their own right, existing independently of things. Leibniz's relationalism, in contrast, describes space and time as systems of relations that exist between objects. The rise of general relativity and subsequent work in the history of physics has put Leibniz's stance in a more favourable light.
One of Leibniz's projects was to recast Newton's theory as a vortex theory.[155] However, his project went beyond vortex theory, since at its heart there was an attempt to explain one of the most difficult problems in physics, that of the origin of the cohesion of matter.[155]
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. In addition to his theories about the nature of reality, Leibniz's contributions to the development of calculus have also had a major impact on physics.
The vis viva
[edit]Leibniz's vis viva ('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.[156][157][158] 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 and Voltaire in France; hence academics in those countries tended to neglect Leibniz's idea. Leibniz knew of the validity of conservation of momentum. In reality, both energy and momentum are conserved (in closed systems), so both approaches are valid. In Einstein's General Relativity, energy and momentum are not separately conserved. This was thought to be fatal until Emmy Noether showed that taken together, as the four-dimensional energy-momentum tensor, they are conserved.[159]
Other natural science
[edit]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.[t] In medicine, he exhorted the physicians of his time – with some results – to ground their theories in detailed comparative observations and verified experiments, and to distinguish firmly scientific and metaphysical points of view.
Psychology
[edit]Psychology had been a central interest of Leibniz.[161][page needed][162] He appears to be an "underappreciated pioneer of psychology"[163] He wrote on topics which are now regarded as fields of psychology: attention and consciousness, memory, learning (association), motivation (the act of "striving"), emergent individuality, the general dynamics of development (evolutionary psychology). His discussions in the New Essays and Monadology often rely on everyday observations such as the behaviour of a dog or the noise of the sea, and he develops intuitive analogies (the synchronous running of clocks or the balance spring of a clock). He also devised postulates and principles that apply to psychology: the continuum of the unnoticed petites perceptions to the distinct, self-aware apperception, and psychophysical parallelism from the point of view of causality and of purpose: "Souls act according to the laws of final causes, through aspirations, ends and means. Bodies act according to the laws of efficient causes, i.e. the laws of motion. And these two realms, that of efficient causes and that of final causes, harmonize with one another."[164] This idea refers to the mind-body problem, stating that the mind and brain do not act upon each other, but act alongside each other separately but in harmony.[165] Leibniz, however, did not use the term psychologia.[u] Leibniz's epistemological position – against John Locke and English empiricism (sensualism) – was made clear: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu, nisi intellectu ipse." – "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses, except the intellect itself."[168] Principles that are not present in sensory impressions can be recognised in human perception and consciousness: logical inferences, categories of thought, the principle of causality and the principle of purpose (teleology).
Leibniz found his most important interpreter in Wilhelm Wundt, founder of psychology as a discipline. Wundt used the "… nisi intellectu ipse" quotation 1862 on the title page of his Beiträge zur Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung (Contributions on the Theory of Sensory Perception) and published a detailed and aspiring monograph on Leibniz.[169] Wundt shaped the term apperception, introduced by Leibniz, into an experimental psychologically based apperception psychology that included neuropsychological modelling – an excellent example of how a concept created by a great philosopher could stimulate a psychological research program. One principle in the thinking of Leibniz played a fundamental role: "the principle of equality of separate but corresponding viewpoints." Wundt characterized this style of thought (perspectivism) in a way that also applied for him – viewpoints that "supplement one another, while also being able to appear as opposites that only resolve themselves when considered more deeply."[170][171] Much of Leibniz's work went on to have a great impact on the field of psychology.[172] Leibniz thought that there are many petites perceptions, or small perceptions of which we perceive but of which we are unaware. He believed that by the principle that phenomena found in nature were continuous by default, it was likely that the transition between conscious and unconscious states had intermediary steps.[173] For this to be true, there must also be a portion of the mind of which we are unaware at any given time. His theory regarding consciousness in relation to the principle of continuity can be seen as an early theory regarding the stages of sleep. In this way, Leibniz's theory of perception can be viewed as one of many theories leading up to the idea of the unconscious. Leibniz was a direct influence on Ernst Platner, who is credited with originally coining the term Unbewußtseyn (unconscious).[174] Additionally, the idea of subliminal stimuli can be traced back to his theory of small perceptions.[172] Leibniz's ideas regarding music and tonal perception went on to influence the laboratory studies of Wilhelm Wundt.[175]
Social science
[edit]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 program, 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
[edit]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 created 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.[176]
Computation
[edit]Leibniz may have been the first computer scientist and information theorist.[v] Early in life, he documented the binary numeral system (base 2), then revisited that system throughout his career.[177] While Leibniz was examining other cultures to compare his metaphysical views, he encountered an ancient Chinese book I Ching. Leibniz interpreted a diagram which showed yin and yang and corresponded it to a zero and one.[178] More information can be found in the Sinophilia section. Leibniz had similarities with Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz and Thomas Harriot, who independently developed the binary system, as he was familiar with their works on the binary system.[179] Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz worked extensively on logarithms including logarithms with base 2.[180] Thomas Harriot's manuscripts contained a table of binary numbers and their notation, which demonstrated that any number could be written on a base 2 system.[181] Regardless, Leibniz simplified the binary system and articulated logical properties such as conjunction, disjunction, negation, identity, inclusion, and the empty set.[182] He anticipated Lagrangian interpolation and algorithmic information theory. His calculus ratiocinator anticipated aspects of the universal Turing machine. In 1961, Norbert Wiener suggested that Leibniz should be considered the patron saint of cybernetics.[183] Wiener is quoted with "Indeed, the general idea of a computing machine is nothing but a mechanization of Leibniz's Calculus Ratiocinator."[184]
In 1671, Leibniz began to invent a machine that could execute all four arithmetic 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 his supervision. They were not an unambiguous success because they did not fully mechanize the carry operation. Couturat reported finding an unpublished note by Leibniz, dated 1674, describing a machine capable of performing some algebraic operations.[185] Leibniz also devised a (now reproduced) cipher machine, recovered by Nicholas Rescher in 2010.[186] In 1693, Leibniz described a design of a machine which could, in theory, integrate differential equations, which he called "integraph".[187]
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.[188][189] 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
[edit]Later in Leibniz's career (after the death of von Boyneburg), Leibniz moved to Paris and accepted a position as a librarian in the Hanoverian court of Johann Friedrich, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg.[190] Leibniz's predecessor, Tobias Fleischer, had already created a cataloging system for the Duke's library but it was a clumsy attempt. At this library, Leibniz focused more on advancing the library than on the cataloging. For instance, within a month of taking the new position, he developed a comprehensive plan to expand the library. He was one of the first to consider developing a core collection for a library and felt "that a library for display and ostentation is a luxury and indeed superfluous, but a well-stocked and organized library is important and useful for all areas of human endeavor and is to be regarded on the same level as schools and churches".[191] Leibniz lacked the funds to develop the library in this manner. After working at this library, by the end of 1690 Leibniz was appointed as privy-councilor and librarian of the Bibliotheca Augusta at Wolfenbüttel. It was an extensive library with at least 25,946 printed volumes.[191] At this library, Leibniz sought to improve the catalog. He was not allowed to make complete changes to the existing closed catalog, but was allowed to improve upon it so he started on that task immediately. He created an alphabetical author catalog and had also created other cataloging methods that were not implemented. While serving as librarian of the ducal libraries in Hanover and Wolfenbüttel, Leibniz effectively became one of the founders of library science. Seemingly, Leibniz paid a good deal of attention to the classification of subject matter, favouring a well-balanced library covering a host of numerous subjects and interests.[192] Leibniz, for example, proposed the following classification system in the Otivm Hanoveranvm Sive Miscellanea (1737):[192][193]
- Theology
- Jurisprudence
- Medicine
- Intellectual Philosophy
- Philosophy of the Imagination or Mathematics
- Philosophy of Sensible Things or Physics
- Philology or Language
- Civil History
- Literary History and Libraries
- General and Miscellaneous
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.[citation needed]
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 Europe – can 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
[edit]Leibniz emphasized that research was a collaborative endeavour. Hence he warmly advocated the formation of national scientific societies along the lines of the British Royal Society and the French Académie 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 Leibniz-Edition of his works.[w]
Law and morality
[edit]Leibniz's writings on law, ethics, and politics[195][x] were long overlooked by English-speaking scholars, but this has changed.[y]
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 liberalism, 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:[200]
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.
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;[201] this is sometimes considered an anticipation of the European Union. He believed that Europe would adopt a uniform religion. He reiterated these proposals in 1715.
But at the same time, he arrived to propose an interreligious and multicultural project to create a universal system of justice, which required from him a broad interdisciplinary perspective. In order to propose it, he combined linguistics (especially sinology), moral and legal philosophy, management, economics, and politics.[202]
Law
[edit]Leibniz trained as a legal academic, but under the tutelage of Cartesian-sympathiser Erhard Weigel we already see an attempt to solve legal problems by rationalist mathematical methods; Weigel's influence being most explicit in the Specimen Quaestionum Philosophicarum ex Jure collectarum ('An Essay of Collected Philosophical Problems of Right'). For example, the Disputatio Inauguralis de Casibus Perplexis in Jure ('Inaugural Disputation on Ambiguous Legal Cases')[203] uses early combinatorics to solve some legal disputes, while the 1666 De Arte Combinatoria ('On the Art of Combination')[204] includes simple legal problems by way of illustration.
The use of combinatorial methods to solve legal and moral problems seems, via Athanasius Kircher and Daniel Schwenter to be of Llullist inspiration: Ramón Llull attempted to solve ecumenical disputes through recourse to a combinatorial mode of reasoning he regarded as universal (a mathesis universalis).[205][206]
In the late 1660s the enlightened Prince-Bishop of Mainz Johann Philipp von Schönborn announced a review of the legal system and made available a position to support his current law commissioner. Leibniz left Franconia and made for Mainz before even winning the role. On reaching Frankfurt am Main Leibniz penned "The New Method of Teaching and Learning the Law", by way of application.[207] The text proposed a reform of legal education and is characteristically syncretic, integrating aspects of Thomism, Hobbesianism, Cartesianism and traditional jurisprudence. Leibniz's argument that the function of legal teaching was not to impress rules as one might train a dog, but to aid the student in discovering their own public reason, evidently impressed von Schönborn as he secured the job.
Leibniz's next major attempt to find a universal rational core to law and so found a legal "science of right",[208] came when Leibniz worked in Mainz from 1667–72. Starting initially from Hobbes' mechanistic doctrine of power, Leibniz reverted to logico-combinatorial methods in an attempt to define justice.[209][dubious – discuss] As Leibniz's so-called Elementa Juris Naturalis advanced, he built in modal notions of right (possibility) and obligation (necessity) in which we see perhaps the earliest elaboration of his possible worlds doctrine within a deontic frame.[210] While ultimately the Elementa remained unpublished, Leibniz continued to work on his drafts and promote their ideas to correspondents up until his death.
Ecumenism
[edit]Leibniz devoted considerable intellectual and diplomatic effort to what would now be called an ecumenical endeavor, seeking to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches. In this respect, he followed the example of his early patrons, Baron von Boyneburg and the Duke John Frederick – both cradle Lutherans who converted to Catholicism as adults – who 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 French bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, and involved Leibniz in some theological controversy. He evidently thought that the thoroughgoing application of reason would suffice to heal the breach caused by the Reformation.
Philology
[edit]Leibniz the philologist was an avid student of languages, eagerly latching on to any information about vocabulary and grammar that came his way. In 1710, he applied ideas of gradualism and uniformitarianism to linguistics in a short essay.[211] He refuted the belief, widely held by Christian scholars of the time, that Hebrew was the primeval language of the human race. At the same time, he rejected the idea of unrelated language groups and considered them all to have a common source.[212] 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 and was fascinated by classical Chinese. Leibniz was also an expert in the Sanskrit language.[213]
He published the princeps editio ('first modern edition') of the late medieval Chronicon Holtzatiae, a Latin chronicle of the County of Holstein.
Sinophilia
[edit]
Leibniz was perhaps the first major European intellectual 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. He apparently read Confucius Sinarum Philosophus in the first year of its publication.[215] He came to the conclusion 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 how the I Ching hexagrams correspond to the binary numbers from 000000 to 111111, and concluded that this mapping was evidence of major Chinese accomplishments in the sort of philosophical mathematics he admired.[z] Leibniz communicated his ideas of the binary system representing Christianity to the Emperor of China, hoping it would convert him.[213] Leibniz was one of the western philosophers of the time who attempted to accommodate Confucian ideas to prevailing European beliefs.[217]
Leibniz's attraction to Chinese philosophy originates from his perception that Chinese philosophy was similar to his own.[215] 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 when he was reading Confucius Sinarum Philosophus.[215]
Polymath
[edit]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.
Posthumous reputation
[edit]
When Leibniz died, his reputation was in decline. He was remembered for only one book, Théodicée, whose supposed central argument Voltaire lampooned in his popular book Candide, which concludes with the character Candide saying, "non liquet" ('it is not clear'), a term that was applied during the Roman Republic to a legal verdict of 'not proven'. 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. Leibniz also influenced David Hume, who read his Théodicée and used some of his ideas.[218] 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.
Leibniz's reputation began to recover with the 1765 publication of the Nouveaux Essais. In 1768, Louis 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.[118] 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 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 (1900–1985) through his translations and his interpretive essays in LeClerc (1973). Leibniz's philosophy was also highly regarded by Gilles Deleuze,[219] who in 1988 published The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque.
Nicholas Jolley has surmised that Leibniz's reputation as a philosopher is now perhaps higher than at any time since he was alive.[220] Analytic and contemporary philosophy continue to invoke his notions of identity, individuation, and possible worlds. 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.
In Germany, various important institutions were named after Leibniz. In Hanover in particular, he is the namesake for some of the most important institutions in the town:
- Leibniz University Hannover
- Leibniz-Akademie, an institution for academic and non-academic training and further education in the business sector
- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek – Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, one of the largest regional and academic libraries in Germany and, alongside the Oldenburg State Library and the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel, one of the three state libraries in Lower Saxony
- Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz-Gesellschaft, a society for the cultivation and dissemination of Leibniz's teachings
Outside of Hanover:
- Leibniz Association, Berlin
- Leibniz Scientific Society (Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften), an association of scientists founded in Berlin in 1993 with the legal form of a registered association, and which continues the activities of the Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR ('Academy of Sciences of the GDR') with personnel continuity
- Leibniz Kolleg of the Tübingen University, central propaedeutic institution of the university, which aims to enable high school graduates to make a well-founded study decision through a ten-month, comprehensive general course of study and at the same time to introduce them to academic work
- Leibniz Supercomputing Centre in Garching at Munich
- more than 20 schools all over Germany
Awards:
- Leibniz-Ring-Hannover, an honour given since 1997 by the Hanover Press Club to personalities or institutions "who have drawn attention to themselves through an outstanding performance or have made a special mark through their life's work."[This quote needs a citation]
- Leibniz-Medaille of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, established in 1906 and awarded previously by the Prussian Academy of Sciences and later the German Academy of Sciences at Berlin
- Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz-Medaille of the Leibniz-Sozietät
- Leibniz-Medaille der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz
In 1985, the German government created the Leibniz Prize, offering an annual award of, as of 2025[update], €2.5 million each for up to 10 recipients.[221] It was the world's largest prize for scientific achievement prior to the Fundamental Physics Prize.[citation needed]
The collection of manuscript papers of Leibniz at the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek – Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek was inscribed on UNESCO's Memory of the World Register in 2007.[222]
Cultural references
[edit]Leibniz still receives popular attention. The Google Doodle for 1 July 2018 celebrated Leibniz's 372nd birthday.[223][224][225] Using a quill, his hand is shown writing Google in binary ASCII code.
One of the earliest popular but indirect expositions of Leibniz was Voltaire's satire Candide, published in 1759. Leibniz was lampooned as Professor Pangloss, described as "the greatest philosopher of the Holy Roman Empire".[This quote needs a citation]
Leibniz also appears as one of the main historical figures in Neal Stephenson's series of novels The Baroque Cycle. Stephenson credits readings and discussions concerning Leibniz for inspiring him to write the series.[226]
Leibniz also stars in Adam Ehrlich Sachs's novel "The Organs of Sense".[citation needed]
The German biscuit Choco Leibniz is named after Leibniz. Its manufacturer Bahlsen is based in Hanover, where Leibniz lived for four decades until his death.
Writings and publication
[edit]
Leibniz wrote mainly in three languages: scholastic Latin, French and German. During his lifetime, he published many pamphlets and scholarly articles, but only two philosophical books: De Arte Combinatoria and Théodicée. (He published numerous pamphlets, often anonymous, on behalf of the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg, most notably De jure suprematum, 'On the right of Supremacy', a major consideration of the nature of sovereignty.) One substantial book appeared posthumously, his Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain ('New Essays on Human Understanding'), which Leibniz had withheld from publication after the death of John Locke. Only in 1895, when Bodemann completed his catalogue of Leibniz's manuscripts and correspondence, did the enormous extent of Leibniz's Nachlass ('literary estate') become clear: about 15,000 letters to more than 1000 recipients, and 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 appeared only in recent decades. The more than 67,000 records of the working catalogue of the Leibniz-Edition[227] cover almost all of his known writings and the letters from him and to him. The amount, variety, and disorder of Leibniz's writings are a predictable result of a situation he described in a letter as follows:[228]
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.
The extant parts of the Leibniz-Edition[229] of Leibniz's writings are organized as follows:
- Series 1. Political, Historical, and General Correspondence. 25 volumes, 1666–1706.
- Series 2. Philosophical Correspondence. 3 volumes, 1663–1700.
- Series 3. Mathematical, Scientific, and Technical Correspondence. 8 volumes, 1672–1698.
- Series 4. Political Writings. 9 volumes, 1667–1702.
- Series 5. Historical and Linguistic Writings. In preparation.
- Series 6. Philosophical Writings. 7 volumes, 1663–1690, and Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain.
- Series 7. Mathematical Writings. 6 volumes, 1672–1676.
- Series 8. Scientific, Medical, and Technical Writings. 1 volume, 1668–1676.
The systematic cataloguing of all of Leibniz's Nachlass began in 1901. This effort was hampered by World War I and World War II and then by decades of German division into East Germany and West Germany, separating scholars and scattering portions of his literary estates. The ambitious project has had to deal with writings in seven languages, contained in some 200,000 written and printed pages. In 1985 it was reorganized and included in a joint program of German federal and state (Länder) academies. Since then the branches in Potsdam, Münster, Hanover and Berlin have jointly published 57 volumes of the Leibniz-Edition, with an average of 870 pages, and prepared index and concordance works.
Selected works
[edit]The year given is usually that in which the work was completed, not of its eventual publication.
- 1666 (publ. 1690): De Arte Combinatoria ('On the Art of Combination'); partially translated in Loemker (1969)[230] and Parkinson (1966)
- 1667: Nova Methodus Discendae Docendaeque Iurisprudentiae ('A New Method for Learning and Teaching Jurisprudence')
- 1667: "Dialogus de connexione inter res et verba" ('A dialogue about the connection between things and Words')
- 1671: Hypothesis Physica Nova ('New Physical Hypothesis')[231]
- 1673: Confessio philosophi ('A Philosopher's Creed')[232][233]
- Oct. 1684: "Meditationes de cognitione, veritate et ideis" ('Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas')
- Nov. 1684: "Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis" ('New method for maximums and minimums')[234]
- 1686: Discours de métaphysique[235][236][237][238][239]
- 1686: Generales inquisitiones de analysi notionum et veritatum ('General Inquiries About the Analysis of Concepts and of Truths')
- 1694: "De primae philosophiae Emendatione, et de Notione Substantiae" ('On the Correction of First Philosophy and the Notion of Substance')
- 1695: Système nouveau de la nature et de la communication des substances ('New System of Nature')
- 1700: Accessiones historicae[240]
- 1703: "Explication de l'Arithmétique Binaire" ('Explanation of Binary Arithmetic')[241]
- 1704 (publ. 1765): Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain[242][243]
- 1707–1710: Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium[240] (3 volumes)
- 1710: Théodicée[244][245][246]
- 1714: "Principes de la nature et de la Grâce fondés en raison"
- 1714: Monadologie[247][248][249][250][251][252][253]
Posthumous works
[edit]
- 1717: Collectanea Etymologica, edited by the secretary of Leibniz Johann Georg von Eckhart
- 1749: Protogaea
- 1750: Origines Guelficae[240]
Collections
[edit]Six important collections of English translations are Wiener (1951), Parkinson (1966), Loemker (1969), Ariew & Garber (1989), Woolhouse & Francks (1998), and Strickland (2006).
The historical-critical scholarly editing of the collected papers of Leibniz, begun in 1901 and conducted by various editorial projects during that time, remains ongoing as of 2025[update], and is conducted by the editorial project Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe ('Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Complete Writings and Letters'), the Leibniz-Edition ('Leibniz edition') colloqually.[229]
See also
[edit]- General Leibniz rule
- Leibniz Association
- Leibniz operator
- List of German inventors and discoverers
- List of pioneers in computer science
- List of things named after Gottfried Leibniz
- Mathesis universalis
- Scientific Revolution
- Leibniz University Hannover
- Bartholomew Des Bosses
- Joachim Bouvet
- Outline of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz bibliography[aa]
Notes
[edit]- ^ English: /ˈlaɪbnɪts/ LYBE-nits;[11] German: [ˈɡɔtfʁiːt ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈlaɪbnɪts] ⓘ[12][13] or [ˈlaɪpnɪts] ⓘ;[14] French: Godefroi Guillaume Leibnitz [ɡɔdfʁwa ɡijom lɛbnits].
- ^ Roughly 40%, 35% and 25%, respectively.[18]
- ^ As of 2025[update], there is no translation into English of all of the writings of Leibniz.[19][page needed]
- ^ A few copies of De Arte Combinatoria were produced as requested for the habilitation procedure; it was reprinted without his consent in 1690.
- ^ On the encounter between Newton and Leibniz and a review of the evidence, see Hall (2002).[56]
- ^ For a study of Leibniz's correspondence with Sophia Charlotte, see MacDonald Ross (1990).[58]
- ^ See Wiener (1951)[64] and Loemker (1969).[65] Also see a curious passage titled "Leibniz's Philosophical Dream", first published by Bodemann (1895) and translated in Leibniz (1934) and Leibniz (1973).[66]
- ^ Later translated as Loemker (1969)[78] and Woolhouse & Francks (1998).[79]
- ^ See Woolhouse & Francks (1998), and Mercer (2001).
- ^ 'Natura non-facit saltus' is the Latin translation of the phrase originally put forward by Linnaeus (1751).[88] A variant translation is 'natura non-saltum facit' (lit. 'nature does not make a jump').[89]
- ^ For a precis of what Leibniz meant by these and other Principles, see Mercer (2001).[94] For a classic discussion of Sufficient Reason and Plenitude, see Lovejoy (1957).
- ^ Rutherford (1998) is a detailed scholarly study of Leibniz's theodicy.
- ^ Many of his memoranda are translated in Parkinson (1966).
- ^ 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.
- ^ Preface to the General Science, 1677. Revision of translation in Rutherford (1995).[113] Also Wiener (1951).[114]
- ^ A good introductory discussion of the "characteristic" is Jolley (1995).[115] An early, yet still classic, discussion of the "characteristic" and "calculus" is Couturat (1901).[116]
- ^ For an English translation of this paper, see Struik (1969),[140] who also translates parts of two other key papers by Leibniz on calculus.[vague]
- ^ 'Natura non-facit saltus' is the Latin translation of the phrase originally put forward by Linnaeus (1751).[88] A variant translation is 'natura non-saltum facit' (lit. 'nature does not make a jump').[89]
- ^ On Leibniz and physics, see Garber (1995) and Wilson (1989).
- ^ On Leibniz and biology, see Loemker (1969).[160][page needed]
- ^ The German scholar Johann Thomas Freigius was the first to use this Latin term 1574 in print.[166][167][page needed]
- ^ Davis (2000) discusses Leibniz's prophetic role in the emergence of calculating machines and of formal languages.
- ^ On Leibniz's projects for scientific societies, see Couturat (1901).[194]
- ^ See, for example, Riley (1988), Loemker (1969),[196] and Wiener (1951).[197][198]
- ^ See Parkinson (1995), Brown (1995),[199] Hostler (1975), Connelly (2021), and Riley (1996).
- ^ On Leibniz, the I Ching, and binary numbers, see Aiton (1985).[216] Leibniz's writings on Chinese civilization are collected and translated in Cook & Rosemont (1994), and discussed in Perkins (2004).
- ^ The Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliography at the State Library of Lower Saxony (GWLB) "offers a continuously updated database of", as of 2025[update], "more than 32,000 titles".[254]
References
[edit]Citations
[edit]- ^ a b c Arthur (2014), p. 16.
- ^ Blamauer (2013), p. 111.
- ^ Hasan & Fumerton (2022).
- ^ Bella & Schmaltz (2017), p. 207.
- ^ Dickerson (2003), p. 85.
- ^ David (2015).
- ^ Huber (2014), p. 29.
- ^ MathGenealogy (2025), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
- ^ a b Arthur (2014), p. 13.
- ^ Mercer (2001), p. 37.
- ^ Collins (2025), Leibniz (Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von).
- ^ Mangold (2005).
- ^ Wells (2008).
- ^ Krech (2010).
- ^ Dunne (2022).
- ^ Murray (2009), p. 122.
- ^ Palumbo (2013).
- ^ Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek (2023).
- ^ Baird & Kaufmann (2008).
- ^ Russell (2013), p. 469.
- ^ Handley & Foster (2020), p. 29.
- ^ Apostol (1991), p. 172.
- ^ Maor (2003), p. 58.
- ^ a b Preusse (2016).
- ^ Sriraman (2024), p. 168.
- ^ Strickland (2023), pp. 57–62.
- ^ a b Przytycki et al. (2024), p. 5.
- ^ a b c Miller & Ross (1993), pp. 1–2.
- ^ a b Katugampola (2014).
- ^ Smith (1929), pp. 173–181.
- ^ Sariel (2019).
- ^ Müller & Krönert (1969), p. 3.
- ^ Mates (1989), p. 17.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 21.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 22.
- ^ O'Connor & Robertson (1998).
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 26.
- ^ a b c d e Arthur (2014), p. x.
- ^ Busche (1997), p. 120.
- ^ Pombo (2010), p. 119.
- ^ Jolley (1995), p. 20.
- ^ Simmons (2007), p. 143.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 38.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 39.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 40.
- ^ Aiton (1985), p. 312.
- ^ Ariew (1995), p. 21.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 43.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), pp. 44–45.
- ^ Benaroya, Han & Nagurka (2013), p. 135.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), pp. 58–61.
- ^ Look (2013).
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), pp. 69–70.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), pp. 73–74.
- ^ a b Davis (2018), p. 9.
- ^ Hall (2002), pp. 44–69.
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), pp. 117–118.
- ^ MacDonald Ross (1990), pp. 61–69.
- ^ Eckert (1971).
- ^ Mackie & Guhrauer (1845), p. 109.
- ^ Aiton (1985), p. 308.
- ^ Brown (2023), p. 1.
- ^ Leibniz (2007a), p. 90.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 4, section 6.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 50.
- ^ Leibniz (1973), p. 253.
- ^ Bishop (2012).
- ^ Leibniz (2012), pp. 23–24.
- ^ Cosans (2009), pp. 102–103.
- ^ Hunt (2003), p. 33.
- ^ Antognazza (2007), pp. xix–xx.
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), p. 69.
- ^ Loemker (1969), sections 36 and 38.
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), p. 138.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 47.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 2, section 4.
- ^ Leibniz (1903).
- ^ Loemker (1969), p. 267.
- ^ Woolhouse & Francks (1998), p. 30.
- ^ Leibniz (2004), pp. 1643–1649.
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), pp. 272–284.
- ^ Loemker (1969), sections 14, 20 and 21.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 3, section 8.
- ^ Mates (1986), chapters 7.3 and 9.
- ^ Loemker (1969), p. 717.
- ^ Jolley (1995), pp. 129–131.
- ^ a b Leibniz (1765), p. 16, IV.
- ^ a b Linnaeus (1751), p. 27, chapter III, section 77.
- ^ a b Britton, Sedgwick & Bock (2008), p. 289.
- ^ a b Bell (2022).
- ^ a b Baumgarten (2013), p. 79, preface of the Third Edition (1750).
- ^ Loemker (1969), p. 311.
- ^ Lovejoy (1936), pp. 144–182.
- ^ Mercer (2001), pp. 473–484.
- ^ O'Leary-Hawthorne & Cover (2008), p. 65.
- ^ Rescher (1991), p. 40.
- ^ Ferraro (2007), p. 1.
- ^ a b Alexander (n.d.), pp. 25–26.
- ^ Agassi (1969), pp. 331–344.
- ^ a b Perkins (2007), p. 22.
- ^ Perkins (2007), p. 23.
- ^ Franklin, James (2022). "The global/local distinction vindicates Leibniz's theodicy". Theology and Science. 20 (4): 445–462. doi:10.1080/14746700.2022.2124481. hdl:1959.4/unsworks_80586. S2CID 252979403.
- ^ a b Magill (1990).
- ^ Anderson Csiszar, Sean (26 July 2015). The Golden Book About Leibniz. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 20. ISBN 978-1515243915.
- ^ Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Discourse on Metaphysics. The Rationalists: Rene Descartes – Discourse on Method, Meditations. N.Y.: Dolphin., n.d., n.p.,
- ^ Rescher (1991), p. 135.
- ^ "The Fundamental Question". hedweb.com. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
- ^ Geier, Manfred (17 February 2017). Wittgenstein und Heidegger: Die letzten Philosophen (in German). Rowohlt Verlag. ISBN 978-3-644-04511-8. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
- ^ Kulstad, Mark; Carlin, Laurence (29 June 2020). "Leibniz's Philosophy of Mind". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.).
- ^ Gray, Jonathan. ""Let us Calculate!": Leibniz, Llull, and the Computational Imagination". The Public Domain Review. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
- ^ Wiener (1951), p. 51, part 1, section 8, The Art of Discovery [1685].
- ^ Marcelo Dascal, Leibniz. Language, Signs and Thought: A Collection of Essays (Foundations of Semiotics series), John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1987, p. 42.
- ^ Rutherford (1995), p. 234.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 1, section 4.
- ^ Jolley (1995), pp. 226–240.
- ^ Couturat (1901), chapters 3–4.
- ^ Lenzen, W., 2004, "Leibniz's Logic," in Handbook of the History of Logic by D. M. Gabbay/J. Woods (eds.), volume 3: The Rise of Modern Logic: From Leibniz to Frege, Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier-North-Holland, pp. 1–83.
- ^ a b Russell (1900).
- ^ Leibniz: Die philosophischen Schriften VII, 1890, pp. 236–247; translated as "A Study in the Calculus of Real Addition" (1690) Archived 19 July 2021 at the Wayback Machine by G. H. R. Parkinson, Leibniz: Logical Papers – A Selection, Oxford 1966, pp. 131–144.
- ^ Edward N. Zalta, "A (Leibnizian) Theory of Concepts", Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse / Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy, 3 (2000): 137–183.
- ^ Lenzen, Wolfgang. "Leibniz: Logic". In Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658.
- ^ Jesse Alama, Paul E. Oppenheimer, Edward N. Zalta, "Automating Leibniz's Theory of Concepts", in A. Felty and A. Middeldorp (eds.), Automated Deduction – CADE 25: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Automated Deduction (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence: Volume 9195), Berlin: Springer, 2015, pp. 73–97.
- ^ Struik (1969), p. 367.
- ^ Gowers, Timothy; Barrow-Green, June; Leader, Imre (2008). The Princeton Companion to Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 745. ISBN 978-0-691-11880-2.
- ^ Jesseph, Douglas M. (1998). "Leibniz on the Foundations of the Calculus: The Question of the Reality of Infinitesimal Magnitudes". Perspectives on Science. 6.1&2 (1–2): 6–40. doi:10.1162/posc_a_00543. S2CID 118227996. Retrieved 31 December 2011.
- ^ Preusse (2016), 22:08.
- ^ Goldstine, Herman H. (1972). The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-691-08104-2.
- ^ Jones, Matthew L. (1 October 2006). The Good Life in the Scientific Revolution: Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, and the Cultivation of Virtue. University of Chicago Press. pp. 237–239. ISBN 978-0-226-40955-9.
- ^ Agarwal, Ravi P; Sen, Syamal K (2014). Creators of Mathematical and Computational Sciences. Springer, Cham. p. 180. ISBN 978-3-319-10870-4.
- ^ a b Gowers, Timothy; Barrow-Green, June; Leader, Imre, eds. (2008). The Princeton Companion to Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 744. ISBN 978-0-691-11880-2.
- ^ Knobloch, Eberhard (13 March 2013). Leibniz's Theory of Elimination and Determinants. Springer. pp. 230–237. ISBN 978-4-431-54272-8.
- ^ Concise Dictionary of Mathematics. V&S Publishers. April 2012. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-93-81588-83-3.
- ^ Lay, David C. (2012). Linear algebra and its applications (4th ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-321-38517-8.
- ^ Tokuyama, Takeshi; et al. (2007). Algorithms and Computation: 18th International Symposium, ISAAC 2007, Sendai, Japan, December 17–19, 2007 : proceedings. Berlin [etc.]: Springer. p. 599. ISBN 978-3-540-77120-3.
- ^ Jones, Matthew L. (2006). The Good Life in the Scientific Revolution : Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, and the Cultivation of Virtue ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Chicago [u.a.]: Univ. of Chicago Press. p. 169. ISBN 978-0-226-40954-2.
- ^ Davis (2018), p. 7.
- ^ De Risi, Vincenzo (2016). Leibniz on the Parallel Postulate and the Foundations of Geometry. Birkhäuser. p. 4. ISBN 978-3-319-19863-7.
- ^ De Risi, Vincenzo (10 February 2016). Leibniz on the Parallel Postulate and the Foundations of Geometry. Birkhäuser, Cham. p. 58. ISBN 978-3-319-19862-0.
- ^ Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von; Gerhardt, Carl Immanuel (trans.) (1920). The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz. Open Court Publishing. p. 93. Retrieved 10 November 2013.
- ^ Struik (1969), pp. 271–284.
- ^ Struik (1969), pp. 282–284.
- ^ Leibniz (1693), pp. 385–392.
- ^ John Stillwell, Mathematics and its History (1989, 2002) p.159
- ^ Katz, Mikhail; Sherry, David (2012). "Leibniz's Infinitesimals: Their Fictionality, Their Modern Implementations, and Their Foes from Berkeley to Russell and Beyond". Erkenntnis. 78 (3): 571–625. arXiv:1205.0174. doi:10.1007/s10670-012-9370-y. S2CID 119329569.
- ^ Dauben, Joseph W (December 2003). "Mathematics, ideology, and the politics of infinitesimals: mathematical logic and nonstandard analysis in modern China". History and Philosophy of Logic. 24 (4): 327–363. doi:10.1080/01445340310001599560. ISSN 0144-5340. S2CID 120089173.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 27.
- ^ Mates (1986), p. 240.
- ^ Hirano, Hideaki (March 1997). "Leibniz's Cultural Pluralism And Natural Law". Archived from the original on 22 May 2009. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), p. 117.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 46.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 2, section 5.
- ^ Futch, Michael. Leibniz's Metaphysics of Time and Space. New York: Springer, 2008.
- ^ Ray, Christopher. Time, Space and Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1991.
- ^ Rickles, Dean. Symmetry, Structure and Spacetime. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008.
- ^ a b Arthur (2014), p. 56.
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), pp. 155–186.
- ^ Loemker (1969), sections 53–55.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 2, sections 6–7a.
- ^ Phillips, Lee (2024). Einstein's Tutor. Hachette Book Group. ISBN 9781541702950.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 8 of introduction.
- ^ Loemker (1969), introduction.
- ^ T. Verhave: Contributions to the history of psychology: III. G. W. Leibniz (1646–1716). On the Association of Ideas and Learning. Psychological Report, 1967, Vol. 20, 11–116.
- ^ R. E. Fancher & H. Schmidt: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Underappreciated pioneer of psychology. In: G. A. Kimble & M. Wertheimer (Eds.). Portraits of pioneers in psychology, Vol. V. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2003, pp. 1–17.
- ^ Leibniz, G. W. (2007) [1714/1720]. The Principles of Philosophy known as Monadology. Translated by Jonathan Bennett. p. 11.
- ^ Larry M. Jorgensen, The Principle of Continuity and Leibniz's Theory of Consciousness.
- ^ Lamanna (2010), p. 301.
- ^ Freigius (1574).
- ^ Leibniz, Nouveaux essais, 1765, Livre II, Des Idées, Chapitre 1, § 6. New Essays on Human Understanding Book 2. p. 36; transl. by Jonathan Bennett, 2009.
- ^ Wundt (1917).
- ^ Wundt (1917), p. 117.
- ^ Fahrenberg, Jochen (2017). "The influence of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on the Psychology, philosophy, and Ethics of Wilhelm Wundt" (PDF). Retrieved 28 June 2022.
- ^ a b King, Viney & Woody (2009), pp. 150–153.
- ^ Nicholls & Leibscher (2010), p. 6.
- ^ Nicholls & Leibscher (2010).
- ^ Klempe, SH (2011). "The role of tone sensation and musical stimuli in early experimental psychology". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 47 (2): 187–199. doi:10.1002/jhbs.20495. PMID 21462196.
- ^ Aiton (1985), pp. 107–114, 136.
- ^ Couturat (1901), pp. 473–478.
- ^ Ryan, James A. (1996). "Leibniz' Binary System and Shao Yong's "Yijing"". Philosophy East and West. 46 (1): 59–90. doi:10.2307/1399337. JSTOR 1399337.
- ^ Ares, J.; Lara, J.; Lizcano, D.; Martínez, M. (2017). "Who Discovered the Binary System and Arithmetic?". Science and Engineering Ethics. 24 (1): 173–188. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9890-6. hdl:20.500.12226/69. PMID 28281152. S2CID 35486997.
- ^ Navarro-Loidi, Juan (May 2008). "The Introductions of Logarithms into Spain". Historia Mathematica. 35 (2): 83–101. doi:10.1016/j.hm.2007.09.002.
- ^ Booth, Michael (2003). "Thomas Harriot's Translations". The Yale Journal of Criticism. 16 (2): 345–361. doi:10.1353/yale.2003.0013. ISSN 0893-5378. S2CID 161603159.
- ^ Lande, Daniel. "Development of the Binary Number System and the Foundations of Computer Science". The Mathematics Enthusiast: 513–540.
- ^ Wiener, N., Cybernetics (2nd edition with revisions and two additional chapters), The MIT Press and Wiley, New York, 1961, p. 12.
- ^ Wiener, Norbert (1948). "Time, Communication, and the Nervous System". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 50 (4 Teleological): 197–220. Bibcode:1948NYASA..50..197W. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1948.tb39853.x. PMID 18886381. S2CID 28452205. Archived from the original on 23 July 2021. Retrieved 23 July 2021.
- ^ Couturat (1901), p. 115.
- ^ See N. Rescher, Leibniz and Cryptography (Pittsburgh, University Library Systems, University of Pittsburgh, 2012).
- ^ "The discoveries of principle of the calculus in Acta Eruditorum" (commentary, pp. 60–61), translated by Pierre Beaudry, amatterofmind.org, Leesburg, Va., September 2000. (pdf)
- ^ "The Reality Club: Wake Up Call for Europe Tech". www.edge.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2005. Retrieved 11 January 2006.
- ^ Agarwal, Ravi P; Sen, Syamal K (2014). Creators of Mathematical and Computational Sciences. Springer, Cham. p. 28. ISBN 978-3-319-10870-4.
- ^ "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz | Biography & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 18 February 2019.
- ^ a b Schulte-Albert, H. (April 1971). "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Library Classification". The Journal of Library History. 6 (2): 133–152. JSTOR 25540286.
- ^ a b Schulte-Albert, H. G. (1971). "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Library Classification". The Journal of Library History. 6 (2): 133–152. JSTOR 25540286.
- ^ Leibniz (1737).
- ^ Couturat (1901), appendix 4.
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), pp. 19, 94, 111, 193.
- ^ Loemker (1969), sections 2, 7, 20, 29, 44, 59, 62 and 65.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 1, section 1.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 4, sections 1–3.
- ^ Brown (1995), pp. 411–441.
- ^ Loemker (1969), p. 59, fn 16. Translation revised.
- ^ Loemker (1969), p. 58, fn 9.
- ^ Andrés-Gallego, José (2015). "Are Humanism and Mixed Methods Related? Leibniz's Universal (Chinese) Dream". Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 29 (2): 118–132. doi:10.1177/1558689813515332. S2CID 147266697. Archived from the original on 27 August 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2015.
- ^ Artosi, Pieri & Sartor (2014).
- ^ Loemker (1969), p. 1.
- ^ Connelly (2021), chapter 5.
- ^ Artosi, Pieri & Sartor (2014), preface.
- ^ Connelly (2021), chapter 6.
- ^ Johns (2018).
- ^ Leibniz edition Potsdam (2022), pp. 35–93, series 6, volume 2.
- ^ Connelly (2021), chapters 6–8.
- ^ Gottfried Leibniz, "Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium, ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum", Miscellanea Berolinensia. 1710.
- ^ Henry Hoenigswald, "Descent, Perfection and the Comparative Method since Leibniz", Leibniz, Humboldt, and the Origins of Comparativism, eds. Tullio De Mauro & Lia Formigari (Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1990), 119–134.
- ^ a b Agarwal, Ravi P; Sen, Syamal K (2014). Creators of Mathematical and Computational Sciences. Springer, Cham. p. 186. ISBN 978-3-319-10870-4.
- ^ Perkins (2004), p. 117.
- ^ a b c Mungello, David E. (1971). "Leibniz's Interpretation of Neo-Confucianism". Philosophy East and West. 21 (1): 3–22. doi:10.2307/1397760. JSTOR 1397760.
- ^ Aiton (1985), pp. 245–248.
- ^ Cook, Daniel (2015). "Leibniz, China, and the Problem of Pagan Wisdom". Philosophy East and West. 65 (3): 936–947. doi:10.1353/pew.2015.0074. S2CID 170208696.
- ^ "Vasilyev, 1993" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 February 2011. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
- ^ Smith, Daniel W. (2005). "Deleuze on Leibniz: Difference, Continuity, and the Calculus" in Stephen H. Daniel, ed., Current Continental Theory and Modern Philosophy. Northwestern University Press.
- ^ Jolley (1995), pp. 217–219.
- ^ Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2025).
- ^ "Letters from and to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz within the collection of manuscript papers of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". UNESCO Memory of the World Programme. 16 May 2008. Archived from the original on 19 July 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2009.
- ^ "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's 372nd Birthday". Google Doodle Archive. 1 July 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2021.
- ^ Musil, Steven (1 July 2018). "Google Doodle celebrates mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". CNET.
- ^ Smith, Kiona N. (30 June 2018). "Sunday's Google Doodle Celebrates Mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". Forbes.
- ^ Stephenson, Neal. "How the Baroque Cycle Began" in P.S. of Quicksilver Perennial ed. 2004.
- ^ Leibniz edition Potsdam (2022).
- ^ Letter to Vincent Placcius, 15 September 1695, in Louis Dutens (ed.), Gothofridi Guillemi Leibnitii Opera Omnia, vol. 6.1, 1768, pp. 59–60.
- ^ a b Leibniz-Archiv & Leibniz-Forschungsstelle Hannover (2025).
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 1.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 8, subsection 1.
- ^ Leibniz (2020).
- ^ Leibniz (2024).
- ^ Struik (1969), pp. 271–281.
- ^ Martin & Brown (1988).
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), p. 35.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 35.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 3, section 3.
- ^ Woolhouse & Francks (1998), 1.
- ^ a b c Holland (1911), p. 899.
- ^ Strickland (2007).
- ^ Remnant & Bennett (1996), Langley translation 1896.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 3, section 6.
- ^ Leibniz (1951).
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 3, section 11.
- ^ Leibniz (2005).
- ^ Rescher (1991).
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989).
- ^ Ariew & Garber (1989), p. 213.
- ^ Loemker (1969), section 67.
- ^ Wiener (1951), part 3, section 13.
- ^ Woolhouse & Francks (1998), 19.
- ^ Leibniz (1999).
- ^ Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Library (2025).
Sources
[edit]Bibliographies
[edit]- Bodemann, Eduard (1895). Die Leibniz-Handschriften der Königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover (in German). Anastatic reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1966.
- Bodemann, Eduard (1889). Der Briefwechsel des Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in der Königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover. Anastatic reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1966.
- "Leibniz Bibliography". Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Library. 2025. Retrieved 17 September 2025.
- Heinekamp, Albert; Mertens, Marlen (1984). Leibniz-Bibliographie. Die Literatur über Leibniz bis 1980. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.
- Heinekamp, Albert; Mertens, Marlen (1996). Leibniz-Bibliographie. Die Literatur über Leibniz. Vol. 2, 1981–1990'. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.
- Preusse, Holger (2016). Gottfried Leibnitz: Das größte Genie aller Zeiten? [Gottfried Leibnitz: The greatest genius of all time?]. Timeline Deutschland (in German). ZDF. Retrieved 12 September 2024 – via YouTube.
Leibnitz hat diese Rechenmaschine erfunden. Er war nicht der erste. Blaise Pascal hatte eine ein paar Jahre davor erfunden. Leibniz war sehr stolz weil sie funktionierte. Sie konnte etwas was die Maschine von Pascal nicht schaffte. Und er war sich ganz sicher, dass diese Rechenmaschine der Schlüssel für seinen Eintritt in die Académie royale und die Royal Society war.
- Ravier, Émile (1937). Bibliographie des œuvres de Leibniz (in French). Paris: Alcan. Anastatic reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966.
- Wundt, Wilhelm (1917). Leibniz zu seinem zweihundertjährigen Todestag, 14. November 1916 (in German). Leipzig: Alfred Kröner Verlag.
Primary literature
[edit]- Ariew, Roger; Garber, Daniel, eds. (1989). Leibniz: Philosophical Essays. Hackett.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Ariew, Roger, ed. (2000). G. W. Leibniz and Samuel Clarke: Correspondence. Hackett.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Arthur, Richard T. W., ed. (2001). The Labyrinth of the Continuum: Writings on the Continuum Problem, 1672–1686. Yale University Press.
- Arthur, Richard T. W. (2014). Leibniz. John Wiley & Sons.
- Artosi, Alberto; Pieri, Bernardo; Sartor, Giovanni, eds. (2014). Leibniz: Logico-Philosophical Puzzles in the Law. Springer. ISBN 978-9400793071. OL 28125969M.
- Cohen, Claudine; Wakefield, Andre, eds. (2008). Protogaea. University of Chicago Press.
- Cook, Daniel; Rosemont, Henry Jr., eds. (1994). Leibniz: Writings on China. Open Court.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Dascal, Marcelo, ed. (2006). G. W. Leibniz. The Art of Controversies. Springer.
- Farrer, Austin, ed. (1995). Theodicy. Open Court.
- Iuliis, Carmelo Massimo de, ed. (2017). Leibniz: The New Method of Learning and Teaching Jurisprudence. Clark NJ: Talbot.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1693). Mencke, Otto (ed.). "Supplementum geometriae dimensoriae, seu generalissima omnium tetragonismorum effectio per motum: similiterque multiplex constructio lineae ex data tangentium conditione". Acta Eruditorum (in Latin) (9, September). Leipzig: Johann Friedrich Gleditsch: 385–392. Retrieved 21 September 2025.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1737). Feller, Joachim Friedrich (ed.). Otium Hanoveranum Sive Miscellanea Ex ore et schedis Illustris Viri, piæ memoriæ, Godofr. Gvilielmi Leibnitii (in Latin and French) (2nd ed.). Leipzig: Johann Christian Martini. doi:10.25673/54286. Wikidata Q136309226. Archived from the original on 6 May 2023.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1765). Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain [New Essays on Human Understanding] (in French). Amsterdam: Rudolf Erich Raspe.
la nature ne fait jamais des sauts [...].
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1934). Rhys, Ernest (ed.). Philosophical Writings. Translated by Morris, Mary. Introduction by C. R. Morris. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Retrieved 16 September 2025.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1973). Parkinson, G. H. R. (ed.). Philosophical Writings. Translated by Morris, Mary; Parkinson, G. H. R. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. ISBN 0460870459. OCLC 1176442056. OL 5239132M. Retrieved 16 September 2025.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (30 January 1999). "The Monadology". Roger Bishop Jones. Translated by Jones, Roger Bishop. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1951). Farrer, Austin (ed.). Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. Translated by E. M. Huggard. London: Routledge. OL 59073914M. Wikidata Q136332876.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (2004) [1689]. "Principia Logico-Metaphysica" (PDF). Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Leibniz-Edition, Akademie Ausgabe). VI, Philosophische Schriften. 4, 1677 – Juni 1690, part B (324). Leibniz-Forschungsstelle Münster, Niedersächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: 1643–1649. Retrieved 20 September 2025.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (24 November 2005). Farrer, Austin (ed.). Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. Translated by E. M. Huggard. Project Gutenberg. Wikidata Q136332733.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von (27 July 2007) [1920]. The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz: Translated from the Latin Texts Published by Carl Immanuel Gerhardt with Critical and Historical Notes. Open court publishing Company. ISBN 9780598818461.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (7 July 2020) [1673]. (in Latin) – via Wikisource.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (21 February 2024) [1673]. . Translated by WillowW – via Wikisource.
- Leibniz edition Potsdam (2022). "Arbeitskatalog der Leibniz-Edition" [Working catalogue of the Leibniz Edition]. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. Leibniz edition Potsdam of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Edited since 1901 by various editorial projects.
- Leibniz-Archiv; Leibniz-Forschungsstelle Hannover (2025). "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Leibniz-Edition, Die Akademie Ausgabe)" [Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Complete Writings and Letters (Leibniz edition, the Academy edition)]. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Society. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
- Linnaeus, Carolus (1751). Philosophia Botanica (1st ed.).[publisher missing][place missing]
- Lodge, Paul, ed. (2013). The Leibniz-De Volder Correspondence: With Selections from the Correspondence Between Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli. Yale University Press.
- Loemker, Leroy E., ed. (1969) [1956]. Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. ISBN 902770693X. OCLC 1150930393. OL 4875184M. Retrieved 15 September 2025.
- Look, Brandon; Rutherford, Donald, eds. (2007). The Leibniz-Des Bosses Correspondence. Yale University Press.
- Martin, R. Niall D.; Brown, Stuart, eds. (1988). Discourse on Metaphysics and Related Writings. Translated by Martin, R. Niall D.; Brown, Stuart. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719023386. LCCN 88001523. OCLC 1148804365. OL 10531501M. Retrieved 17 September 2025.
- Mason, H. T.; Parkinson, G. H. R., eds. (1967). The Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence. Manchester University Press.
- Murray, Michael, ed. (2011). Dissertation on Predestination and Grace. Yale University Press.
- Parkinson, G. H. R. (1966). Logical Papers. Clarendon Press.[place missing]
- Parkinson, G. H. R., ed. (1992). De Summa Rerum. Metaphysical Papers, 1675–1676. Yale University Press.
- Remnant, Peter; Bennett, Jonathan, eds. (1996) [1981]. Leibniz: New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge University Press.
- Rescher, Nicholas, ed. (1991). G. W. Leibniz's Monadology. An Edition for Students. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-5449-1.
- Rescher, Nicholas (2013). On Leibniz. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Riley, Patrick, ed. (1988). Leibniz: Political Writings. Cambridge University Press.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Schrecker, Paul; Schrecker, Anne Martin, eds. (1965). Monadology and other Philosophical Essays. Prentice-Hall.
- Sleigh, Robert C. Jr., ed. (2005). Confessio Philosophi: Papers Concerning the Problem of Evil, 1671–1678. Yale University Press.
- Strickland, Lloyd (2006). The Shorter Leibniz Texts: A Collection of New Translations. Continuum.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Strickland, Lloyd, ed. (2011). Leibniz and the two Sophies. The Philosophical Correspondence. Toronto: Iter Press.[ISBN missing]
- Wiener, Philip P., ed. (1951). Leibniz: Selections. New York: Scribner. LCCN 51009264. OCLC 1150226551. OL 6092231M. Retrieved 15 September 2025.
- Woolhouse, R. S.; Francks, R., eds. (1997). Leibniz's 'New System' and Associated Contemporary Texts. Oxford University Press.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1998). Woolhouse, R. S.; Francks, Richard (eds.). Philosophical Texts. Oxford Philosophical Texts. Translated by Woolhouse, R. S.; Francks, Richard (1st ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198751533.
Secondary literature up to 1950
[edit]- Baumgarten, Alexander (2013). Fugate, Courtney D.; Hymers, John (eds.). Metaphysics: A Critical Translation with Kant's Elucidations. Translated by Fugate, Courtney D.; Hymers, John. Bloomsbury.
[Baumgarten] must also have in mind Leibniz's 'Latin: natura non-facit saltus [nature does not make leaps] [...].
- Bell, John L. (16 March 2022). "Continuity and Infinitesimals". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 ed.).
- Bois-Reymond, Emil du (1912) [1871]. Leibnizsche Gedanken in der neueren Naturwissenschaft. Berlin: Dummler. Reprinted in Reden. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Veit.[author missing][year missing]
- Britton, Andrew; Sedgwick, Peter H.; Bock, Burghard (2008). Ökonomische Theorie und christlicher Glaube. LIT Verlag Münster. ISBN 978-3-8258-0162-5. Retrieved 21 August 2025.
- Couturat, Louis (1901). La Logique de Leibniz [Leibniz's Logic] (in French). Paris: Félix Alcan. LCCN 02012012. OCLC 06496120. OL 6916219M. Retrieved 16 September 2025.
- Couturat, Louis (1903). Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz. Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Hanovre (in French). Paris: Félix Alcan. OCLC 72758225. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. "Primae veritates". In Couturat (1903), pp. 518–523.
- Freigius, Johann Thomas (1574). Quaestiones εωθιναι και δειλιναι seu logicae et ethicae (in Latin). Basel: Sebastian Henricpetri. Wikidata Q136335735.
- Heidegger, Martin (1983) [1928]. The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic. Indiana University Press.
- Lamanna, Marco (2010). "On the Early History of Psychology". Revista Filosófica de Coimbra. 19 (38): 291–314. doi:10.14195/0872-0851_38_3. Retrieved 20 September 2025.
The use of the term psychologia in this work of 1574, which I discovered in September 2009, is therefore the first occurrence of the term in German philosophy and backdates by one year the use of the neologism by Freig.
- Lovejoy, Arthur O. (1957) [1936]. "Plenitude and Sufficient Reason in Leibniz and Spinoza". The Great Chain of Being (PDF). Harvard University Press. pp. 144–182. Retrieved 14 September 2025. Reprinted in Frankfurt, H. G., ed. (1972). Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays. Anchor Books.
- Mackie, John Milton; Guhrauer, Gottschalk Eduard (1845). Life of Godfrey William von Leibnitz. Boston: Gould, Kendall and Lincoln. LCCN 16003259. OCLC 1048311736. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
- Russell, Bertrand (1900). A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Cambridge: The University Press.
- Smith, David Eugene (1929). A Source Book in Mathematics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
- Sorley, William Ritchie (1911). . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 16 (11th ed.). pp. 385–390.
- Trendelenburg, F. A. (1857). "Über Leibnizens Entwurf einer allgemeinen Charakteristik". Philosophische Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Aus dem Jahr 1856 (in German). Berlin: Commission Dümmler. pp. 36–69.
- Ward, Adolphus William (1911). Leibniz as a Politician: The Adamson Lecture, 1910 (1st ed.). Manchester: University Press. Wikidata Q19095295.
Secondary literature post-1950
[edit]- Adams, Robert Merrihew (1994). Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Agassi, Joseph (September 1969). "Leibniz's Place in the History of Physics". Journal of the History of Ideas. 30 (3): 331–344. doi:10.2307/2708561. JSTOR 2708561.
- Aiton, Eric J. (1985). Leibniz: A Biography. UK: Hilger.
- Alexander, H. G., ed. (n.d.). The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Antognazza, Maria Rosa (2007). Leibniz on the Trinity and the Incarnation: Reason and Revelation in the Seventeenth Century (PDF). New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10074-7. LCCN 2007011549. OCLC 86172930. OL 10318917M. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
- Antognazza, Maria Rosa (2008). Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.
- Antognazza, Maria Rosa (2016). Leibniz: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
- Antognazza, Maria Rosa, ed. (2018). Oxford Handbook of Leibniz. Oxford University Press.
- Apostol, Tom M. (1991). Calculus. Vol. 1 (illustrated ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780471000051.
- Baird, Forrest E.; Kaufmann, Walter (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-158591-1.
- Barrow, John D.; Tipler, Frank J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-282147-8. LCCN 87028148.
- Bella, Stefano Di; Schmaltz, Tad M., eds. (2017). The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Leibniz's conceptualism [is related to] the Ockhamist tradition
- Benaroya, Haym; Han, Seon Mi; Nagurka, Mark (2 May 2013). Probabilistic Models for Dynamical Systems. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4398-5015-2.
- Bishop, Steve (30 January 2012). "Christian Mathematicians – Leibniz". God & Math: Thinking Christianly About Math Education. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
- Blamauer, Michael, ed. (2013). The Mental as Fundamental: New Perspectives on Panpsychism. Walter de Gruyter.
- Borowski, Audrey (2024). Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691260747.
- Bos, H. J. M. (1974). "Differentials, higher-order differentials and the derivative in the Leibnizian calculus". Archive for History of Exact Sciences. 14: 1–90. doi:10.1007/bf00327456. S2CID 120779114.
- Brown, Stuart, ed. (1999). The Young Leibniz and His Philosophy (1646–76). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Brown, Stuart (2023). Historical Dictionary of Leibniz's Philosophy (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 9781538178447.
- Busche, Hubertus (1997). Leibniz' Weg ins perspektivische Universum: Eine Harmonie im Zeitalter der Berechnung [Leibniz's Path to the Perspective Universe: A Harmony in the Age of Calculus]. Paradeigmata (in German). Hamburg: Meiner Verlag. ISBN 978-3-7873-1342-6. LCCN 98208550. OCLC 38450517. OL 12913912M.
- "Leibniz (Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von)". Collins English Dictionary. HarperCollins. 2025. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
- Connelly, Stephen (2021). Leibniz: A Contribution to the Archaeology of Power. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9781474418065.
- Cosans, Christopher Ernest (2009). Owen's Ape & Darwin's Bulldog: Beyond Darwinism and Creationism. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-22051-6.
In advancing his system of mechanics, Newton claimed that collisions of celestial objects would cause a loss of energy that would require God to intervene from time to time to maintain order in the solar system [...]. In criticizing this implication, Leibniz remarks: 'Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time; otherwise it would cease to move.' [...] Leibniz argues that any scientific theory that relies on God to perform miracles after He had first made the universe indicates that God lacked sufficient foresight or power to establish adequate natural laws in the first place. In defense of Newton's theism, Clarke is unapologetic: ''tis not a diminution but the true glory of his workmanship that nothing is done without his continual government and inspection' [...]. Clarke is believed to have consulted closely with Newton on how to respond to Leibniz. He asserts that Leibniz's deism leads to 'the notion of materialism and fate' [...], because it excludes God from the daily workings of nature.
- David, Marian (28 May 2015). "The Correspondence Theory of Truth". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 ed.).
- Davis, Martin (2000). The Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing. WW Norton.
- Davis, Martin (28 February 2018). The Universal Computer : The Road from Leibniz to Turing (3rd ed.). CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-138-50208-6.
- Deleuze, Gilles (1993). The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. University of Minnesota Press.
- "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz-Preis". Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (in German). 9 September 2025. Retrieved 17 September 2025.
- Dickerson, A. B. (2003). Kant on Representation and Objectivity. Cambridge University Press.
- Dunne, Luke (21 December 2022). "Gottfried W. Leibniz: The Last True Genius". TheCollector. Retrieved 1 October 2023.
- Eckert, Horst (1971). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz' Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium: Entstehung und historiographische Bedeutung. Veröffentlichungen des Leibniz-Archivs (in German). Vol. 3. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann.
- Fahrenberg, Jochen, 2017. PsyDok ZPID The influence of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on the Psychology, Philosophy, and Ethics of Wilhelm Wundt.
- Fahrenberg, Jochen, 2020. Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920). Introduction, Quotations, Reception, Commentaries, Attempts at Reconstruction. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich 2020, ISBN 978-3-95853-574-9.
- Ferraro, Rafael (2007). Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General Relativity. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-69946-2.
- 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.
- "Leibniz-Nachlass" [Leibniz's literary estate]. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek (in German). Archived from the original on 8 June 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2025.
- Grattan-Guinness, Ivor, 1997. The Norton History of the Mathematical Sciences. W W Norton.
- Hall, Alfred Rupert (1980). Philosophers at War: The Quarrel between Newton and Leibniz. Cambridge University Press.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Hall, Alfred Rupert (2002). Philosophers at War: The Quarrel Between Newton and Leibniz. Cambridge: n.p.[publisher missing][ISBN missing]
- Hamza, Gabor, 2005. "Le développement du droit privé européen". ELTE Eotvos Kiado Budapest.
- Handley, Lindsey D.; Foster, Stephen R. (2020). Don't Teach Coding: Until You Read This Book. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119602620.
- Hasan, Ali; Fumerton, Richard (5 August 2022). "Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 ed.).
- Hoeflich, M. H. (1986). "Law & Geometry: Legal Science from Leibniz to Langdell". American Journal of Legal History. 30 (2): 95–121. doi:10.2307/845705. JSTOR 845705.
- Holland, Arthur William (1911). . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 828–901.
The two chief collections which were issued by the philosopher are the Accessiones historicae (1698–1700) and the Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium [...].
- Hostler, John (1975). Leibniz's Moral Philosophy. UK: Duckworth.
- Huber, Kurt (2014). Leibniz: Der Philosoph der universalen Harmonie. Severus Verlag.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Hunt, Shelby D. (2003). Controversy in Marketing Theory: For Reason, Realism, Truth, and Objectivity. M. E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-0931-1.
Consistent with the liberal views of the Enlightenment, Leibniz was an optimist with respect to human reasoning and scientific progress [...]. Although he was a great reader and admirer of Spinoza, Leibniz, being a confirmed deist, rejected emphatically Spinoza's pantheism: God and nature, for Leibniz, were not simply two different 'labels' for the same 'thing'.
- Ishiguro, Hidé 1990. Leibniz's Philosophy of Logic and Language. Cambridge University Press.
- Johns, Christopher (2018). n.t.[title missing][publisher missing][place missing][ISBN missing]
- Jolley, Nicholas, ed. (1995). The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-36588-0. LCCN 94000515. OCLC 1244497730. OL 1077318M. Retrieved 15 September 2025.
- Ariew, Roger. "G. W. Leibniz, life and works". In Jolley (1995), pp. 18–42.
- Parkinson, G. H. R. "Philosophy and logic". In Jolley (1995), pp. 199–223.
- Rutherford, Donald. "Philosophy and language in Leibniz". In Jolley (1995), pp. 224–269.
- Garber, Daniel. "Leibniz: Physics and philosophy". In Jolley (1995), pp. 270–352.
- Brown, Gregory. "Leibniz's moral philosophy". In Jolley (1995), pp. 411–441.
- Kaldis, Byron, 2011. "Leibniz' Argument for Innate Ideas", in Bruce, Michael and Barbone, Steven, eds., Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.
- Karabell, Zachary (2003). Parting the desert: the creation of the Suez Canal. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-375-40883-0.
- Katugampola, Udita N. (15 October 2014). "A New Approach To Generalized Fractional Derivatives" (PDF). Bulletin of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 6 (4): 1–15. arXiv:1106.0965.
- Kempe, Michael, 2024. The Best of All Possible Worlds: A Life of Leibniz in Seven Pivotal Days. W. W. Norton.
- King, D. Brett; Viney, Wayne; Woody, William (2009). A History of Psychology: Ideas and Context.[publisher missing][place missing][ISBN missing]
- Krech, Eva-Maria; et al., eds. (2010). Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch [German Pronunciation Dictionary] (in German) (1st ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG. ISBN 978-3-11-018203-3.
- Kromer, Ralf, and Yannick Chin-Drian. New Essays on Leibniz Reception: In Science and Philosophy of Science 1800-2000. 1st ed. 2012. Heidelberg: Birkhauser, 2012.
- LeClerc, Ivor (ed.), 1973. The Philosophy of Leibniz and the Modern World. Vanderbilt University Press.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (2012). Loptson, Peter (ed.). Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Writings. Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-55481-011-6.
The answer is unknowable, but it may not be unreasonable to see him, at least in theological terms, as essentially a deist. He is a determinist: there are no miracles (the events so called being merely instances of infrequently occurring natural laws); Christ has no real role in the system; we live forever, and hence we carry on after our deaths, but then everything – every individual substance – carries on forever. Nonetheless, Leibniz is a theist. His system is generated from, and needs, the postulate of a creative god. In fact, though, despite Leibniz's protestations, his God is more the architect and engineer of the vast complex world-system than the embodiment of love of Christian orthodoxy.
- Lovejoy, Arthur (1936). "Chapter V, Plenitude and Sufficient Reason in Leibniz and Spinoza". The Great Chain of Being. Harvard University Press. pp. 144–182.
- Look, Brandon C. (24 July 2013). "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 ed.).
- Luchte, James (2006). "Mathesis and Analysis: Finitude and the Infinite in the Monadology of Leibniz". Heythrop Journal. 47 (4): 519–543. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2006.00296.x.
- MacDonald Ross, George (1990). "Leibniz's Exposition of His System to Queen Sophie Charlotte and Other Ladies". In Poser, H.; Heinekamp, A. (eds.). Leibniz in Berlin. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. pp. 61–69.[ISBN missing]
- Magill, Frank, ed. (1990). Masterpieces of World Philosophy. New York: Harper Collins.
- Mangold, Max, ed. (2005). Duden-Aussprachewörterbuch [Duden Pronunciation Dictionary] (in German) (7th ed.). Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut GmbH. ISBN 978-3-411-04066-7.
- Mates, Benson (1986). The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language. Oxford University Press.
- Mates, Benson (1989). The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505946-5.
- MathGenealogy (2025). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz at the Mathematics Genealogy Project.
- Mercer, Christia (2001). Leibniz's Metaphysics: Its Origins and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498268. ISBN 0521403014. LCCN 00052935. OCLC 56140851. OL 7739585M.
- Maor, Eli (2003). The Facts on File Calculus Handbook. The Facts on File Calculus Handbook. ISBN 9781438109541.
- Miller, Kenneth S.; Ross, Bertram (1993). An Introduction to the Fractional Calculus and Fractional Differential Equations. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-58884-9.
- Murray, Stuart A.P. (2009). The Library: An Illustrated History. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60239-706-4. Retrieved 15 September 2025.
- Müller, Kurt; Krönert, Gisela (1969). Leben und Werk von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Eine Chronik. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
- Nicholls; Leibscher (2010). Thinking the Unconscious: Nineteenth-Century German Thought.[author missing][publisher missing][place missing][ISBN missing]
- O'Connor, J J; Robertson, E F (1998). "Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz". School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland. Archived from the original on 29 May 2018. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
- O'Leary-Hawthorne, John; Cover, J. A. (4 September 2008). Substance and Individuation in Leibniz. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-07303-5.
- Palumbo, Margherita (28 January 2013). "Leibniz as Librarian". In Antognazza, Maria Rosa (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Leibniz. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford Academic. pp. 608–620. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744725.013.008. ISBN 978-0-19-974472-5.
- Perkins, Franklin (2004). Leibniz and China: A Commerce of Light. Cambridge University Press.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Perkins, Franklin (10 July 2007). Leibniz: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-8264-8921-0.[place missing]
- Pombo, Olga (2010). Ferreira, F.; Löwe, B.; Mayordomo, E.; Mendes Gomes, L. (eds.). Three Roots for Leibniz's Contribution to the Computational Conception of Reason. Programs, Proofs, Processes (CiE 2010). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6158. Berlin: Springer. pp. 352–361. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13962-8_39.
- Przytycki, Józef H.; Bakshi, Rhea Palak; Ibarra, Dionne; Montoya-Vega, Gabriel; Weeks, Deborah (2024). Lectures in Knot Theory: An Exploration of Contemporary Topics. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-40044-5.
- Riley, Patrick (1996). Leibniz's Universal Jurisprudence: Justice as the Charity of the Wise. Harvard University Press.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Russell, Bertrand (15 April 2013). History of Western Philosophy: Collectors Edition (revised ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-69284-1.
- Rutherford, Donald (1998). Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge University Press.[place missing][ISBN missing]
- Sariel, Aviram (2019). "Diabolic Philosophy". Studia Leibnitiana. 51 (1). Franz Steiner Verlag: 99–118. doi:10.25162/sl-2019-0004. ISSN 0039-3185.
- Schulte-Albert, H. G. (1971). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Library Classification. The Journal of Library History (1966–1972), (2). 133–152.
- Sepioł, Zbigniew (2003). "Legal and political thought of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". Studia Iuridica (in Polish). 41: 227–250 – via CEEOL.
- Simmons, George (2007). Calculus Gems: Brief Lives and Memorable Mathematics. MAA Press.[ISBN missing]
- Smith, Justin E. H., 2011. Divine Machines. Leibniz and the Sciences of Life, Princeton University Press.
- Strickland, Lloyd (2007). "Explanation of Binary Arithmetic". Leibniz Translations. Archived from the original on 25 June 2024. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
- Strickland, Lloyd (2023). "Why Did Thomas Harriot Invent Binary?". The Mathematical Intelligencer. 46: 57–62. doi:10.1007/s00283-023-10271-9.
- Struik, Dirk Jan, ed. (1969). A Source Book in Mathematics, 1200–1800. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674823559. OL 18575482M. Retrieved 16 September 2025.
- Sriraman, Bharath, ed. (2024). Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Mathematical Practice. Vol. 4. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-031-40845-8.
- Wells, John C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd ed.). Longman. ISBN 9781405881180.
- Wilson, Catherine (1989). Leibniz's Metaphysics: A Historical and Comparative Study. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691073597. LCCN 89037831. OCLC 20094320. OL 2214746M.
- Zalta, E. N. (2000). "A (Leibnizian) Theory of Concepts" (PDF). Philosophiegeschichte und Logische Analyse / Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy. 3: 137–183. doi:10.30965/26664275-00301008.
External links
[edit]This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (September 2025) |
- Works by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz at Project Gutenberg
- Works by or about Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz at the Internet Archive
- Works by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)

- Peckhaus, Volker. "Leibniz's Influence on 19th Century Logic". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Burnham, Douglas. "Gottfried Leibniz: Metaphysics". In Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658.
- Carlin, Laurence. "Gottfried Leibniz: Causation". In Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658.
- Horn, Joshua. Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). "Leibniz: Modal Metaphysics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658.
- Jorarti, Julia. Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). "Leibniz: Philosophy of Mind". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658.
- Lenzen, Wolfgang. "Leibniz: Logic". In Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658.
- O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F. "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive. University of St Andrews.
- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz at the Mathematics Genealogy Project
- Translations 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, compiled by Donald Rutherford, UCSD
- Leibnitiana, links and resources edited by Gregory Brown, University of Houston
- Philosophical Works of Leibniz translated by G.M. Duncan (1890)
- The Best of All Possible Worlds: Nicholas Rescher Talks About Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz's "Versatility and Creativity"
- "Protogæa" Archived 1 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine (1693, Latin, in Acta eruditorum) – Linda Hall Library
- Protogaea Archived 1 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine (1749, German) – full digital facsimile from Linda Hall Library
- Leibniz's (1768, 6-volume) Opera omnia – digital facsimile
- Leibniz's arithmetical machine, 1710, online and analyzed on BibNum Archived 24 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine [click 'à télécharger' for English analysis]
- Leibniz's binary numeral system, 'De progressione dyadica', 1679, online and analyzed on BibNum Archived 24 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine [click 'à télécharger' for English analysis]
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
View on GrokipediaEarly Life and Education
Birth and Family Background
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was born on 1 July 1646 in Leipzig, Electorate of Saxony, Holy Roman Empire, during the final phases of the Thirty Years' War, which had severely disrupted the region.[7][1] He was baptized into the Lutheran Church three days later, reflecting the family's devout Protestant faith.[8] His father, Friedrich Leibniz (1597–1652), served as professor of moral philosophy at the University of Leipzig, where he also acted as vice chairman of the philosophy faculty, a lawyer, notary, and registrar; Friedrich had earned his doctorate in philosophy from the university in 1620 and maintained a scholarly household with an extensive library that young Gottfried accessed after his father's death.[9][10] Friedrich's career emphasized ethical and classical studies, influencing the intellectual environment in which Leibniz grew up. Leibniz's mother, Catharina Schmuck (1621–1664), was Friedrich's third wife and the daughter of Wilhelm Schmuck, a prominent Leipzig lawyer; she managed the household following Friedrich's death in 1652, when Leibniz was six, fostering a pious Lutheran upbringing amid the family's scholarly traditions.[7][9] The couple had several children, though Leibniz was their only child together, with half-siblings from Friedrich's prior marriages contributing to a blended family dynamic centered on education and moral philosophy.[11] This early exposure to paternal resources and maternal guidance laid the foundation for Leibniz's precocious self-education in Latin, Greek, and theology.[1]Studies in Leipzig, Altdorf, and Jena
Leibniz enrolled at the University of Leipzig in 1661 at the age of 14 or 15, pursuing studies in philosophy, mathematics, and law under professors such as Jakob Thomasius in philosophy and Bartholomäus Leonhard Schmid in law.[7] His early academic work there included engagement with scholastic philosophy and Renaissance humanism, influenced by his self-directed reading of classical texts following his father's death in 1652.[12] Leipzig's curriculum emphasized Aristotelian logic and jurisprudence, which Leibniz supplemented with independent explorations into metaphysics and combinatorics.[13] In the summer of 1663, Leibniz briefly attended the University of Jena, studying mathematics and moral philosophy under Erhard Weigel, a proponent of applied logic and cryptographic methods.[7] This short interlude, lasting one term, exposed him to Weigel's innovative approaches to reconciling geometry with jurisprudence, foreshadowing Leibniz's later interests in universal symbolism.[14] By October 1663, he returned to Leipzig to advance toward a doctorate in law, completing required coursework but facing barriers to formal graduation due to university age restrictions or procedural issues.[7] Unable to obtain his degree in Leipzig, Leibniz transferred to the University of Altdorf near Nuremberg in 1666, where he rapidly prepared and defended his doctoral thesis Disputatio de casibus perplexis in iure (Discussion of Perplexing Cases in Law) on November 15, earning both the licentiate and doctorate in law.[15] The thesis addressed complex legal conditions and obligations, demonstrating his analytical rigor in applying logical principles to jurisprudence.[16] Concurrently, in early 1666, he published Dissertatio de arte combinatoria (Dissertation on the Art of Combinations), expanding on ideas from his Leipzig and Jena periods to propose a universal language for reasoning based on combinatorial permutations of notions.[7] This work, dedicated to the Society of Jesus, aimed to systematize knowledge through calculable symbols, marking an early step toward his mature philosophical system.[16]Legal and Diplomatic Career
Early Legal Practice and Writings (1661–1669)
Following his enrollment at the University of Leipzig in 1661, where he initially focused on philosophy, Leibniz increasingly directed his studies toward law, engaging with Roman law, natural law principles, and jurisprudential methodology. By 1664, he had begun composing early legal treatises, including analyses of legal certainty and demonstration, which reflected his ambition to apply logical and combinatorial methods to resolve juridical complexities. These efforts culminated in his transfer to the University of Altdorf, where he defended his dissertation on the conditions of punishment in cases of doubt (De conditionibus), earning his doctorate in law on November 6, 1666.[7][17] Upon receiving his degree, Leibniz declined a professorship at Altdorf to pursue practical and advisory roles in jurisprudence. He briefly served as salaried secretary to a Nuremberg society investigating natural philosophy and alchemy, a position that afforded modest financial support while allowing time for writing. During this interval, in 1667, he published Nova Methodus Discendae Docendaeque Jurisprudentiae, dedicating it to the Elector of Mainz and advocating a systematic, principle-based reform of legal education: law should be organized encyclopedically, reduced to axiomatic foundations akin to geometry, and taught through dialectical analysis of controversies drawn from Roman sources like the Digest. This work emphasized jus naturale as the core of jurisprudence, with positive law deriving validity from rational harmony rather than mere custom or authority.[18][19][20] The Nova Methodus attracted notice from influential figures, including Baron Johann Christian von Boineburg, chief minister to Elector Johann Philipp von Schönborn of Mainz. By late 1667, Leibniz relocated to the Frankfurt-Mainz region, leveraging Boineburg's patronage to propose comprehensive legal reforms, such as streamlining electoral statutes through logical deduction from natural justice principles. His efforts bore fruit in 1669, when he was appointed assessor—a judicial role involving case review and opinion drafting—in the Electorate's supreme court of appeal, an unusual honor for a 23-year-old Lutheran in a Catholic jurisdiction. That same year, he issued Specimina Juris, a compilation of three essays: Specimen Difficultatis in Jure (on perplexing legal cases), Specimen Certitudinis sive Demonstrationum in Jure Exhibitum (demonstrating mathematical rigor in law), and Specimen Quaestionum Philosophicarum ex Jure Collectarum (philosophical queries from legal texts). These pieces illustrated his method of dissolving apparent contradictions via precise definitions and probabilistic reasoning, presaging his later metaphysical concerns with harmony and necessity.[17] Though his assessorship marked the onset of formal practice, Leibniz's early years emphasized theoretical innovation over routine litigation; he contributed opinions on electoral disputes and code revisions but prioritized universal principles to mitigate interpretive ambiguity in civil and canon law. This phase laid groundwork for his view of justice as charitable maximization of the common good, distinct from strict equity, influencing subsequent diplomatic and philosophical endeavors.[12][17]Service to the Archbishop of Mainz (1669–1676)
In November 1667, Leibniz entered the service of Johann Christian von Boineburg, the privy councilor and chief minister to Johann Philipp von Schönborn, the Elector-Archbishop of Mainz, initially as Boineburg's personal secretary, assistant, librarian, and legal advisor based in Frankfurt, with duties extending to the Mainz court.[7] Through Boineburg's patronage, Leibniz gained access to Schönborn, an enlightened ruler interested in legal reform, science, and ecclesiastical unity, and was tasked with contributing to the modernization of the Electorate's legal code by improving aspects of Roman civil law to align with contemporary needs.[18][7] By 1669, Leibniz had been appointed assessor in the Court of Appeal (Hofgericht) in Mainz, where he provided legal counsel on general jurisdictional matters and anonymous position papers addressing imperial legal challenges.[18] His work extended to broader imperial reform initiatives, including proposals for a unified legal framework across the Holy Roman Empire to resolve inconsistencies in civil law application among principalities.[18] Leibniz also supported Schönborn's and Boineburg's efforts toward Protestant-Catholic reconciliation, drafting theological monographs that explored common doctrinal ground while maintaining Lutheran principles, reflecting the court's diplomatic orientation amid religious tensions.[7] Complementing his legal duties, Leibniz pursued scientific inquiries suited to Schönborn's patronage of natural philosophy; in 1671, he published Hypothesis Physica Nova, a treatise positing motion and activity as derived from an immaterial substantial form or active force pervading matter, drawing on corpuscular mechanics while critiquing purely mechanistic accounts like those of Descartes.[7] This work aligned with the court's intellectual climate, as Schönborn hosted discussions on chemistry and physics, though Leibniz's primary role remained advisory on policy and law. Early diplomatic activities included mediating tensions between France under Louis XIV and the Habsburg Emperor Leopold I, with Leibniz authoring memoranda advocating balanced power arrangements to avert invasion of German territories.[18][7] Boineburg's death in late 1672 and Schönborn's in February 1673 disrupted Leibniz's position, reducing his salary to a modest pension, yet he retained ties to the Mainz court, continuing advisory functions until formal service concluded around 1676 amid shifting electoral politics.[18]Diplomatic Mission to Paris (1672–1676)
In early 1672, Leibniz was dispatched to Paris by Johann Christian von Boineburg, chief minister to Elector Johann Philipp von Schönborn of Mainz, to negotiate with French authorities amid rising tensions from Louis XIV's expansionist policies during the War of Devolution.[21] The mission aimed to avert French incursions into German territories, particularly along the Rhine, by proposing a grand strategic diversion that would redirect French military ambitions away from Europe.[7] Leibniz departed Mainz in late February or early March, arriving in Paris by the end of March 1672, equipped with credentials and his detailed "Consilium Aegyptiacum" plan drafted in late 1671.[21][22] The core of Leibniz's diplomatic proposal, the Egyptian Plan, envisioned France leading a pan-European coalition to conquer Egypt as a base for reclaiming the Holy Land from Ottoman control, framing it as a religious crusade that would glorify Louis XIV, secure French trade routes via the Nile, and neutralize the Turkish threat while sparing Western Europe internal conflict.[22] This scheme drew on historical precedents like Napoleon's later Egyptian campaign but emphasized ecumenical unity among Christian powers, including potential reconciliation with Protestant states, to foster lasting peace; Leibniz argued it aligned French interests with the "common good of Christendom" by providing overseas gains superior to Rhineland conquests.[22] He presented the plan to key figures, including Antoine Colbert, director of the French Royal Library, and sought audiences with foreign minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert and other courtiers, leveraging his linguistic skills and erudition to advocate for the Elector of Mainz's vision of imperial security.[7] Despite initial discussions, the proposal encountered skepticism; French strategists prioritized immediate continental gains, and by April 1672, Louis XIV invaded the Dutch Republic, rendering the diplomatic overture moot.[21] Throughout his stay, Leibniz balanced formal diplomacy with informal networking, residing in Paris until October 1676 while pursuing secondary objectives such as legal and scientific exchanges.[23] He corresponded with Boineburg on ongoing negotiations, including attempts to clarify Habsburg-French boundaries and promote Mainz's interests in ecclesiastical disputes, but these efforts yielded no substantive agreements amid France's escalating Dutch War.[7] Boineburg's death in December 1672 and Schönborn's in February 1673 left Leibniz without strong patronage, yet he delayed return to Germany, citing the need to complete diplomatic reports and explore opportunities, during which he audited mathematical lectures and engaged with savants like Christiaan Huygens—though these intellectual pursuits, while fruitful for his later work, were incidental to the mission's political mandate.[21][24] The mission ultimately failed to alter French policy or secure alliances, highlighting the limits of intellectual diplomacy against Realpolitik; Leibniz's plan, though visionary in its causal linkage of overseas expansion to European stability, presupposed a rational convergence of interests that Louis XIV's absolutism disregarded.[22] By 1676, with no further prospects in Paris and overtures from the Duke of Hanover, Leibniz departed for Hanover, marking the end of his brief but formative diplomatic phase under Mainz.[7]Hanover Period and Later Career (1676–1716)
Appointment to the House of Hanover
In 1676, following the death of his primary patrons in Mainz and amid financial uncertainty after his extended diplomatic mission in Paris, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz accepted an offer of employment from Johann Friedrich, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, ruler of the Principality of Calenberg (later known as Hanover).[7] The duke, with whom Leibniz had corresponded since at least 1669 regarding intellectual and practical matters such as mining improvements, appointed him as privy councilor and librarian of the ducal collections in Hanover.[18] This position provided Leibniz with a stable salary of 400 thalers annually, along with responsibilities for managing the library and advising on administrative, scientific, and diplomatic affairs.[25] Leibniz departed Paris in October 1676 but delayed his full relocation by undertaking a brief trip to London to visit the Royal Society and observe scientific instruments, including those related to Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton.[7] He arrived in Hanover by December 1676, marking the beginning of his 40-year association with the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg.[18] The appointment reflected Johann Friedrich's appreciation for Leibniz's versatile talents, as the duke—a Calvinist ruler with interests in theology, history, and technology—sought a polymath advisor capable of advancing the court's intellectual prestige and practical projects, such as hydraulic engineering for regional mines.[25] Though initially focused on archival and advisory duties, Leibniz quickly proposed ambitious initiatives to the duke, including a systematic history of the Guelph dynasty and technical reforms, underscoring the strategic nature of his recruitment beyond mere librarianship.[7] This role in Hanover allowed Leibniz greater autonomy for his philosophical and mathematical pursuits compared to his prior ecclesiastical service, though it tethered him to court obligations that sometimes conflicted with his scholarly ambitions.[18]Administrative and Scientific Roles
Upon arriving in Hanover in late 1676, Leibniz was appointed librarian and court councillor to Duke Johann Friedrich of Brunswick-Lünenburg, roles that involved managing the ducal library's collections and providing legal and advisory counsel.[7] He continued in these capacities under subsequent rulers, including Duke Ernst August from 1679 onward, and was elevated to privy councillor of justice in 1696 by Ernst August, a position he retained until his death while serving Elector Georg Ludwig from 1698.[26] In 1691, he also became director of the ducal library in Wolfenbüttel, where he oversaw cataloging and expansion efforts.[27] As official historian, Leibniz was commissioned in the 1680s by Ernst August to compile a comprehensive history of the House of Brunswick tracing back to Charlemagne, entailing extensive archival research; he traveled from November 1687 to June 1690 across Bavaria, Austria, and Italy, amassing documents that resulted in nine published volumes of source materials, though the full narrative remained unfinished at his death.[7] Administratively, he advised on political and diplomatic matters, leveraging his network of correspondents to support Hanoverian interests, including genealogical claims that bolstered the family's electoral aspirations.[27] Leibniz's scientific roles intertwined with his administrative duties, particularly in applied engineering; from 1678 to 1679, he proposed and pursued a project to drain flooded silver mines in the Harz Mountains using wind- and water-powered pumps, continuing technical oversight until 1686 despite ultimate failure due to logistical challenges.[7] He advocated for institutional advancements in science, drafting proposals for German academies to foster collaboration in mechanics, medicine, and experimentation as early as his tenure's outset, and in 1700 co-founded the Brandenburg Society of Sciences in Berlin, serving as its inaugural president to promote empirical research and practical innovations.[28][7] These efforts reflected his vision of integrating theoretical inquiry with state-supported utility, though often constrained by court priorities.[28]Final Years and Health Decline
In the years leading up to his death, Leibniz pursued diplomatic and intellectual opportunities amid growing professional isolation. In 1714, he traveled to Vienna to congratulate Emperor Charles VI on his election, while advocating for reforms such as the establishment of a learned academy and seeking greater influence, though these efforts yielded limited success.[29] He continued extensive correspondence on philosophical, mathematical, and political matters, including a final push in 1716 to advise Tsar Peter the Great on institutional reforms during their meeting in Bad Pyrmont, where Leibniz proposed models for a Russian academy of sciences inspired by European precedents.[30] These ambitions, however, were overshadowed by unresolved disputes, notably the 1711 Royal Society verdict favoring Newton in the calculus priority controversy, which diminished Leibniz's standing in British scientific circles.[16] Leibniz's health, long compromised by obesity and recurrent attacks of gout—a form of arthritis characterized by uric acid crystal deposits causing severe joint inflammation—deteriorated sharply in his later years. By early 1716, mobility issues confined much of his activity to correspondence from Hanover, where he resided as court counselor to the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg.[12] A particularly acute gout episode in June 1716 left him bedridden, exacerbating respiratory complications and preventing further travel or public engagements.[16] Despite these afflictions, he persisted in writing, completing works on metaphysics and history until his final months.Personal Life and Character
Relationships and Correspondences
Leibniz maintained an extensive network of correspondences, estimated at over 15,000 letters, spanning intellectual, diplomatic, and personal matters with figures across Europe.[31] His closest personal relationships were with the women of the House of Hanover, particularly Electress Sophie of Hanover and her daughter Sophie Charlotte, Queen of Prussia. Leibniz served as a philosophical interlocutor to both, engaging in discussions on the nature of the mind, innate knowledge, and the operation of substances.[32] The correspondence with Sophie Charlotte, initiated during her visits and invitations to Berlin around 1700, addressed topics like the immateriality of the soul and critiques of materialism, with Leibniz clarifying his views in accessible terms.[33] Similarly, his exchanges with Electress Sophie from the 1690s onward covered theology, history, and metaphysics, reflecting a bond built over decades of service to the Hanoverian court.[34] Intellectually, Leibniz's correspondence with Christiaan Huygens from 1679 to 1695 focused on mathematics and physics, including quadrature methods and infinite series, during which Huygens mentored him in advanced continental mathematics during his Paris period.[35] With Antoine Arnauld in the 1680s and 1690s, Leibniz debated the viability of his metaphysical system, particularly individual substances and predication across possible worlds, leading Arnauld to question the coherence of trans-world identity.[36] Later, the 1715–1716 exchange with Samuel Clarke, prompted by Leibniz's criticisms of Newtonian absolute space and time conveyed through Princess Caroline of Wales, encompassed five rounds of letters debating God's role in the universe, the nature of space as relational versus absolute, and free will versus necessity.[37] Leibniz met Baruch Spinoza briefly in 1676 and remained critical of his pantheistic monism, viewing it as incompatible with divine freedom, though he engaged indirectly through critiques in later works.[38] These interactions underscored Leibniz's role as a bridge between rationalist traditions while defending his optimistic theodicy and principle of sufficient reason.Religious Beliefs and Daily Habits
Leibniz remained a devout Lutheran throughout his life, rejecting offers such as the Vatican librarianship in 1677 that would have required conversion to Catholicism.[39] He viewed Christianity as rationally defensible, insisting that faith must align with reason, which he considered a divine gift capable of demonstrating God's existence and key doctrines like the immortality of the soul.[12] In works such as the Theodicy (1710), he argued against fideism by upholding traditional Christian tenets—including divine omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence—within a framework where evil exists compatibly due to metaphysical necessity and free will.[40] [41] His theological outlook emphasized ecumenism, driven by a desire for Christian reunion; from the 1690s onward, he corresponded with Catholic figures like Bossuet and engaged in efforts to bridge Lutheran and Reformed divides, proposing rational theology as a basis for doctrinal compromise without compromising core Protestant principles.[42] [43] Leibniz critiqued excessive saint veneration in other traditions as detracting from God's sole honor, aligning with Lutheran sola scriptura while favoring syncretic elements that prioritized scriptural fundamentals over ritual disputes.[44] Piety, for him, culminated in loving God above all through contemplation of divine perfection and ethical imitation, fostering spiritual joy via intellectual assent to truth and moral progress.[45] [46] Leibniz's daily habits reflected his intellectual discipline and sedentary scholarly life, marked by extensive correspondence—over 20,000 letters preserved—and late-night work sessions fueled by high energy, often leading to irritability from sleep deprivation.[47] Administrative duties in Hanover occupied his days, interspersed with reading, writing, and travel for health and diplomacy, which he deemed essential exercise amid prolonged desk work.[48] This routine embodied his optimism, viewing continuous pursuit of knowledge as aligned with divine order and human perfection.[49]Death and Burial
Leibniz succumbed to complications from longstanding gout on November 14, 1716, at approximately 10:00 p.m. in his residence in Hanover, after months of being bedridden and increasingly frail.[50] His final illness exacerbated chronic podagra, which had progressively worsened despite rudimentary medical interventions available at the time, including bloodletting and herbal remedies that offered little relief.[7] In the preceding years, Leibniz's position at the Hanoverian court had diminished following Elector George Louis's ascension as King George I of Great Britain in 1714; the court departed for London, instructing Leibniz to remain in Hanover to finalize a commissioned history of the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg, which contributed to his sense of isolation, though contemporary accounts indicate the neglect was less absolute than later narratives suggest.[51] He received no funeral honors commensurate with his stature, reflecting the court's waning regard for his administrative and intellectual contributions amid political shifts. Leibniz's remains were interred on December 14, 1716 (New Style), in an unmarked grave adjacent to the altar in the Neustädter Hof- und Stadtkirche St. Johannis in Hanover, without ceremony or epitaph, as per Lutheran customs for non-nobles and his lack of immediate family or high court favor.[52][26] The site's precise location was forgotten over time, leading to 18th- and 19th-century exhumations and disputes over identification, including analysis of a purported skull attributed to him, but the church remains the verified burial place based on historical records.[53] A modest monument was eventually erected in 1764, though his legacy's recognition grew posthumously through scholarly efforts rather than contemporary commemoration.[26]Philosophical Foundations
Principle of Sufficient Reason and Identity of Indiscernibles
Leibniz articulated the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) as a fundamental axiom requiring that every true proposition or existing fact possess an explanation for its obtaining rather than otherwise. In his Monadology (§32, 1714), he formulated it explicitly: "No fact can hold or be real, and no proposition can be true, unless there is a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise."[54] This principle distinguishes between necessary truths, grounded in the principle of contradiction, and contingent truths, which demand extrinsic reasons forming an infinite explanatory series ultimately resolved by divine intellect or necessity.[55] Leibniz applied the PSR to reject brute contingencies, insisting that even God's choices, such as creating this world over others, stem from rational sufficiency rather than arbitrary will.[56] The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) asserts that two entities cannot differ solely in number (solo numero) but must possess at least one distinguishing qualitative property; if all properties coincide, the entities are identical. Leibniz derived the PII directly from the PSR in works like "Primary Truths" (ca. 1689), arguing that indiscernible duplicates would lack a sufficient reason for their spatial or temporal differentiation—e.g., why one occupies position A and the other B, absent any qualitative basis for divine placement.[57][58] He extended this to critique absolute space and time, as posited by Newton, contending that relational differences alone suffice for individuation without invoking ungrounded uniformity.[55] Together, the PSR and PII underpin Leibniz's rationalist metaphysics, ensuring no reality escapes explanatory necessity and prohibiting mere numerical multiplicity in substances. These axioms preclude atoms or void space, as uniform particles would violate distinguishability, and support his monadic ontology where each simple substance reflects the universe uniquely.[59] Leibniz viewed them as self-evident from reason, though later critics like Russell challenged the PII with symmetrical scenarios lacking intuitive violation.[60]Principle of Continuity and Possible Worlds
Leibniz articulated the principle of continuity, often summarized as natura non facit saltus ("nature makes no leaps"), asserting that all natural changes and transitions occur by infinitesimal degrees rather than abrupt jumps.[61] This principle, which he regarded as a foundational insight akin to his other logical axioms, implies the presence of intermediate states in any progression, whether in time, space, qualities, motion, or extension.[62] Leibniz first emphasized it in correspondence, such as drafts to Antoine Arnauld around 1686–1690, and elaborated in works like the Specimen Dynamicum (1695), where it underpins his rejection of instantaneous changes in physical interactions.[63] In application, the principle critiqued atomistic and Cartesian mechanics by denying perfectly rigid bodies or sudden collisions, as these would introduce discontinuities incompatible with continuous force and motion.[64] Leibniz extended it to perceptual and cognitive realms, arguing in the New Essays on Human Understanding (composed 1703–1705, published 1765) that even illusions or dreams maintain degrees of clarity, with no absolute void between perception and apperception.[61] This supported his infinitesimal calculus, where quantities vary continuously, avoiding the paradoxes of discrete limits, and reinforced a metaphysics of infinite divisibility without ultimate atoms.[65] Leibniz's doctrine of possible worlds posits an infinite array of coherent, complete conceptual possibilities, from which God selects and actualizes the optimal one as the actual universe.[66] Developed in texts like the Discourse on Metaphysics (1686) and systematized in the Essays on Theodicy (1710), it holds that each world comprises compossible monads—simple substances whose individual notions encompass all predicates—maximizing variety reconciled with order, or metaphysical perfection.[67] God's choice, guided by infinite wisdom, favors the world with the greatest excess of reality over possibility, ensuring no superior alternative exists, though it permits evil as a necessary contrast for greater goods.[68] The principles interconnect in Leibniz's system: continuity governs the internal structure of the actual world, enforcing gradual actualization of monadic perceptions in pre-established harmony, while possible worlds explain its selection as the continuum of maximal compatibility among discrete conceptual essences.[69] This framework counters necessitarianism by affirming contingency—worlds differ in degrees of perfection—yet upholds determinism within the chosen sequence, where continuity precludes arbitrary leaps in divine or natural order.[66] Critics, including contemporaries like Bayle, challenged the "best" designation amid evident suffering, but Leibniz maintained empirical imperfections as illusions from finite viewpoints, verifiable through rational maximization of compatible goods.[70]Critique of Occasionalism and Cartesianism
Leibniz critiqued Cartesianism for its mechanistic physics, particularly the conservation of the "quantity of motion" defined as mass times velocity (mv), which he demonstrated leads to violations of the equality of cause and effect.[64] In his Brief Demonstration of 1686, Leibniz illustrated this with falling bodies: a 4-pound object falling 1 meter exerts equivalent force to a 1-pound object falling 4 meters, preserving vis viva (mv²) rather than mv, exposing Cartesian laws as inadequate for elastic collisions and continuity.[64] He further rejected Descartes' view of matter as mere extension, arguing it renders bodies passive and indifferent to motion, necessitating perpetual divine interventions to explain changes, as extension alone cannot account for active force or directional tendencies.[64] In the metaphysical domain, Leibniz opposed the Cartesian doctrine of physical influx, under which mind and body causally interact directly, such as through the pineal gland, deeming it unintelligible given the indivisible, windowless nature of substances that precludes influx or efflux of properties.[71] Cartesian collision rules, derived from this framework, similarly failed to conserve force, dropping vis viva in examples like ball impacts from 10,001 to 5,100.5 units, contradicting causal adequacy.[64] Turning to occasionalism, as advanced by Malebranche, Leibniz objected that it denies finite substances any genuine causal activity, reducing them to mere occasions for constant divine causation, which presupposes perpetual miracles and undermines the intelligibility of natural laws. [71] In his letter to Arnauld on 30 April 1687, he argued this violates physical principles, such as requiring motion in bodies to explain bodily motion, by eliminating intrasubstantial activity and risking a slide toward Spinozism, where creatures become mere modifications of God.[71] A third critique held that occasionalism forces God to disrupt ordinary natural courses repeatedly, conflicting with divine wisdom and the stability of creation. Leibniz's New System of the Nature and Communication of Substances (1695) positioned pre-established harmony as superior to both physical influx and occasionalism: God synchronizes independent substances at creation to unfold in parallel, preserving their internal activity without ongoing interventions or interactions.[71] This avoids Cartesian absurdities in force conservation and the miraculous constancy of occasionalism, grounding causation in the primitive forces inherent to substances.[64]Metaphysics and Theology
Monadology and the Nature of Substance
Leibniz's Monadology, composed in 1714, presents a metaphysical system positing that reality consists of monads, which are simple, indivisible substances serving as the fundamental units of existence.[72] These monads are defined as entities without parts, incapable of division, and thus devoid of extension, shape, or divisibility, contrasting with material atoms or Cartesian extended substance.[73] Leibniz argues that composite bodies, being aggregates of monads, derive their apparent unity from the coordinated perceptions within dominant monads, but true substances must possess intrinsic unity, which only simples can provide.[74] The nature of a monad is characterized by two primary internal principles: perception and appetition. Perception is the representation of the universe from the monad's unique perspective, varying in clarity among monads, while appetition denotes the internal drive or tendency for perceptions to transition from one state to another, ensuring perpetual change without external causation.[72] Monads are "windowless," meaning they lack causal interaction with one another; all changes arise spontaneously from within, preordained by divine arrangement.[75] This simplicity precludes multiplicity or composition, rendering monads the true atoms of nature—not material, but metaphysical—eternal except for creation or annihilation by God.[73] Leibniz rejects both mechanistic atomism and purely extended substances, contending that infinite divisibility in matter leads to no ultimate constituents, necessitating immaterial simples to ground phenomena.[74] Monads form a hierarchy based on perceptual distinctness: from bare monads with confused perceptions to animal souls with memory, culminating in rational spirits capable of self-awareness and knowledge of eternal truths.[76] This system upholds the principle that substances are complete notions containing all predicates, with each monad mirroring the entire cosmos in its internal states, ensuring the world's unity despite the plurality of substances.[77]Pre-Established Harmony
Pre-established harmony is the philosophical doctrine developed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to account for the apparent causal relations between mind and body, or more generally among substances, without positing direct interaction or continuous divine intervention.[78] According to Leibniz, individual substances—termed monads—are metaphysically self-contained and incapable of influencing one another externally, as they lack "windows" through which perceptions or modifications could pass.[55] Instead, the synchronization of mental perceptions with physical events stems from God's foresight in creating each monad with an internal principle of development that unfolds deterministically, ensuring perfect correspondence from the moment of creation onward.[78] Leibniz first articulated elements of the theory in his Discourse on Metaphysics (written in 1686, published posthumously in 1710), where he addressed the unity of soul and body by denying influx from one to the other and proposing divine coordination.[79] He elaborated the concept more fully in "A New System of the Nature and the Communication of Substances, and of the Union between the Soul and the Body" (1695), employing the analogy of two perfectly synchronized clocks crafted by a master watchmaker: just as the clocks maintain agreement without mechanical linkage, substances align through God's preordained design rather than mutual causation.[80] This mechanism preserves the spontaneity inherent to each substance's internal appetition and perception, aligning with Leibniz's principle that every state follows sufficiently from the substance's prior concept.[81] In the Monadology (1714), Leibniz formalized the doctrine in sections 51–52, stating that body and soul "act as one" not through reciprocal action but because God, choosing the best possible world, established from the beginning a harmony whereby the soul's ideational states mirror the body's kinematic sequences.[78] This pre-harmony extends universally: all monads represent the entire universe from their unique perspective, with their representations converging in harmonious detail according to their clarity, thus explaining inter-substantial relations without violating monadic isolation.[55] Leibniz contrasted this with alternatives like Cartesian physical influx, which he deemed inexplicable due to the immateriality of mind and differing natures of substances, and occasionalism (as in Malebranche), which requires God's perpetual miraculous adjustments, undermining natural order and divine efficiency.[81] By relying on a single creative act grounded in God's omniscience, pre-established harmony upholds causal realism within substances while attributing cosmic order to rational divine choice rather than ad hoc interventions.Theodicy: Justification of God and Evil
Leibniz articulated his theodicy in the 1710 treatise Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal, published in Amsterdam, which systematically defends the compatibility of God's omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence with the existence of evil.[82] The work responds to contemporary challenges, including Pierre Bayle's skepticism in the Historical and Critical Dictionary, by arguing that evil does not negate divine perfection but arises as a necessary consequence within the optimal cosmic order God freely selected from infinite possibilities.[83] Leibniz posits that God, as a supremely rational being bound by the principle of sufficient reason, could not have chosen otherwise than the world maximizing harmony, variety, and perfection while minimizing imperfections, rendering our universe the best possible despite apparent evils.[82] Central to Leibniz's justification is the doctrine that this world embodies the greatest possible balance of goods, where evils serve instrumental roles in achieving higher perfections unavailable in purely good alternatives.[84] He distinguishes three types of evil: metaphysical evil as mere privation or lack of perfection in finite substances, rather than a positive entity; physical evil, encompassing suffering and natural calamities, which contribute to the world's richness by enabling contrasts that enhance overall order and development; and moral evil, stemming from rational creatures' free will, which God permits to allow genuine moral agency and virtue, outweighing the defects it introduces.[83] For instance, free will's potential for sin is justified because a world without such liberty would lack the superior goods of redemption, heroism, and voluntary obedience, which elevate the aggregate perfection beyond what deterministic harmony alone could provide.[82] Leibniz further contends that eliminating any specific evil would disrupt the pre-established harmony among monads, unraveling compossible perfections across the entire system, as God's choice optimizes the whole rather than isolated parts.[84] Evils, thus, are not gratuitous but hypothetically necessary—God could have created a world without them, but no such world would surpass ours in net goodness, as infinite wisdom discerns that greater variety demands some discord for maximal coherence.[83] This framework reconciles divine foreknowledge with human freedom by locating contingency in the infinite array of possible worlds, where God selects the one aligning maximal reality with minimal evil, affirming that apparent imperfections reflect human limited perspective rather than divine shortcomings.[82]Optimism and Its Implications
Doctrine of the Best Possible World
Leibniz articulated the doctrine of the best possible world in his Théodicée (1710), asserting that God, possessing infinite wisdom, power, and benevolence, necessarily selects the optimal world from an infinite array of possible worlds to actualize. This choice reflects divine perfection, as any lesser world would contradict God's nature, which compels the creation of the richest harmony of compatible substances—termed monads—maximizing variety and order while minimizing necessary imperfections.[85][86] Central to the doctrine is the concept of compossibility: possible worlds consist of sets of individual concepts or monads whose attributes can coexist without contradiction, with God choosing the compossible set yielding the greatest perfection, measured by the abundance of phenomena derivable from the fewest principles. Leibniz argued that apparent evils—such as moral faults or physical sufferings—are not positive entities but privations or shadows that enhance overall goodness through contrast, free will, and causal chains leading to higher goods, ensuring no world without such elements could achieve equivalent diversity and interconnectedness.[85][87] The doctrine implies metaphysical optimism, where contingency arises from God's free decree among possibles, yet the actual world's superiority follows analytically from divine attributes and the principle of sufficient reason, which demands a rationale for God's preference beyond mere possibility. Leibniz countered objections by noting that human imagination of "better" worlds overlooks hidden defects or reduced global harmony, as infinite wisdom alone comprehends the full optimization of finite realities within infinite potentials.[86][85]Rational Defense Against Pessimism
Leibniz countered pessimism, which views the world's evils as evidence against divine providence, by asserting that God created the best possible world, wherein imperfections are necessary for achieving maximal overall harmony and variety. In his Theodicy (1710), he reasoned that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent deity would select, from infinite possible worlds, the one optimizing perfection—defined as the richest diversity of phenomena produced by the fewest principles—over any lesser alternative.[88] This doctrine implies that apparent pessimism arises from incomplete human comprehension, focusing on local sufferings while ignoring the global calculus of goods exceeding evils.[89] Central to this defense is the principle of sufficient reason, which demands a rationale for God's choice: absent a better world, this one must embody the highest feasible good, as divine wisdom precludes suboptimal outcomes.[88] Leibniz illustrated this through metaphysical necessity, arguing that pure uniformity (a world without contrasts) would yield monotony inferior to our world's dynamic interplay of order and contingency, where evils like pain enable virtues such as courage and forgiveness.[89] Thus, no evil is gratuitous; each contributes to a pre-established harmony maximizing existential plenitude, refuting manichaean dualism or atheistic despair by subordinating disvalue to superior value.[88] Responding to Pierre Bayle's skeptical challenges in the Historical and Critical Dictionary (1697), which questioned reconciling freedom, evil, and God's attributes, Leibniz maintained that pessimism overlooks possible compensations invisible to finite minds—such as remote goods stemming from proximate ills—and the impossibility of a world free from all limitation without ceasing to be finite creation.[88] He emphasized empirical observation of progress in nature and history as partial evidence of optimization, urging rational inquiry over emotional lamentation to discern underlying rationality.[89] This framework posits optimism not as naive positivity but as a logical entailment of theistic premises, rendering pessimism irrational absent proof of a superior unrealized world.[88]Criticisms from Contemporaries and Modern Views
Voltaire, a prominent contemporary critic, satirized Leibniz's doctrine in his 1759 novella Candide, ou l'Optimisme, portraying the character Pangloss as an unwavering proponent of the idea that "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds," even amid disasters like the Lisbon earthquake of November 1, 1755, which devastated the city and prompted widespread questioning of divine providence.[90] [91] This work directly targeted Leibniz's optimism as callous or detached from human suffering, arguing that empirical evils—such as natural calamities and moral atrocities—render the claim implausible.[92] Pierre Bayle, whose Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697) raised acute problems of theodicy by questioning how an omnipotent, benevolent God permits evil, indirectly challenged optimistic resolutions; Leibniz's Essais de Théodicée (1710) was explicitly framed as a rebuttal to Bayle's skepticism, yet Bayle's emphasis on the incomprehensibility of divine justice highlighted perceived gaps in reconciling optimism with observed imperfections.[93] [94] Other early detractors, including reviewers in the Jesuit Mémoires de Trévoux (where the term "optimisme" was coined in 1737), faulted Leibniz for underestimating evil's prevalence, viewing his system as overly speculative rather than grounded in experiential reality.[95] In modern philosophy, Arthur Schopenhauer inverted Leibniz's thesis, contending in works like The World as Will and Representation (1818) that this world approximates the worst of all possible worlds, as any greater suffering would preclude continued existence, thereby critiquing optimism as a failure to grasp the inherent pessimism of willing and striving amid inevitable pain.[96] [97] Bertrand Russell, in his Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (1900), identified optimism as the "weakest part" of Leibniz's system, dismissing it as a contrived rationalization that evades the brute facts of contingency and discord without sufficient causal justification.[95] [98] Contemporary assessments often reinforce these objections by invoking the problem of gratuitous or "horrendous" evils—acts or events causing irredeemable harm that appear disproportionate to any purported greater good—arguing that Leibniz's framework inadequately explains why an optimal world necessitates such extremes, potentially prioritizing logical possibility over empirical adequacy.[99] [100] Defenders, however, maintain that critiques overlook Leibniz's distinction between apparent and metaphysical necessity, where evils serve as contrasts enabling higher-order goods like free will and virtue, though skeptics counter that alternative worlds without such contrasts could achieve equivalent or superior harmony.[101]Mathematics
Invention of Calculus and Notation
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz formulated the core concepts of infinitesimal calculus independently during his residence in Paris from 1672 to 1676, building on earlier work in tangents, quadratures, and series expansions.[7] His approach emphasized differentials as infinitesimally small increments, treating them via the law of continuity that extended finite differences to vanishing quantities.[7] In a manuscript dated 29 October 1675, Leibniz first introduced the integral symbol ∫, derived from the elongated Latin "S" for summa, to denote the summation of infinitesimal areas under a curve.[102] This notation represented the inverse of differentiation, conceptualizing integration as an infinite sum of rectangular strips with widths dx.[103] By 21 November 1675, in another unpublished manuscript, Leibniz applied his differential calculus to derive the product rule for differentiation, d(uv) = u dv + v du, alongside the integral notation ∫ f(x) dx.[7] He viewed derivatives as ratios of differentials, dy/dx, where dy and dx were infinitely small changes in y and x, respectively, allowing resolution of problems in maxima, minima, and tangents without explicit limits.[103] This fractional notation for the derivative, first systematically presented in print, facilitated algebraic manipulation and remains standard in modern analysis.[7] Leibniz's first public exposition appeared in the October 1684 Acta Eruditorum article "Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis, itemque Tangentibus," which outlined the differential calculus for optimization and tangent computation using rules like d(x + y) = dx + dy and the chain rule in nascent form.[103] [104] The paper demonstrated solving geometric problems, such as finding tangents to curves defined implicitly, by setting the differential to zero at extrema.[103] His notation's algebraic flexibility contrasted with contemporaneous fluxional methods, enabling broader applications in physics and geometry, though it initially faced skepticism due to the metaphysical status of infinitesimals.[7] Subsequent papers in 1686 and 1693 expanded to integrals and higher-order differentials, solidifying the calculus framework.[104]
Leibniz's innovations extended to fractional derivatives, as in his notation d^{1/2} y for half-order operations, anticipating later generalizations.[7] These developments prioritized symbolic computation over geometric intuition, influencing the subject's evolution toward rigorous analysis in the 19th century.[7]
Binary System and Combinatorics
Leibniz's engagement with combinatorics originated in his youth, culminating in the 1666 publication of Dissertatio de Arte Combinatoria, an extension of his habilitation thesis submitted that year.[105] In this treatise, he envisioned ars combinatoria as a universal method to generate knowledge by systematically combining primitive concepts into complex ones, akin to how numbers arise from units.[105] Leibniz derived theorems on permutations and combinations, distinguishing between similitudo (similarity in order) and identitas (identity), and applied these to fields like logic, jurisprudence, and memory arts, proposing a framework for mechanical reasoning and invention.[106] This work laid groundwork for his lifelong pursuit of a characteristica universalis, a symbolic language for resolving disputes through calculation rather than argumentation.[107] Building on combinatorial principles, Leibniz advanced binary arithmetic in the late 1670s, perfecting a system using only the digits 0 and 1 by around 1679.[7] He described algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in base 2, including methods to convert decimal numbers to binary representations, viewing the dyadic structure as philosophically profound—1 symbolizing divine unity and 0 void, illustrating creation from nothingness.[108] Unlike decimal systems requiring multiple symbols, binary's simplicity aligned with Leibniz's combinatorial ideal of deriving multiplicity from minimal elements, facilitating potential mechanization.[109] Leibniz first detailed binary publicly in the 1703 memoir Explication de l'Arithmétique Binaire, published in the Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences.[110] In 1701, corresponding with Jesuit Joachim Bouvet, he discovered parallels between binary sequences and the I Ching's 64 hexagrams, formed by combining broken (0) and solid (1) lines—yet this resemblance confirmed rather than inspired his prior invention, as binary predated his exposure to the Chinese text.[111] These contributions anticipated digital computation, though underappreciated in Leibniz's era, by emphasizing exhaustive enumeration of possibilities through binary combinations.[112]Contributions to Geometry and Topology
Leibniz advanced geometric analysis by integrating infinitesimal methods with classical problems, notably in the quadrature of conic sections, where he employed arithmetic techniques to compute areas bounded by parabolas, ellipses, and hyperbolas without relying solely on traditional exhaustion methods.[113] In 1674, he distinguished between geometric curves, constructible via ruler and compass, and mechanical curves, generated by continuous motion, thereby extending the scope of algebraic geometry to transcendental forms amenable to calculus.[114] These efforts reflected his broader aim to unify analysis with synthetic geometry, as seen in his manuscripts on perspective and projective properties, influenced by Desargues' work on conic sections.[115] Leibniz's most visionary geometric contribution was his proposal for analysis situs, or "analysis of position," conceived in the late 1670s as a qualitative geometry focused on relational invariants rather than metric quantities like length or angle.[116] This framework sought to characterize spatial configurations through combinatorial invariants—properties preserved under continuous deformations, such as connectivity and order—anticipating modern topology by prioritizing "position" over measurable size.[117] In unpublished notes and correspondence, he defined similarity in analysis situs as equivalence where no observable difference exists in isolated views, emphasizing topological equivalence over Euclidean congruence.[118] Tied to his characteristica geometrica, a symbolic language for spatial reasoning, analysis situs aimed to formalize geometry via abstract characters, bridging it with logic and his monadological philosophy of space as relational order among point-like substances.[119] Though unrealized in his lifetime due to incomplete development, these ideas influenced later mathematicians; Henri Poincaré explicitly adopted the term for his 1895 work on topological invariants, crediting Leibniz's foundational intuition.[116] Leibniz's approach underscored causal realism in geometry, deriving spatial truths from primitive relational notions rather than empirical metrics, thus laying groundwork for non-metric geometries.[120]Calculus Priority Controversy
Chronology of Discoveries
Newton's development of the infinitesimal calculus, termed the method of fluxions, originated during his isolation from Cambridge due to the plague in 1665–1666, when he formulated concepts of flowing quantities (fluents) and their rates of change (fluxions), including rules for differentiation and integration via infinite series.[121] In October 1666, he drafted an unpublished tract on fluxions, which was shared privately with contemporaries like Isaac Barrow and influenced early adopters, though it emphasized geometric interpretations over algebraic notation.[122] By 1669, Newton composed De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum infinitas, a manuscript on infinite series expansions that served as a precursor to fluxional methods for solving geometric problems, circulated among British mathematicians but not widely published until 1711.[122] In 1671, he completed the treatise Method of Fluxions and Infinite Series, systematically outlining the direct (differentiation) and inverse (integration) processes, with applications to areas under curves and motion, yet this remained in manuscript form until its posthumous release in 1736.[122][121] Leibniz independently pursued infinitesimal methods in the early 1670s, building on studies of Cavalieri's indivisibles and Huygens' geometry during his Paris residence from 1672. In November 1675, his notebooks record pivotal notations, including dx and dy for infinitesimal differences and the elongated S (later ∫) for summing them into integrals, alongside algorithms for tangents and quadratures.[122] Leibniz's first public exposition appeared in October 1684 with Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis, itemque Tangentibus in Acta Eruditorum, detailing differential rules for extrema, tangents, and singularities using characteristic triangles of infinitesimals.[122] He extended this to integral calculus in a 1686 Acta Eruditorum article, formalizing the inverse operation as a discrete sum of infinitesimals.[122][121] Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) incorporated fluxions geometrically for orbital mechanics, without explicit notation, while his first overt publication of fluxional calculus occurred in 1704 as an appendix to Opticks.[122] This temporal sequence—Newton's private priority in the 1660s versus Leibniz's earlier dissemination—underpinned the ensuing controversy, with claims of plagiarism hinging on 1676 correspondence between the two via intermediaries like John Collins.[121]Accusations of Plagiarism and Royal Society Involvement
In 1708, John Keill, a supporter of Isaac Newton, published an article in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society explicitly accusing Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz of plagiarizing Newton's method of fluxions, claiming that Leibniz had derived his differential calculus from unpublished manuscripts shared via intermediaries like Henry Oldenburg and John Collins during Leibniz's 1676 visit to London.[123] Leibniz vehemently denied the charge, asserting independent invention and pointing to his own earlier manuscripts, such as those from 1675, and petitioned the Royal Society in November 1710 for an impartial committee to examine the evidence and clear his name.[4] The Royal Society, presided over by Newton since 1703, appointed a committee in 1711 consisting largely of Newton's allies, including Edmond Halley and others predisposed to favor the Englishman; Newton himself played a central role in directing the inquiry and drafting its output.[124] The committee's report, Commercium Epistolicum Collinii et aliorum de analysi promota, was published in 1712 and compiled correspondence from 1669 to 1676 to demonstrate Newton's priority in key analytical methods, while implying—without a direct formal accusation—that Leibniz had accessed and adapted Newton's ideas, particularly through misinterpreted letters and notes.[4][125] Leibniz was not afforded a full opportunity to review or rebut the committee's findings before publication, and the Royal Society declined to print his detailed 1713 response, Charta chronologica, which argued for his independent development based on unpublished notebooks predating 1676; the report's partisan composition and Newton's undisclosed authorship of significant portions undermined its impartiality, as later historical analyses have noted.[126][123] Despite the accusations' intent to discredit Leibniz, the Commercium focused more on establishing chronological precedence than proving theft, though it fueled continental skepticism toward the Society's proceedings and prolonged the dispute until Leibniz's death in 1716.[127]Resolution and Historical Assessments
The Royal Society, with Isaac Newton serving as president, appointed a committee in 1711 to investigate the priority dispute, culminating in the publication of Commercium Epistolicum Collinii et aliorum de analysi promota in 1712, which purported to demonstrate Newton's priority through correspondence records and concluded that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz had derived his methods from earlier English sources without acknowledgment.[128] This report, largely authored by Newton himself under pseudonymous oversight, emphasized Newton's unpublished manuscripts from 1669 onward and letters exchanged via intermediaries like John Collins and Henry Oldenburg between 1670 and 1676, alleging Leibniz's familiarity with nascent fluxional ideas during his 1673 London visit.[4] Leibniz contested the findings in anonymous responses published in the Acta Eruditorum starting in 1713, petitioning the Paris Academy of Sciences for arbitration in 1715, but received no binding resolution before his death on November 14, 1716; the controversy persisted into Newton's lifetime, exacerbating nationalistic tensions between English and Continental mathematicians.[124] No formal contemporary adjudication settled the matter, as Leibniz's supporters, including Johann Bernoulli, continued defenses via anonymous publications, while Newtonian allies like Edmond Halley upheld the Royal Society's verdict; the dispute's acrimony is evidenced by Newton's orchestration of biased proceedings, including suppression of exculpatory evidence like the limited content of the 1670s letters, which modern analysis shows did not disclose differential or integral techniques. Historical reassessments from the 18th century onward, such as Charles Bossut's 1803 Histoire des mathématiques, began critiquing the Commercium's partiality, attributing independent origins to both: Newton's fluxions developed circa 1665–1666 during his annus mirabilis, unpublished until 1687 in the Principia, versus Leibniz's differentials formalized by 1675 and first published in Nova Methodus (1684).[129] By the 19th and 20th centuries, scholarly consensus solidified around dual independent invention, with Newton's conceptual priority in handling infinitesimals for physical problems like planetary motion, but Leibniz's superior notation (e.g., for derivatives) enabling broader adoption and pedagogical clarity, as affirmed in analyses of primary manuscripts showing no plagiarism—Leibniz lacked access to Newton's core texts, and similarities arose from shared mathematical heritage including Cavalieri and Wallis.[130] This view, supported by archival examinations, rejects plagiarism charges as unsubstantiated, crediting both as co-founders while noting the dispute's hindrance to collaborative progress; for instance, the Prussian Academy under Leibniz's influence later endorsed mutual recognition in 1715 deliberations, though without resolving Anglo-Continental divides.[131]Logic and Universal Language
Characteristica Universalis Project
Leibniz conceived the Characteristica Universalis as a universal symbolic language designed to encapsulate all concepts and propositions with unambiguous precision, enabling mechanical resolution of intellectual disputes through computation rather than verbal argumentation.[132] This system aimed to represent primitive notions—irreducible simple ideas—as basic symbols, which could then be combined according to fixed rules mirroring algebraic operations, thereby reducing reasoning to a form of calculation.[133] The project's core ambition was to render philosophy and science demonstrative, akin to geometry, by eliminating the ambiguities inherent in natural languages and allowing truths to be derived algorithmically; Leibniz encapsulated this ideal in his call to "calculemus" ("let us calculate"), envisioning a world where controversies could be settled by performing operations on symbols rather than relying on persuasion or authority.[134] The foundational ideas emerged from Leibniz's early work on combinatorics, particularly his 1666 dissertation Dissertatio de Arte Combinatoria, which explored systematic combinations of concepts as a method for discovery and invention.[133] During his Paris sojourn from 1672 to 1676, influenced by encounters with contemporary mathematical notations and prior attempts at artificial languages (such as those by Descartes and Ramon Llull), Leibniz intensified efforts to formalize the characteristic, linking it to his development of binary arithmetic as a potential numerical basis for symbolic representation.[134] Key fragmentary writings from this period include the "Preface to a Universal Characteristic" (dated 1678–1679), which outlines the need for a comprehensive encyclopedia to catalog all primitive terms, and "Samples of the Numerical Characteristic" (1679), proposing numerical encodings for concepts to facilitate combinatorial analysis.[133] Further notes, such as "Elements of a Universal Characteristic" from April 1679, detail experimental schemas for symbolizing logical relations, though these remained provisional and unpublished during his lifetime.[135] Integral to the project was the paired concept of a calculus ratiocinator, a rule-based inferential engine to manipulate the symbols, which Leibniz saw as extending his innovations in infinitesimal calculus to the realm of logic.[132] He argued that true progress in knowledge required first identifying an exhaustive set of primitives through empirical and rational analysis, then deriving complex truths via exhaustive combinations, potentially aided by machines for computation.[134] However, the endeavor faced insurmountable hurdles: the sheer volume of primitives needed (Leibniz estimated thousands across disciplines), the challenge of ensuring symbols captured causal essences without circularity, and the prerequisite of a universal encyclopedia, which he partially pursued through correspondence and library catalogs but never systematized.[136] Despite these obstacles, the project persisted in Leibniz's later writings, such as proposals in the 1690s for integrating it with diplomatic and scientific collaboration, though it remained unrealized at his death in 1716.[134] Although incomplete, the Characteristica Universalis anticipated formal systems in modern logic and computing, influencing subsequent efforts to mathematize reasoning, as evidenced by its role in inspiring 19th-century developments in symbolic algebra despite Leibniz's own acknowledgment of the primitive state of his schemas.[134] Leibniz's insistence on grounding the language in metaphysical realism—treating symbols as reflections of monadic substances—distinguished it from mere notational reforms, underscoring his commitment to a causal framework where formal deduction mirrored ontological necessity.[137]Formal Logic and Syllogistic Innovations
Leibniz's early engagement with formal logic, particularly syllogistics, began in his 1666 dissertation De Arte Combinatoria, where he applied combinatorial methods to systematically enumerate the possible forms of categorical syllogisms, treating premises as permutations of terms to identify valid moods beyond Aristotle's traditional figures.[138] This approach allowed for a complete cataloging of syllogistic structures, revealing redundancies and independencies in the axioms of Aristotelian logic, such as demonstrating that certain rules could be derived from others without circularity.[139] By assigning numerical values to propositional types—such as universal affirmative (A) as 3 and particular negative (O) as 0—Leibniz attempted an arithmetization of syllogisms, enabling algebraic verification of validity through operations like addition and subtraction to model inclusion and exclusion of terms.[140] In his later manuscript Generales Inquisitiones de Analysi Notionum et Veritatum (composed around 1686), Leibniz advanced syllogistic innovations by introducing a symbolic calculus of terms that incorporated complex and hypothetical propositions, extending beyond simple categorical forms to handle conditionals like "if A then B" through propositional compounds.[141] He formalized rules for inference using notations such as A + B for conjunction and negation symbols, aiming to reduce syllogistic reasoning to mechanical combination and resolution processes that mirrored arithmetic, thereby laying groundwork for a universal logical language.[142] Among his contributions to propositional logic, Leibniz formulated the Praeclarum Theorema, or "splendid theorem," a tautology stating that if A is B and C is D, then (A and C) is (B and D).[143] This calculus emphasized conceptual containment, where validity arises from the subset relation between predicate notions within subjects, allowing Leibniz to critique and refine traditional syllogisms by distinguishing simple from composite terms and addressing limitations in handling existential imports.[144] Leibniz's innovations also included an analysis of hypothetical syllogisms using "propositional terms," treating entire propositions as subjects or predicates to chain inferences, as in deriving conclusions from nested conditionals without reducing to pure categorical forms.[145] These developments, while unpublished during his lifetime, anticipated algebraic logics by prioritizing formal manipulability over intuitive validity, though Leibniz acknowledged practical challenges in scaling the method to all inferences, noting that exhaustive enumeration yielded 256 potential premise pairs but required additional metaphysical principles like the identity of indiscernibles for full rigor.[138] His work thus bridged traditional syllogistic with emerging symbolic methods, emphasizing logic's potential as a computable art rather than mere dialectical tool.[146]Influence on Modern Symbolic Logic
Leibniz envisioned a characteristica universalis, a universal symbolic language composed of primitive concepts that could express all truths, paired with a calculus ratiocinator to perform mechanical computations on those symbols, thereby resolving disputes through calculation rather than verbal debate.[142] This framework, outlined in unpublished manuscripts from the 1670s to 1690s, anticipated the formalization of logic as a symbolic system where propositions are manipulated algebraically, much like arithmetic operations.[147] In his algebra of concepts, Leibniz developed a system for containment relations between terms, where concepts are combined via intersection (AB denotes the concept common to A and B) and complemented via privation (A' denotes what is not A).[148] Key axioms included reflexivity ("Every A is A"), monotonicity ("Every AB is A"), and double privation ("The privative of the privative of A is A"), forming a calculus sound and complete relative to Boolean algebras.[148] This structure, detailed in works like the Generales Inquisitiones de Analysi Notionum et Veritatum (c. 1686), provided a complete axiomatization of the sentential fragment of classical logic 160 years before George Boole's The Mathematical Analysis of Logic (1847).[142] Leibniz's approach extended traditional syllogistic by incorporating rules for hypothetical reasoning and strict implication, such as "If A contains B and B contains C, then A contains C," enabling equational manipulations akin to modern substitution rules.[148] He also anticipated truth-functional completeness by enumerating combinations of truth values for propositions, as in his analysis of conditional statements where validity holds unless the antecedent is true and consequent false.[142] These elements prefigured Boolean operations (conjunction as intersection, disjunction via complements) and the lattice structure of propositional logic. Though unpublished during his lifetime and exerting no direct influence on 19th-century pioneers like Boole or Frege, Leibniz's logical writings were rediscovered in the early 20th century, shaping interpretations of formal systems.[149] Bertrand Russell, in his 1900 A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz, recognized Leibniz's innovations in reducing reasoning to symbolic rules, crediting him with advancing formal logic beyond Aristotle while critiquing inconsistencies in application.[149] This legacy informed the development of mathematical logic, where symbolic notation and calculi enable rigorous proof verification, echoing Leibniz's goal of a universal method for truth adjudication.[132]Physics and Natural Philosophy
Vis Viva and Conservation Laws
Leibniz introduced the concept of vis viva, or "living force," as a measure of a body's motive power proportional to the product of its mass and the square of its velocity, denoted as .[150] He argued this quantity better captured the causal efficacy of motion than the Cartesian conservation of simple momentum (), which failed to account for empirical outcomes in inelastic collisions and falling bodies.[151] In his 1686 essay "Brevis demonstratio erroris memorabilis Cartesii et aliorum circa legem naturae," published in the Acta Eruditorum, Leibniz demonstrated that Descartes' rule of conservation led to absurd predictions, such as a large slow body transferring all motion to a small fast one in collision, contrary to observation.[152] [153] Leibniz contended that vis viva is conserved in the universe as a whole, reflecting divine pre-established harmony and the principle of sufficient reason, whereby God conserves the total quantity of force without arbitrary loss or gain.[150] For elastic collisions of hard bodies, he accepted conservation of both momentum and vis viva, but for soft or inelastic impacts—common in nature—vis viva persists as the invariant while directed momentum disperses into undirected agitation.[154] He supported this with thought experiments, such as two identical clay balls colliding and sticking, where final vis viva matches initial despite momentum halving, aligning with causal realism over Descartes' mechanical a priori assumptions.[151] This framework prefigured modern kinetic energy conservation, though Leibniz equated vis viva metaphysically to primitive force in substances, distinct from dead force () as mere kinematic description.[155] The vis viva doctrine sparked prolonged debate, with Cartesians defending momentum as the sole conserved quantity and Newtonians later questioning vis viva's status amid emerging dynamics, yet empirical validations in pendulum experiments and impacts substantiated Leibniz's emphasis on squared velocity.[156] By the mid-18th century, vis viva gained traction as a conserved dynamical principle, influencing Helmholtz's 1847 formulation of energy conservation.[157]Dynamics Versus Newtonian Mechanics
Leibniz developed his theory of dynamics primarily in the Specimen Dynamicum published in the Acta Eruditorum in 1695, positing that the fundamental forces in nature are primitive active forces inherent to substances, from which derivative forces like momentum and vis viva arise.[64] He distinguished vis primitiva (a body's capacity to resist change, analogous to mass), vis activa motrix (momentum, mv), and vis viva (living force, proportional to mv²), arguing that vis viva is the true measure of force conserved in perfectly elastic collisions, as demonstrated by thought experiments involving pendulums and falling bodies where mv alone fails to predict outcomes.[151] This contrasted with Newtonian mechanics, where force is defined mathematically as the rate of change of momentum (F = d(mv)/dt), and conservation applies to momentum in isolated systems without external forces, as outlined in Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687).[64] Leibniz critiqued Newton's approach for reducing dynamics to kinematic quantities without grounding in metaphysical primitives, insisting that forces must be explained through the appetites and perceptions of monads rather than abstract absolute space, which he rejected as an unnecessary entity.[64] In the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence (1715–1716), initiated by Caroline of Ansbach, Leibniz argued that space is relational—an ideal order of coexistences among bodies—rather than Newton's absolute, independent container, using the principle of sufficient reason to claim that God would not create indistinguishable worlds differing only in absolute position.[64] Similarly, he viewed time as the order of non-coexistent successions, denying absolute duration, which undermined Newton's bucket experiment purporting to detect absolute rotation through centrifugal effects independent of relative motion.[158] Newtonian mechanics posits absolute motion detectable via inertial forces, enabling a universal frame for gravitation as action at a distance, which Leibniz deemed "occult" and unmechanical, preferring explanations via contact actions or vortices to maintain causal realism in extended bodies.[64] Leibniz's dynamics aimed for a harmonious system where conservation of vis viva reflects divine pre-established harmony, preserving energy-like quantities before their modern formulation, though empirical tests like inelastic collisions revealed limitations later addressed by incorporating heat and friction.[151] Clarke, defending Newton, countered that absolute space ensures God's omnipresence and uniform laws, but Leibniz maintained that relational dynamics suffices without positing unobservable absolutes, influencing later relational theories in physics.[64]Empirical Observations in Geology and Biology
Leibniz conducted extensive fieldwork in the Harz Mountains during the 1680s while investigating methods to power silver mines with windmills, yielding direct empirical insights into subterranean geology. He documented stratified rock formations, mineral deposits, and cave systems, including detailed examinations of Baumann's Cave where he observed fossilized bones of species absent in contemporary fauna, such as large quadrupeds embedded in limestone layers. These observations underscored patterns of sedimentation and erosion, with Leibniz noting the irregular distribution of metallic ores and the role of water infiltration in shaping underground channels.[159] In his unpublished manuscript Protogaea (composed circa 1690–1693, with an abstract appearing in Acta Eruditorum in 1693), Leibniz synthesized these field data into a physical model of Earth's formation, positing that the planet originated as a fluid, nitre-infused mass that cooled and contracted, generating internal pressures responsible for mountain uplift and fossil entrapment. He empirically classified glossopetrae—tongue-shaped stones—as petrified shark teeth, citing their anatomical correspondence to modern specimens and inferring prehistoric marine inundations over inland regions like Germany based on their stratigraphic positions. The work features twelve engraved plates illustrating cross-sections of Harz caverns and fossil crinoids, drawn from Leibniz's collections and emphasizing verifiable morphological matches between fossils and living organisms.[159][160] Leibniz's paleontological observations bridged geology and biology by affirming fossils as genuine remnants of extinct life forms, rejecting scholastic notions of "sports of nature" or formative forces in favor of causal preservation through sedimentary burial. Aligning with Nicolaus Steno's principles, he argued that fossil shells and bones retained organic textures and orientations consistent with rapid entombment during cataclysmic events, such as deluges, evidenced by upright tree trunks and articulated skeletons in his Harz samples. This empirical stance anticipated uniformitarian paleobiology, with Leibniz quantifying fossil distributions to map ancient ecosystems.[159] In biology, Leibniz engaged empirical microscopy to explore organismal structure, drawing on seventeenth-century advancements by Jan Swammerdam and Marcello Malpighi to support preformationist theories of development. He cited microscopic views of insect eggs and embryonic forms revealing pre-packaged miniature organisms, interpreting these as evidence of nested, unfolding structures rather than spontaneous generation, with observations of seminal animalcules suggesting perpetual organic continuity from creation. Such data reinforced his mechanistic yet vitalistic view of life as aggregated forces manifesting empirically in observable growth patterns and regeneration, as in planarian worms.[161][162]Engineering and Technology
Calculating Machines and Prototypes
Leibniz initiated work on mechanical calculating devices in the late 1660s, inspired by a pedometer that suggested potential for automated arithmetic computation.[163] Seeking to surpass Blaise Pascal's Pascaline, which handled only addition and subtraction through geared wheels with fixed teeth, Leibniz aimed for a machine capable of multiplication and division directly.[164] His design incorporated a crank-driven mechanism to perform all four basic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.[164] The core innovation was the staffelwalze or stepped drum, later termed the Leibniz wheel, featuring a cylindrical gear with teeth of graduated lengths along its axis.[164] This allowed a single revolution to engage 0 to 9 teeth with a corresponding rack, enabling variable digit representation for efficient multiplication via repeated addition and shifting, while division used analogous reversal.[165] Leibniz described the device as the instrumentum arithmeticum in early proposals, emphasizing its potential to reduce human error in calculations.[163] Conceived around 1671–1672 during his Paris sojourn, the Stepped Reckoner prototype emerged by 1673, though full operational models required further refinement.[165] Leibniz collaborated with Parisian craftsmen, including Ole Mortensen, to construct early versions, but precision machining limitations—such as inconsistent tooth profiles and unreliable carry propagation—hindered reliability.[166] He later dispatched detailed mémoires outlining carry mechanism improvements, yet prototypes suffered from jamming and inaccuracy under extended use.[166] Subsequent efforts yielded additional prototypes, including one completed between 1692 and 1694 and another around 1706, demonstrating the design's feasibility despite persistent mechanical flaws.[167] These machines measured approximately 67 cm in length and employed brass components for durability, but their complexity demanded skilled operation and frequent adjustments.[164] The Leibniz wheel principle endured, influencing calculators for two centuries until electronic alternatives supplanted mechanical gears.[164] Despite incomplete success in his lifetime, the prototypes underscored Leibniz's vision for computation as a tool augmenting human reason in scientific inquiry.[163]Hydraulic and Mining Innovations
Leibniz engaged extensively with mining engineering in the Harz Mountains from 1679 onward, tasked by Duke Johann Friedrich of Brunswick-Lüneburg to enhance the productivity of silver mines plagued by groundwater flooding, which restricted depths to around 100 meters and limited ore extraction.[168] His initial proposals, formulated after a 1679 visit to the region, emphasized harnessing wind and water power for mechanical drainage to enable deeper mining and increase yields.[7] Between 1680 and 1686, he made over 30 visits to the Harz, dedicating nearly three years to on-site assessments and designs, including pumps, gears, and windmills aimed at continuous water expulsion.[169] A core innovation was Leibniz's advocacy for wind-driven water pumps, which he envisioned as a reliable alternative to labor-intensive manual or animal-powered systems, integrating vertical and horizontal windmills to drive pistons and Archimedean screws for lifting water.[170] He proposed recycling drainage water by channeling it into retention ponds for reuse in sequential pumping stages, an early conceptualization of closed-loop hydraulic systems that anticipated modern pumped-storage principles and reduced dependency on variable river flows.[171] These designs incorporated geared mechanisms to amplify torque from intermittent winds, with prototypes tested in the Upper Harz districts like Clausthal and Goslar, where he collaborated with local engineers on feasibility studies.[172] Despite theoretical ingenuity, Leibniz's hydraulic projects yielded limited practical success; windmill-based drainage proved unreliable due to inconsistent weather and mechanical wear, failing to substantially boost output beyond incremental gains from existing water-wheel adits installed since the 1560s.[173] Administrative hurdles, including resistance from mine officials skeptical of unproven innovations, further hampered implementation, though his efforts advanced broader discourse on mechanized resource extraction and influenced subsequent German mining treatises.[174] Leibniz's work underscored causal challenges in applying abstract mechanics to empirical site conditions, prioritizing scalable power over static efficiency.[175]Advocacy for Technological Progress
Leibniz viewed technological advancements as a primary vehicle for enhancing human productivity and societal welfare, emphasizing their capacity to multiply individual labor. In discussions on promoting the arts and sciences, he highlighted the transformative potential of mechanical inventions, noting that a heat-powered machine could enable one person to perform the work of "a hundred others," thereby reducing toil and fostering economic abundance.[28] This perspective underscored his belief that systematic invention would alleviate physical burdens and elevate living standards through rational application of science to practical challenges.[176] To realize such progress, Leibniz actively advocated for dedicated institutions to coordinate and incentivize technological innovation. He proposed societies focused on the collection of inventions, experimental verification, and dissemination of useful knowledge, arguing that such bodies would secure "the good conscience and immortal glory of the founders" while serving the public good by accelerating discoveries in mechanics, hydraulics, and manufacturing.[28] Drawing models from the Royal Society, established in London on December 28, 1660, and the Académie Royale des Sciences, founded in Paris on December 22, 1666, Leibniz envisioned broader "pansophistic" organizations integrating theoretical and applied sciences to systematically advance technology beyond isolated efforts.[177][178] His advocacy extended to practical reforms, including the economic valuation of inventions to encourage creators; he observed that even modest technological improvements, such as better plows or windmills, yielded substantial returns by optimizing resource use in agriculture and industry.[176] Leibniz's involvement in founding the Societät der Wissenschaften (later the Prussian Academy of Sciences) in Berlin on July 11, 1700—where he served as inaugural president—exemplified this commitment, as the academy prioritized collaborative projects in applied mathematics, engineering, and natural philosophy to drive empirical and inventive progress.[179] Through these initiatives, he positioned technology not merely as utilitarian but as integral to intellectual and moral elevation, synthesizing diverse knowledge streams for cumulative advancement.[49]Political and Legal Thought
Theory of Justice and Natural Law
Leibniz's early engagement with jurisprudence culminated in his 1667 dissertation Nova Methodus Discendae Docendaeque Jurisprudentiae, which proposed a logical reorganization of legal studies by classifying concepts into genera and species, drawing on Aristotelian categories to deduce rights and duties from fundamental principles.[180] This work emphasized that jurisprudence should proceed deductively from self-evident axioms, such as the preservation of society, rather than relying solely on historical precedents or Roman law compilations.[181] He argued that natural law governs innate human associations, starting with the family unit between spouses for species propagation, extending to broader civil societies bound by rational consent and mutual benefit.[181] In his mature philosophy, Leibniz defined justice as caritas sapientis—the charity or benevolence of the wise—positing it as a rational optimization of universal happiness through proportionate distribution of goods, independent of arbitrary divine commands or social utility alone.[182] This concept, first articulated around 1678 and refined in unpublished essays like the Meditatio de Communi Conceptu Juris et Justitiae (ca. 1702–1703), frames justice not as mere equity (aequum) but as wise love that discerns interconnected goods in a divinely ordered cosmos, where actions promote the greatest overall perfection.[183] Unlike strict legalism, it incorporates teleological reasoning: just acts align with the pre-established harmony of monads, reflecting God's selection of the optimal world from infinite possibilities.[184] Leibniz critiqued voluntarist natural law theorists like Samuel Pufendorf, whom he accused in works such as Specimen Controversiarum (1706) of reducing justice to divine fiat or human convention, thereby undermining its rational universality and failing to ground duties in metaphysical necessity.[185] Instead, he maintained that natural law derives deductively from eternal verities of reason and proportion, applicable even hypothetically without observers, as justice inheres in the intrinsic congruity of actions to cosmic order.[184] This rationalist foundation led him to condemn practices like slavery as violations of human dignity and natural equity, arguing they contradict the equality of rational souls under divine law.[186] His theory thus bridges metaphysics and ethics, positing that sovereigns, as stewards of justice, must emulate divine wisdom to foster societal harmony rather than mere power enforcement.[187]Ecumenism: Reunion of Protestant and Catholic Churches
Leibniz, remaining steadfastly Lutheran, pursued church reunion as a rational imperative to restore doctrinal harmony and counter the existential threat of atheism and confessional strife, arguing that divisions among Christians contradicted the unity of truth inherent in divine revelation.[188] His efforts emphasized compatibility between Protestant emphasis on scripture and reason with Catholic tradition, proposing interpretations of sacraments and authority that preserved core Lutheran tenets like justification by faith while acknowledging patristic consensus.[189] Influenced by early patrons such as Catholic statesman Johann Christian von Boineburg, Leibniz initiated reconciliation proposals as early as the 1670s in Mainz, drafting demonstrations to persuade Protestants of Catholic doctrinal validity without requiring wholesale submission.[189] [190] In 1683, amid negotiations for a preliminary Lutheran-Catholic union, Leibniz outlined toleration as a prerequisite, insisting in correspondence that mutual forbearance on non-essential disputes—such as precise Eucharistic mechanisms—could precede formal reconciliation, provided real presence was affirmed universally.[191] [190] By 1685, he composed unpublished Latin tracts adopting a Catholic persona to systematically defend reunion, conceding papal primacy as historical primacy rather than infallible jurisdiction and harmonizing consubstantiation with transubstantiation via metaphysical nuance, though rejecting later scholastic excesses.[192] These writings reflected his strategy of philosophical mediation, wherein reason elucidated scriptural ambiguities to reveal underlying agreement on the first seven ecumenical councils and rejection of radical Protestant iconoclasm or Catholic indulgences.[188] The zenith of Leibniz's ecumenical diplomacy occurred in his protracted correspondence with Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, spanning 1691–1694 and resuming 1699–1702, where they dissected controversies including the filioque clause, purgatory, and invocation of saints.[188] Leibniz advocated Protestant reintegration into the Roman communion via conditional ordination of clergy (sub conditione) and doctrinal accommodations, such as viewing transubstantiation as non-literal, allowing Lutherans to retain Eucharistic practices while affirming unity under Rome; he countered Bossuet's insistence on unqualified acceptance of Council of Trent decrees by appealing to a rational consensus transcending juridical submission.[42] Negotiations faltered by 1701, as Bossuet prioritized ecclesiastical hierarchy and full submission, which Leibniz critiqued as juridically absolutist and incompatible with Protestant conscience, though he persisted in viewing reunion as feasible through enlightened council rather than coercion.[188] [189] Leibniz's proposals extended to practical mechanisms, including a proposed general synod to adjudicate differences via shared patristic sources, eschewing both Protestant sola scriptura rigidity and Catholic magisterial exclusivity in favor of a syncretic framework blending authority with inquiry.[193] Despite repeated failures—attributable to Catholic intransigence on papal supremacy and Protestant suspicion of compromise—his irenic theology underscored empirical historical continuity in early Christianity, positing that schisms arose from misinterpretations resolvable by precise logical analysis rather than confessional entrenchment.[194] This approach, while philosophically innovative, encountered resistance from orthodox elements on both sides, who deemed it overly conciliatory toward perceived heresies.[188]Views on Monarchy and Best Governance
Leibniz regarded monarchy as the most suitable form of government for extensive realms, arguing that a single sovereign head provided the unity and decisiveness necessary to avert anarchy and promote collective welfare, in contrast to the divisions inherent in pure aristocracy or democracy.[195] He drew on historical precedents like the Holy Roman Empire, where monarchical authority coexisted with feudal liberties and estates, to advocate against the unchecked centralization seen in absolutist regimes.[184] Critiquing absolutism as exemplified by Louis XIV's France, Leibniz rejected the notion of sovereignty as arbitrary will, insisting instead that rulers must govern by fixed laws and rational principles of justice to embody a Rechtsstaat—a state ruled by right rather than caprice.[196] In works such as his Theodicy (1710), he analogized ideal rule to divine monarchy in the City of God, where authority serves the common good under eternal reason, but for human polities, this required institutional restraints like assemblies and juristic traditions to curb potential tyranny.[184] [197] Leibniz's pragmatic endorsements, including support for elective or foreign monarchs in cases like Poland's 1669 interregnum, underscored his preference for competent, enlightened leadership over hereditary absolutism if the latter risked incompetence or factionalism.[198] He envisioned Europe's best governance as a federal composite monarchy, balancing imperial oversight with regional autonomies to foster perpetual peace and mutual esteem among states, thereby mitigating the expansionist perils of isolated absolutisms.[199] [196] This structure, he contended, aligned with natural law's demands for harmony, where sovereigns act as stewards of providential order rather than despots.[197]Other Contributions
Sinophilia and Cross-Cultural Exchanges
Leibniz expressed admiration for Chinese civilization in his 1697 preface to Novissima Sinica, a compilation of Jesuit reports from China, praising the empire's ethical practices, political stability, and moral philosophy as superior to Europe's in those domains, while acknowledging Europe's advances in experimental science and Christian revelation.[200] He argued that Chinese governance exemplified practical wisdom derived from natural reason, with a merit-based bureaucracy and emphasis on virtue that contrasted with European factionalism.[201] In this work, Leibniz advocated mutual learning: Europe could benefit from Chinese moral and administrative models, while China might adopt European scientific methods and religious truths.[200] Leibniz engaged deeply with Jesuit missionaries, corresponding extensively with figures like Joachim Bouvet starting in November 1697, exchanging views on Chinese classics and ancient wisdom.[202] He sided with Jesuits in the Chinese Rites Controversy, defending Confucian rituals and ancestor veneration as civic ceremonies compatible with monotheism, rather than idolatrous practices, positing that ancient Chinese texts preserved vestiges of primitive theology akin to natural law.[203] This stance reflected his ecumenical optimism, viewing Chinese philosophy—particularly Confucianism—as aligned with rational theology, though he critiqued its lack of explicit divine revelation and systematic metaphysics.[204] A pivotal exchange occurred with Bouvet in 1701–1703, when Leibniz received diagrams of I Ching hexagrams, recognizing their structural similarity to his independently developed binary arithmetic system, which he had outlined as early as 1679 and published in 1703.[109] The hexagrams, composed of broken (0) and solid (1) lines forming 64 combinations, mirrored binary sequences from 0 to 63, leading Leibniz to interpret this as evidence of a universal mathematical order discoverable by reason across cultures, possibly hinting at ancient Chinese knowledge of binary principles or divine inspiration.[205] He wrote to Bouvet in 1703 that this convergence demonstrated "the most perfect knowledge of God," underscoring his belief in shared human access to fundamental truths.[206] Leibniz also drew inspiration from Chinese characters for his characteristica universalis, a proposed universal symbolic language for precise reasoning, viewing the ideographic nature of hanzi—representing concepts directly rather than phonetically—as a potential model for unambiguous signs that could encode logical relations and facilitate cross-cultural discourse.[207] Upon learning of phonetic components in many characters, he adjusted his enthusiasm but retained the idea that such a system could bridge Eastern and Western thought, promoting global intellectual harmony through formal calculi.[200] These exchanges highlighted Leibniz's vision of cross-cultural synthesis, where empirical reports from Jesuits informed his philosophy of universal harmony and rational consensus.[208]Historiography of the Guelphs
In 1685, Elector Ernst August of Hanover commissioned Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to compile a comprehensive history of the House of Guelph (Welf dynasty), rulers of Brunswick-Lüneburg, extending from ancient origins to the present as a means to document and elevate their imperial lineage and support dynastic ambitions, including potential claims to foreign thrones.[209][210] This task, formalized as Leibniz's primary duty, involved rigorous archival research to trace connections, notably linking the German Guelphs to the medieval Italian House of Este through genealogical and documentary evidence, reflecting a blend of scholarly inquiry and courtly advocacy.[211] Leibniz outlined his methodological approach in a Notitia, emphasizing chronological annals, critical evaluation of sources, and systematic collection of primary materials to establish factual continuity amid medieval obscurities.[212] Leibniz pursued this project over three decades, amassing thousands of documents from European archives in Hanover, Wolfenbüttel, Vienna, Munich, and beyond.[29] A pivotal effort was his extended research journey from 1687 to 1690 across southern Germany, Austria, and Italy, where he accessed Vatican libraries in Rome and Este family records in Modena to substantiate the dynastic linkage, uncovering charters and chronicles that bolstered claims of ancient nobility dating to the 9th century.[49][211] This work highlighted Leibniz's proto-scientific historiography, prioritizing verifiable originals over legends, though its commissioned nature introduced a selective emphasis on glorifying the Guelphs' imperial heritage, as evidenced by his focus on figures like Henry the Lion and early Carolingian ties.[213] Despite prodigious output, including preliminary annals and genealogies, the full narrative history remained incomplete at Leibniz's death in 1716, overwhelmed by the project's vast scope spanning over a millennium.[29] Key publications included the three-volume Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium (1707–1711), a critical edition of pre-Reformation sources illuminating Brunswick's medieval history, and fragments of Annales Imperii Occidentis Brunsvicenses, which chronicled imperial events tied to Guelph rulers from 877 onward.[214][215] Posthumous editions preserved much of the material, influencing later Welf historiography, though scholars note the endeavor's partiality toward dynastic legitimacy over detached analysis.[216] Leibniz's efforts advanced standards in source criticism and documentary compilation, prefiguring modern paleography and diplomatic history.[210]Promotion of Scientific Societies and Libraries
Leibniz demonstrated a lifelong commitment to institutionalizing scientific inquiry through dedicated societies, beginning with his role as secretary of the Collegium Curiosum sive Experimentale in 1666, an early German experimental group.[178] In 1667, he proposed the Societas Eruditorum Germaniae, a pan-German learned society that would include a universal library for compiling and indexing scholarly works alongside a biannual journal to disseminate findings.[178] These early initiatives reflected his vision of collaborative networks to advance empirical research, drawing models from the Royal Society of London (established 1660) and the French Académie des Sciences (founded 1666).[178] In 1671, while in Paris, Leibniz authored memoranda advocating a national academy under electoral patronage to cultivate inventors, establish experimental laboratories, and promote practical applications in crafts and mechanics, including the summarization and cataloging of manuscripts for broader access.[28] His most enduring contribution came in 1700 with the founding of the Societas Regia Scientiarum Brandenburgensis (later the Prussian Academy of Sciences) in Berlin, persuaded by Electress Sophia Charlotte and King Frederick I; Leibniz was nominated president on July 12, 1700, and the academy incorporated a library, observatory, and museum to support systematic observation and publication.[178] He further pursued academies in Dresden (emphasizing demographic studies and silk production with August II), Vienna (proposing tripartite faculties for letters, mathematics, and physics to Emperor Charles VI in 1713–1714), and St. Petersburg, though several remained unrealized due to political contingencies.[178][7] Leibniz also advanced library infrastructure as director of the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel from 1691 until his death in 1716, where he substantially augmented collections through acquisitions and exchanges while introducing the first alphabetical catalog to enhance retrieval efficiency.[217][218] This system prioritized user accessibility over prior chronological or topical arrangements, aligning with his broader advocacy for centralized repositories to preserve historical and scientific records, as outlined in his 1667 and 1671 proposals.[178][28] Through these endeavors, Leibniz sought to institutionalize knowledge accumulation as a foundation for technological and intellectual advancement, countering fragmented scholarship with coordinated, state-supported frameworks.[177]Legacy
18th-Century Reception and Voltaire's Critique
Leibniz's death on November 14, 1716, prompted immediate recognition of his breadth of contributions, as evidenced by Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle's eulogy delivered to the Académie des Sciences in 1716, which praised his genius across mathematics, philosophy, and history while noting his relative isolation from forming a direct school of followers during his lifetime.[219] Despite this acclaim, Leibniz's philosophical system faced initial neglect in the broader European intellectual landscape, overshadowed by the Newton-Leibniz calculus priority dispute and the rising dominance of empirical approaches, though his ideas gained traction in Germany through Christian Wolff's systematic exposition starting in the 1720s, which formalized Leibnizian rationalism and monadology into a school influencing university curricula until the mid-18th century.[220] [221] In France, reception was more mixed, with figures like Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis incorporating select Leibnizian principles into their work on nature's economy, yet broader philosophical circles increasingly critiqued the perceived metaphysical excesses of pre-established harmony and optimism.[222] This culminated in Voltaire's pointed satire, where his 1759 novella Candide, ou l'Optimisme lampooned Leibniz's theodicy from the Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (1710), which argued that God, in his infinite wisdom, selected this world as the optimal realization among infinite possibilities, minimizing evil while maximizing goods like order and variety.[223] Voltaire, responding partly to the 1755 Lisbon earthquake that killed up to 100,000 people and devastated the city on All Saints' Day, portrayed the tutor Pangloss—a caricature of Leibniz—as absurdly insisting "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds" amid personal and global calamities, including shipwrecks, wars, and inquisitions, to underscore the doctrine's detachment from empirical suffering.[224] Voltaire's critique, while rhetorically effective in popularizing skepticism toward metaphysical optimism, misrepresented Leibniz's nuanced position, which acknowledged evil's reality as a necessary contrast enabling greater goods and rejected a perfect world as incompatible with finite creatures' freedom and contingency, though it aligned with Enlightenment emphases on observable experience over a priori rationalism.[225] By the late 18th century, Leibniz's influence waned further in Germany with Kant's 1781 Critique of Pure Reason challenging Wolffian dogmatism derived from Leibniz, and in Britain, where empiricists like David Hume prioritized sensory data over innate ideas, yet Leibniz's logical and calculative innovations persisted in mathematical circles despite philosophical marginalization.[220]19th- and 20th-Century Rediscovery
In the nineteenth century, renewed scholarly attention to Leibniz's oeuvre began with the publication of key editions that made his writings more accessible beyond the limited eighteenth-century compilations. Johann Eduard Erdmann's God. Guil. Leibnitii Opera Philosophica quae exstant Latina, Gallica, Germanica omnia (1839–1840) collected and edited his philosophical texts, sparking initial interest among German scholars and facilitating critical reassessments of his metaphysics and rationalism.[226] Similarly, Carl Immanuel Gerhardt's multi-volume Leibnizens Mathematische Schriften (1849–1863) systematized his mathematical papers, highlighting contributions to calculus and combinatorics that had been overshadowed by Newtonian dominance.[227] These efforts, centered in Germany, countered the post-enlightenment dismissal of Leibniz's optimism and monadology, influencing Romantic thinkers who drew on his holistic view of nature and harmony.[228] The early twentieth century accelerated this rediscovery through focused studies on Leibniz's logical innovations, previously underexplored due to incomplete manuscripts. Bertrand Russell's A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (1900), originally his 1899 dissertation, rigorously analyzed Leibniz's principles of sufficient reason and identity of indiscernibles while critiquing perceived inconsistencies in his metaphysics, thereby reintroducing him to Anglo-American philosophy as a foundational logician.[98] Complementing this, Louis Couturat's La Logique de Leibniz d'après des documents inédits (1901) edited and interpreted unpublished fragments from the Hanover Nachlass, revealing Leibniz's visionary "universal characteristic" and calculus ratiocinator as precursors to symbolic logic.[229] These works shifted perceptions, positioning Leibniz not merely as a historical figure but as an intellectual ancestor to modern formal systems, despite Russell's view that his logical ambitions outpaced their realization.[134] By mid-century, institutional initiatives solidified Leibniz's stature. The Prussian Academy of Sciences initiated a comprehensive edition of his writings in 1923, building on prior efforts to catalog his vast correspondence and unpublished papers.[227] In analytic philosophy, his ideas gained traction for modal logic and possible worlds semantics, influencing figures like Rudolf Carnap, while in Germany, societies dedicated to his legacy promoted interdisciplinary study. The Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz-Gesellschaft, founded in 1966, further advanced archival research and dissemination, underscoring his enduring relevance across philosophy, mathematics, and computer science precursors like binary arithmetic.[230] This revival affirmed Leibniz's status as a polymath whose integrated worldview anticipated twentieth-century developments in logic and systems theory, transcending earlier caricatures of naive optimism.Contemporary Influence in Analytic Philosophy, Computer Science, and Beyond
Leibniz's logical innovations continue to inform analytic philosophy, particularly through his anticipation of formal systems and metaphysical principles. His proposed characteristica universalis, a universal symbolic language for reasoning, prefigured modern symbolic logic as developed by figures like Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, though direct transmission to 19th-century logic was absent.[134] The principle of sufficient reason, positing that nothing occurs without a reason, remains debated in contemporary metaphysics, challenging explanations lacking ultimate causal grounds and influencing discussions on contingency and necessity.[55] His conception of possible worlds, wherein God selects the optimal among infinite alternatives, resonates in modal logic, with Saul Kripke's semantics for necessity and possibility drawing structural parallels, albeit via independent development.[231] In computer science, Leibniz's practical and theoretical contributions laid early groundwork for digital computation. His 1694 Stepped Reckoner, a mechanical device using a stepped cylinder to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, represented the first calculator capable of all four arithmetic operations automatically.[232] Independently devising binary arithmetic by 1679 and publishing it in 1703, Leibniz viewed the dyadic system—built from 0 and 1—as emblematic of creation ex nihilo, enabling efficient mechanical representation of numbers and operations that underpin all contemporary digital hardware.[132] This binary foundation facilitated the transition from analog to digital computing, with modern processors relying on binary logic gates traceable to his insights.[233] Leibniz's visionary calculus ratiocinator, intended as a mechanical method for truth-discovery via symbolic manipulation, anticipates formal verification, automated theorem proving, and programming languages in artificial intelligence.[132] Beyond these domains, his Monadology sustains influence in metaphysics and philosophy of mind, where monads—windowless, indivisible units pre-programmed in harmonious parallelism—parallel debates on non-interacting yet coordinated systems, such as in some process ontologies or critiques of substance dualism.[234] In mathematics, his differential notation (e.g., ) from the 1680s endures as the conventional tool for calculus, aiding computational simulations and engineering analyses today.[235] These elements underscore Leibniz's enduring role in fostering interdisciplinary rigor, from logical formalism to computational universality.Major Writings
Pre-1700 Works
Leibniz's earliest significant publication, the Dissertatio de arte combinatoria (1666), expanded upon his master's thesis and habilitation defense at the University of Leipzig. In this work, he proposed a combinatorial method for generating all possible combinations of concepts from a finite set of primitives, aiming to establish a universal logical calculus or characteristica universalis that could resolve philosophical disputes through calculation rather than verbal argumentation. Drawing from Ramon Llull and earlier combinatorial traditions, Leibniz outlined rules for forming complex ideas and applied them to topics like jurisprudence and theology, foreshadowing his lifelong project of a universal language for science and reasoning.[106][236] In 1671, Leibniz published the Hypothesis physica nova, dedicated to the French Academy of Sciences, which included the Theoria motus abstracti (Theory of Abstract Motion). This treatise sought to explain natural phenomena through a mechanical philosophy emphasizing conservation laws and harmonic principles, positing that motion arises from a pre-established harmony among bodies rather than Cartesian vortices or impacts alone. Leibniz critiqued prevailing theories by introducing abstract notions of force and momentum, arguing for a dynamical approach where bodies possess inherent active principles, and he illustrated these with applications to optics, magnetism, and celestial mechanics. The work marked his shift toward a more vitalistic mechanics, integrating teleological elements into physical explanation.[64][237] During the 1670s, amid travels to London and Paris, Leibniz developed foundational ideas in infinitesimal calculus through private manuscripts and correspondence, independently of Isaac Newton, focusing on the analysis of infinitesimals for solving geometric problems. His first public announcement came in 1684 with "Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis" in the Acta Eruditorum, where he introduced the integral sign ∫ and differential notation dy/dx to compute tangents, quadratures, and maxima/minima, applying it to problems like the brachistochrone. Subsequent papers in the same journal, such as those on infinite series in 1682 and transcendentals in 1693, expanded this framework, establishing calculus as a tool for continuous variation and laying groundwork for later analysis.[16][7] By the 1690s, Leibniz's writings shifted toward dynamics and metaphysics, exemplified by the Specimen dynamicum (1695), published in two parts in the Acta Eruditorum. Here, he formalized the concept of vis viva (living force, proportional to mv²) as the true measure of motion, distinguishing it from mere quantity of motion (mv) and critiquing Cartesian conservation principles through experiments and thought experiments on elastic collisions. This work bridged his early mechanics with mature philosophy, arguing that force is primitive and substantial, not reducible to size and speed, and anticipated energy conservation. Leibniz also composed unpublished pieces like the Discourse on Metaphysics (1686), which articulated principles of sufficient reason, identity of indiscernibles, and pre-established harmony, though these circulated only in manuscript form among correspondents.[64][238]Mature Philosophical Treatises
In 1710, Leibniz published Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal, his sole book-length philosophical treatise issued during his lifetime, comprising three parts that systematically defend the compatibility of evil's existence with an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.[85] Leibniz argues that God, in creating the world from infinite possibilities, selected the optimal sequence of compatible events yielding the greatest variety amid order, rendering this the "best of all possible worlds" where apparent evils—moral, metaphysical, and physical—contribute to higher goods or prevent greater harms, such as through free will's necessity for genuine moral agency.[12] He critiques alternative views, including occasionalism and absolute determinism, while invoking scriptural and patristic authorities alongside rational demonstrations, coining the term "theodicy" to denote justification of divine justice. Between 1703 and 1705, Leibniz composed Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, a dialogue-structured critique of John Locke's empiricist epistemology in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), though it remained unpublished until 1765 due to Locke's recent death and Leibniz's deference.[239] Adopting Locke's chapter-by-chapter format with Philalethes voicing Lockean views and Theophilus Leibniz's own, the work refutes the tabula rasa doctrine by positing innate truths—necessary principles of logic, mathematics, and morality—accessible via reflection on internal faculties rather than solely sensory experience, as evidenced by universal assent to contradictions' impossibility and self-evident axioms.[240] Leibniz maintains that ideas arise from perceptions but are structured by predisposed rational capacities, integrating empiricist insights with his principle of sufficient reason to explain knowledge's foundations without reducing mind to passive reception.[239] In 1714, amid declining health, Leibniz drafted two succinct summaries of his metaphysical system for distinct audiences: Principes de la nature et de la grâce, fondés en raison, addressed to Prince Eugene of Savoy, and La Monadologie, a 90-paragraph outline prepared during his Vienna stay.[241] The Principes (18 sections) grounds physics and theology in rational principles, portraying substances as active forces manifesting God's wisdom through continuous creation and pre-established harmony, where souls and bodies interlink without direct causation, ensuring cosmic order via divine synchrony.[241] Complementarily, the Monadologie posits monads as windowless, indivisible units of reality—simple, perceiving substances varying in clarity from bare appetition in basic entities to apperceptive intellect in minds—each mirroring the universe uniquely yet harmonized by God to simulate interaction, rejecting atomistic corpuscles for this idealistic pluralism that resolves mind-body dualism. These texts crystallize Leibniz's mature ontology, emphasizing sufficient reason, the identity of indiscernibles, and optimism as corollaries of divine perfection, influencing subsequent continental rationalism.[78]Posthumous Publications and Editions
Leibniz died on November 14, 1716, leaving behind an extensive Nachlass comprising tens of thousands of manuscript pages, including unfinished treatises, draft essays, and over 15,000 letters to more than 1,100 correspondents.[16] Much of this material remained unpublished during his lifetime, with only selective pamphlets and the 1710 Theodicy seeing print as books.[12] Posthumous publications began soon after his death, often initiated by executors or scholarly admirers drawing from his archives in Hanover and other collections; these included early printings of mature philosophical summaries like the Monadology (composed 1714), a 90-aphorism outline of his monadic metaphysics first issued around 1720.[16] Other significant works followed in subsequent decades. The New Essays on Human Understanding, drafted circa 1704–1705 as a point-by-point critique of John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was withheld from publication during Locke's lifetime to avoid dispute and appeared only in 1765.[16] Similarly, the Discourse on Metaphysics (1686), articulating core doctrines such as the identity of indiscernibles and sufficient reason, received its initial printing in 1846 under Johann Eduard Erdmann.[242] Mathematical and scientific manuscripts saw sporadic releases, with limited new editions until the 19th century, reflecting the specialized nature of his calculus developments and mechanical inventions documented in unpublished notes.[227] Systematic editions emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries to organize the growing accessibility of Leibniz's papers. Louis Dutens's Opera Omnia (1768) compiled primarily correspondence and lesser writings across six volumes, though it omitted key philosophical texts and contained editorial inaccuracies.[242] More focused 19th-century efforts included Erdmann's two-volume philosophical writings (1839–1840) and Carl Immanuel Gerhardt's seven-volume Philosophische Schriften (1875–1890), which established textual bases for metaphysics and logic but lacked full critical apparatus or comprehensive inclusion of letters and sciences.[242] The definitive scholarly project, the Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Complete Writings and Letters), was launched by the Prussian (later Berlin-Brandenburg) Academy of Sciences in 1923 to produce a historical-critical edition of all known works. Structured in eight series—three for correspondence (I–III) and five for writings (IV–VIII, spanning philosophy, mathematics, history, and natural sciences)—it targets over 120 volumes, presenting unpublished originals with variants, indices, and annotations drawn from dispersed archives. By 2023, over 60 volumes had appeared, covering chronological sequences from Leibniz's early career onward, though completion remains projected for the mid-21st century due to the corpus's scale.[243][242] This edition supersedes predecessors by prioritizing manuscript fidelity over interpretive smoothing, enabling precise study of Leibniz's evolving thought.[243]References
- https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Praeclarum_Theorema