Talk:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Philosophy
It would be great if people with some knowledge of philosophy contribute to this page. I can only do mathematics. Nerd (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of Leibniz (and I'm a lifelong student of the history of ideas and learning, of science and philosophy... etc). I have tons of good sources; with any luck, I'll get the chance to add something nice. But no promises! I also have adult ADHD, so promising I'll do things only make me stress about them, actually reducing chances of me doing them. So; I hope to contribute something to this page one day, knock on wood. :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No pressure. Newton can wait on a square meter. He's a very patient man, provided you don't mess with him. Let's improve this page the way we did for Oppie's page. Nerd (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Also Nerd, just as a general comment - keep in mind that we're not trying to be a general encyclopedia or an alternative to Wikipedia. So don't overdo the general information - focus on things of relevance to what we do here. Trivia, correcting myths and misunderstandings, linking his ideas to the woo of his time (e.g. maybe he commented on astrology? Or tried to do bible code stuff like Newton?), maybe linking him to current-day woo that misrepresents him? Maybe he invented logical fallacies we catch cranks using today? Maybe he had some smart quote on religion or pseudoscience or alternative medicine? And so on. Just as a general note. Because articles that get too verbosely general-encyclopedic risk deletion for having gone off mission :O All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that's where niches come in. I specialize in things like mathematics, and physics (and occasionally politics). I will prove some general information regarding the topic at hand. Other editors can come in and add things like woo, misinterpretations and the like. Thanks for the reminder. I will try to be as concise as possible. Nerd (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we're all here to add what we're good at and so on... We do this for fun in the end. But just make sure you also keep the overall balance of the article you are working on in mind. Almost every person we cover needs a slightly expanded (often hugely expanded) biography, so there's tons of room for you to work with... It CAN be long, it just needs to be relevant. Just make sure you keep this in mind and you'll do just fine. :3 All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know a scientist with a non-existent biography here on RationalWiki. Uncle Paul, I will visit you soon. No, not that one! Thanks for the encouragement.

Leibniz discovered an ontological principle: no two objects/things are identical. Even if you could find two objects/things with the exact same intrinsic properties (clones), they would have different extrinsic properties (e.g. spatial relations). An extension of this is the Ugly Duckling Theorem which says all classifications are biased because it is actually impossible to quantify the total amount of intrinsic/extrinsic properties, meaning the classifier is arbitrarily selecting properties and there is no objective classification. Rationalwikilurker (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting. Could you please gather the relevant sources and add this to the article? It is right now still a stub. Thanks! Nerd (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

About Leibniz's contributions in philosophy, there is his "argument against materialism", which is exposed for instance in https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/#MatTho. In very short, it says that "one is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions". I would reformulate it as "non-feeling cannot produce feeling". I don't find it so convincing and I know about Dennett's "solution" (in short too: progressive emergence form increasing levels of complexity) but I do not find it decisive or even compelling either. I therefore suggest that this argument from Leibniz is presented here and that material or links are given for dismissing (or, why not, supporting) it. Leibniz also contributed to the "ontological argument" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/, which is mentioned neither here nor in https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_argument. Thanks. Gquenot (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started very basic sections on his metaphysics and theology. Those should likely both be expanded, and a section on his ethics added. But I'm by no means an expert in these areas. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Maths section
There is a technical issue. The differential sign in the mathematics section is unparsed. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole  17:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)