Dr. Sadler's Chalk and Talk: Why Does Leibniz Remain in Descartes' Shadow

#6 of my new "Chalk and Talk" series, in which I address at greater length interesting questions I receive on VYou, Facebook, Twitter, or by email. This one responds to: "I would like to ask whether there is any reasonable explanation why many after/today's philosophers rather refer to Descartes than to Leibniz. Although Descartes had influenced significantly new modern era in philosophical thinking, so did Leibniz. Moreover, Leibniz proved some imperfections in Descartes' metaphysics. I mean both of them deserve our attention, yet in my opinion Leibniz is somehow still in Descartes' shadow. Why is that?"

Category:

Education

[crimsonsamuraiftw]

Well Leibniz was technically in the shadow of multiple people during his age (Descartes, Spinoza, Newton, Huygens, etc.,) as this had more to do with him being a polymath and dabbling in several fields more than specializing in any one field, well at least through historical posterity, though he would likely still be brilliant in any age.

[gbisadler]

@crimsonsamuraiftw You're certainly right about the multiple shadows -- and I'd Arnauld and Malebranche in there.

I think another factor - at least with Descartes - is that while both their philosophical systems are quite complex and very interesting, Descartes' seems fairly plausible in its popularized form while Leibniz's makes one say: what? windowless monads? And as caricatured, a la Candide, it becomes just silly. Unfortunate, since they don't do his thought justice

[crimsonsamuraiftw]

@gbisadler You're right about Arnauld and Malebranche, though I would only go so far as to say they were more popular as contemporaries than through the perspective lens of history, at least what I've come to read about them so far.

[gbisadler]

@crimsonsamuraiftw Yes, they were much more popular as contemporaries -- Leibniz certainly felt that they were thinkers whose own systems he had to engage at the time. Arnauld, I think, can be safely said to have fallen into the footnotes of the history of ideas. Malebranche, though, retains a considerably more important place in French thought and curricula than he does in Anglophone countries -- the same can be said for Pascal as well, for that matter.

[gbisadler]

Thanks very much. I was very glad for the opportunity to do some reflection on the history of ideas -- which I've not been teaching in while at my present (but soon ending) position. So, thanks also for asking me the question.

[crimsonsamuraiftw]

In regards to your commentary on how those intellectuals and their contemporaries thought about scholasticism, and the status quo of education during the Medieval era, you could make a rough comparison of the same feeling currently developing toward the state of modern educational systems. Though, to be fair this is mostly in reference to the culture of academia, rather than education or learning in general.

[pablodiablo87]

Dr. Sadler, thank you very much for posting this video. I appreciate that. You have provided me with a good insight indeed. While thinking about your explanation, I have to admit that it sounds more reasonable now to me.