What do you think?
Rate this book
Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal
Comment concilier le mal à l'oeuvre sur Terre et la sainteté de Dieu qui l'a créée ? Dans les Essais de théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (1710), Leibniz se fixe la tâche prométhéenne de résoudre le problème du mal et d'innocenter Dieu.Selon lui, le tourment, la souffrance et la perte sont des données nécessaires à intégrer dans une perspective d'ensemble, une harmonie générale. Il revient à l'homme de se libérer de son anthropocentrisme et de voir le monde non pas seulement tel qu'il s'offre à lui mais comme une série d'éléments qui parfois lui échappe.À travers cette doctrine de la justice de Dieu, Leibniz donne un sens au mal en affirmant que le monde tel que nous le connaissons est bel et bien le meilleur des mondes possibles.
510 pages, paper
First published January 1, 1710
About the author
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
1,160 books492 followersGerman philosopher and mathematician Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz or Leibnitz invented differential and integral calculus independently of Isaac Newton and proposed an optimist metaphysical theory that included the notion that we live in "the best of all possible worlds."
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, a polymath, occupies a prominent place in the history. Most scholars think that Leibniz developed and published ever widely used notation. Only in the 20th century, his law of continuity and transcendental homogeneity found implementation in means of nonstandard analysis. He of the most prolific in the field of mechanical calculators. He worked on adding automatic multiplication and division to calculator of Blaise Pascal, meanwhile first described a pinwheel in 1685, and used it in the first mass-produced mechanical arithmometer. He also refined the binary number system, the foundation of virtually all digital computers.
Leibniz most concluded that God ably created our universe in a restricted sense, Voltaire often lampooned the idea. Leibniz alongside the great René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza advocated 17th-century rationalism. Applying reason of first principles or prior definitions, rather than empirical evidence, produced conclusions in the scholastic tradition, and the work of Leibniz anticipated modern analytic logic.
Leibniz made major contributions to technology, and anticipated that which surfaced much later in probability, biology, medicine, geology, psychology, linguistics, and computer science. He wrote works on politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology. Various learned journals, tens of thousands of letters, and unpublished manuscripts scattered contributions of Leibniz to this vast array of subjects. He wrote in several languages but primarily Latin and French. No one completely gathered the writings of Leibniz.
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, a polymath, occupies a prominent place in the history. Most scholars think that Leibniz developed and published ever widely used notation. Only in the 20th century, his law of continuity and transcendental homogeneity found implementation in means of nonstandard analysis. He of the most prolific in the field of mechanical calculators. He worked on adding automatic multiplication and division to calculator of Blaise Pascal, meanwhile first described a pinwheel in 1685, and used it in the first mass-produced mechanical arithmometer. He also refined the binary number system, the foundation of virtually all digital computers.
Leibniz most concluded that God ably created our universe in a restricted sense, Voltaire often lampooned the idea. Leibniz alongside the great René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza advocated 17th-century rationalism. Applying reason of first principles or prior definitions, rather than empirical evidence, produced conclusions in the scholastic tradition, and the work of Leibniz anticipated modern analytic logic.
Leibniz made major contributions to technology, and anticipated that which surfaced much later in probability, biology, medicine, geology, psychology, linguistics, and computer science. He wrote works on politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology. Various learned journals, tens of thousands of letters, and unpublished manuscripts scattered contributions of Leibniz to this vast array of subjects. He wrote in several languages but primarily Latin and French. No one completely gathered the writings of Leibniz.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
Read
January 26, 2017دوستانِ گرانقدر، این کتاب نیز همچون دیگر آثارِ <لایب نیتس> حول محورِ خرافات و موهومات دینی و مذهبی میچرخد... او در این کتاب تلاش نموده تا دین و مذهب را به فلسفه بچسباند و این موضوع برایمان روشن میشود که این موجود با پول گرفتن از کلیسا و پاپ، با این نوشته ها جوانان و مردم ساده را فریب میداد تا دانش و فلسفه را که روز به روز پیشرفت میکرد و دین و مذهب را دور ریخته بود را با کلیسا آشتی دهد
این نویسندهٔ موهوم گرا، در این کتاب اینگونه میگوید که: خدا به عنوان موجودی توانا و قادر مطلق، هیچگاه دنیایی را خلق نمیکند که دارای مشکل و ایراد و نقص باشد، و این جهانی که ما در آن زندگی میکنیم بهترین جهان ممکن است و هیچ مشکلی ندارد و کم و کاست های این جهان در تمامی جهان های فرضی دیگر که ممکن بود به وجود آیند نیز دیده میشدند!! شما فقط توجیهاتِ این موجود را ببینید
این مردِ موهوم پرست اعتقاد دارد که عقل و خرد موهبت خداوند است، پس نباید با علم و دانش و خرد، نبودِ خدا را اثبات کرد... (عزیزانم ببینید چه خزعبلاتی به هم بافته است) ... او ادامه میدهد و میگوید: اگر بخشی از ایمان و مسائل مربوط به خدا با خرد و دانش جور درنیاید، باید آن بخش و مسائل را طرد کرد، ولی خالق توانا را طرد نکرد
این موهوم پرست مینویسد: خداوند دانای مطلق است و یکسره از خوبی و نیکی تشکیل شده است، پس امکان ندارد که شر و بدی و زشتی بیافریند... انسانها مخلوقات خدای توانا هستند ولی همین مخلوقات دارای اراده هستند و میتوانند کارهای نادرست و زشت انجام دهند... هیچ کاری بدون ارداهٔ خدا صورت نمیگیرد، و اگر میبینید انسانها بدی میکنند و درد و زشتی در جهان میبینید، خداوند اجازهٔ درد و رنج و گناه و زشتی را صادر کرده است، زیرا این کارها و رفتارها پیامدهایِ لازمِ کم و کاستی هایِ وجود انسانها و شرِ متافیزیک هستند و لذا انسانها میتوانند کم و کاستی ها را با خیر و خوبی های راستین مقایسه نموده و با کمک خدای توانا تصمیمات درست بگیرند
عزیزانِ من، شما خودتان با خردِ خویش قضاوت کنید، ببینید چه شر و ورهایی را حاضرند به هم ببافند تا در موردِ موجودی که وجود ندارد سخ�� بگویند و بدتر از همه اینکه صفت هایی را به موجودی نسبت میدهند که به هیچ وجه نمیتوان وجودش را اثبات نمود و جالب است که خوبی ها را به موجود نامرئی به نامِ خدا مربوط میدانند و بدی ها به آن موجود ربطی ندارد و این جهان که سرتاسر ایراد و نقص است را کامل قلمداد میکنند
من نمیدانم چه اصراریست در مورد اثبات خدا این همه تلاش شود!؟؟ خوب بگذارید هرکس زندگی خود را داشته باشد و از زندگی گذشتگان و نیاکان درس گرفته و خوب و بد را تشخیص دهد... چرا سعی دارید تمام کارهای این جهان را به موجودی نامرئی مرتبط بدانید؟ به قول زنده یاد زکریایِ رازیِ بزرگوار و خردمند: فلسفه و دانش را با دین و مذهبِ ابلهانه و کثیفِ خود، قاطی نکنید و بگذارید دانش و فلسفه پاک و خوب بماند
----------------------------------------------
امیدوارم فریبِ این نویسنده ها چه در زمان گذشته و نویسنده هایی که از افکار این نویسنده ها پیروی میکنند را نخورید، و تنها از خرد و اندیشهٔ انسانی پیروی کرده و دانش و خرد را راهنمای خویش قرار دهید
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
این نویسندهٔ موهوم گرا، در این کتاب اینگونه میگوید که: خدا به عنوان موجودی توانا و قادر مطلق، هیچگاه دنیایی را خلق نمیکند که دارای مشکل و ایراد و نقص باشد، و این جهانی که ما در آن زندگی میکنیم بهترین جهان ممکن است و هیچ مشکلی ندارد و کم و کاست های این جهان در تمامی جهان های فرضی دیگر که ممکن بود به وجود آیند نیز دیده میشدند!! شما فقط توجیهاتِ این موجود را ببینید
این مردِ موهوم پرست اعتقاد دارد که عقل و خرد موهبت خداوند است، پس نباید با علم و دانش و خرد، نبودِ خدا را اثبات کرد... (عزیزانم ببینید چه خزعبلاتی به هم بافته است) ... او ادامه میدهد و میگوید: اگر بخشی از ایمان و مسائل مربوط به خدا با خرد و دانش جور درنیاید، باید آن بخش و مسائل را طرد کرد، ولی خالق توانا را طرد نکرد
این موهوم پرست مینویسد: خداوند دانای مطلق است و یکسره از خوبی و نیکی تشکیل شده است، پس امکان ندارد که شر و بدی و زشتی بیافریند... انسانها مخلوقات خدای توانا هستند ولی همین مخلوقات دارای اراده هستند و میتوانند کارهای نادرست و زشت انجام دهند... هیچ کاری بدون ارداهٔ خدا صورت نمیگیرد، و اگر میبینید انسانها بدی میکنند و درد و زشتی در جهان میبینید، خداوند اجازهٔ درد و رنج و گناه و زشتی را صادر کرده است، زیرا این کارها و رفتارها پیامدهایِ لازمِ کم و کاستی هایِ وجود انسانها و شرِ متافیزیک هستند و لذا انسانها میتوانند کم و کاستی ها را با خیر و خوبی های راستین مقایسه نموده و با کمک خدای توانا تصمیمات درست بگیرند
عزیزانِ من، شما خودتان با خردِ خویش قضاوت کنید، ببینید چه شر و ورهایی را حاضرند به هم ببافند تا در موردِ موجودی که وجود ندارد سخ�� بگویند و بدتر از همه اینکه صفت هایی را به موجودی نسبت میدهند که به هیچ وجه نمیتوان وجودش را اثبات نمود و جالب است که خوبی ها را به موجود نامرئی به نامِ خدا مربوط میدانند و بدی ها به آن موجود ربطی ندارد و این جهان که سرتاسر ایراد و نقص است را کامل قلمداد میکنند
من نمیدانم چه اصراریست در مورد اثبات خدا این همه تلاش شود!؟؟ خوب بگذارید هرکس زندگی خود را داشته باشد و از زندگی گذشتگان و نیاکان درس گرفته و خوب و بد را تشخیص دهد... چرا سعی دارید تمام کارهای این جهان را به موجودی نامرئی مرتبط بدانید؟ به قول زنده یاد زکریایِ رازیِ بزرگوار و خردمند: فلسفه و دانش را با دین و مذهبِ ابلهانه و کثیفِ خود، قاطی نکنید و بگذارید دانش و فلسفه پاک و خوب بماند
----------------------------------------------
امیدوارم فریبِ این نویسنده ها چه در زمان گذشته و نویسنده هایی که از افکار این نویسنده ها پیروی میکنند را نخورید، و تنها از خرد و اندیشهٔ انسانی پیروی کرده و دانش و خرد را راهنمای خویش قرار دهید
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
Shelved as 'ungelesen-digital'
February 1, 2023Ich liebe es wenn Bücher aus der Lektüre von Büchern hervorgehen!
In Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren : Anleitung zum subversiven Denken wir das Argument ad lapidem behandelt:
Wie werde ich dazu stehen?
In Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren : Anleitung zum subversiven Denken wir das Argument ad lapidem behandelt:
"Im Argument ad lapidem wird eine handfeste triviale Tatsache angeführt, durch welche eine subtile, theoretische Argumentation widerlegt werden soll, ohne im einzelnen auf deren eventuell raffinierte Gedankenführung einzugehen. Es macht den Reiz einer Figur aus, dass nicht ohne weiteres zu entscheiden ist, ob sie überzeugend sein wird oder nicht.
Ein geistesgeschichtlich berühmtes Beispiel ist der Roman Candide, der sich in satirischer Form gegen Leibnizens These richtet, diese unsere Welt mitsamt ihrem ganzen Elend sie die beste aller möglichen. Leibniz hatte das Problem der Theodizee dadurch gelöst, dass er philosophisch nachwies, eine bessere Welt als diese, unsere, sei gar nicht möglich. Anstatt aber auf Leibnizens tiefgründige Argumentation einzugehen, schildert Voltaire im Candide ein einzelnes menschliches Leben, das buchstäblich von einem Unglück ins nächste taumelt. In die Schilderung aller Leiden und Unglücksfälle dieses Lebens werden gelegentlich Kommentare im Stile der Leibnizschen Philosophie eingeblendet. Voltaire erspart sich eine inhaltliche Auseinandersetzung mit dieser Philosophie, er konfrontiert sie einfach mit der Realität, dies allerdings tut er drastisch.Die Bewertung von Voltaires Argumentation hat immer geschwankt. Für deutsche Metaphysiker geht Voltaire an Leibnizens Argumenten vorbei, ohne deren Tiefgründigkeit zu begreifen. Die Anhänger Voltaires anderseits meinen, der Roman Candide zeige ein für allemal die Lächerlichkeit der Leibnizschen "Theo-Philosophie", an der nichts tief sei, außer ihrem Unsinn."
Wie werde ich dazu stehen?
March 13, 2022
Theology belongs to the category of the sublime.
January 24, 2009
Leibniz is my friend... I like him a lot... his arguments are similar to al-Ghazali's.
Read
August 21, 2020Having read the editor's introduction, Leibniz' preface and his first essay, I decided to put the book down. This is as dry and formal as philosophy gets. This in and of itself isn't a problem, but the subject matter - the pre-established harmony of the world due to God's goodness, wisdom and power - is really not my cup of tea.
I consider myself to be an atheist, in the sense that I know the Gods postulated by all human religions thus far cannot exist and we have no evidence to suppose their existence to begin with. I am less militaristic against religion than I used to be ten years ago and I can even value religious ideas as historically important, intrinsically fascinating, and manifestations of deep-seated human desires and emotions. That being said, a work spanning 350 pages or so in which a theologian tries to convince me of the Christian God being the source of this universe and all its order and regularities, and about the benevolence of the universe towards us, is rather too much.
Having read Leibniz' Discourse on Metaphysics and Monadology, I wanted to dip into his more theological writings. I tried to have an open mind but the book simply cannot engage me. And after some 70 pages or so I ought to draw the only right conclusion: this book isn't for me. It thus would be rather silly of me to rate this book, considering I haven't read most of it. Suffice to say: I cannot recommend it to people, with the only exception being (perhaps) people who really want to dive into seventeenth century philosophy and know all the intricate details. I've read quite a bit of Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke, and all of them far surpass Leibniz in liveliness and appeal. (Although most of them lack Leibniz' clarity.)
I consider myself to be an atheist, in the sense that I know the Gods postulated by all human religions thus far cannot exist and we have no evidence to suppose their existence to begin with. I am less militaristic against religion than I used to be ten years ago and I can even value religious ideas as historically important, intrinsically fascinating, and manifestations of deep-seated human desires and emotions. That being said, a work spanning 350 pages or so in which a theologian tries to convince me of the Christian God being the source of this universe and all its order and regularities, and about the benevolence of the universe towards us, is rather too much.
Having read Leibniz' Discourse on Metaphysics and Monadology, I wanted to dip into his more theological writings. I tried to have an open mind but the book simply cannot engage me. And after some 70 pages or so I ought to draw the only right conclusion: this book isn't for me. It thus would be rather silly of me to rate this book, considering I haven't read most of it. Suffice to say: I cannot recommend it to people, with the only exception being (perhaps) people who really want to dive into seventeenth century philosophy and know all the intricate details. I've read quite a bit of Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke, and all of them far surpass Leibniz in liveliness and appeal. (Although most of them lack Leibniz' clarity.)
January 29, 2024
tout est bien
December 27, 2019
leibniz gets a lot of mileage out of picking apart the claims made by his contemporary Pierre Bayle, who in his opinion, failed to distinguished between three types of necessity--absolute geometrical necessity, moral necessity (freedom), and absolute arbitrariness. in other words, god's decrees are free and spontaneous because they are morally necessary. leibniz also recognizes at least three faculties in god--understanding, wisdom and will. along the way he shits on spinoza's system for denying understanding and will to god while praising his own System of Pre Established Harmony for carving out a place for spontaneity and free choice
this is a dry piece of writing even with leibniz's banter
this is a dry piece of writing even with leibniz's banter
April 17, 2020
Eseri yazdığım bir metinle ilgili daha önce tespit ettiğim bazı genel bilgileri doğrulatmak amacıyla hızla okudum. Ayrıca felsefe ve ilahiyat araştırmacısı olarak değil sosyolog olarak baktım. Bu nedenlerle kapsamlı bir değerlendirme yapamayacağım. Ancak şunu diyebilirim ki eğer ontoloji, teodise, kötülük problemi gibi konulara odaklanmış bir felsefe veya ilahiyat öğrencisi iseniz muhakkak okumanız gereken temel bir eser.
October 7, 2018
😴😴😴😴😴 This is definitely not the best of all possible books
August 2, 2019
Five stars for Leibniz's book and three stars for this translation, which averages to four stars.
Many people are only familiar with Leibniz's ideas through the distorted lens of Voltaire's famous satirical novella, Candide. Pangloss, the philosopher and teacher of Candide, maintains that this is the best of all possible worlds, despite the cruelty, torture, and senseless misery Voltaire cooks up for his characters. However, there is much more to Leibniz than that idea. Having read this entire book, as well as portions of Leibniz's other writings, I believe Leibniz means the following: the succession of worlds, i.e., God's entire plan for his creation, is the best. Leibniz does not come to this conclusion through some kind of naive empirical study of the world. Rather, his view is based on his doctrine of God. Because God is omnipotent, good, and wise, he would necessarily create that which is best, even if we don't realize how everything in the world contributes to that best plan. With that, I concur.
Part of what makes this a hard read is that it's an occasional book: Leibniz wrote it in large part to refute the writings of Pierre Bayle. But the book also expresses his mature thoughts about the problem of evil. For that, it's worth reading, even if his refutation of Bayle no longer seems relevant.
That being said, Theodicy deserves a better translation and edition. The introduction by Farrer isn't the best. That actual translation leaves many sentences in Latin and any other language other than the original French text untranslated, which isn't helpful to many English readers. Furthermore, there are no footnotes or endnotes that help the reader make sense of the text. If this text were published in a Penguin Classics, Oxford's World Classics, or Hackett edition, it would have such notes. The time for a new translation, with such notes, is now.
Still, philosophers and theologians would do well to wrestle through this book. Chew on it and spit out the bones.
Many people are only familiar with Leibniz's ideas through the distorted lens of Voltaire's famous satirical novella, Candide. Pangloss, the philosopher and teacher of Candide, maintains that this is the best of all possible worlds, despite the cruelty, torture, and senseless misery Voltaire cooks up for his characters. However, there is much more to Leibniz than that idea. Having read this entire book, as well as portions of Leibniz's other writings, I believe Leibniz means the following: the succession of worlds, i.e., God's entire plan for his creation, is the best. Leibniz does not come to this conclusion through some kind of naive empirical study of the world. Rather, his view is based on his doctrine of God. Because God is omnipotent, good, and wise, he would necessarily create that which is best, even if we don't realize how everything in the world contributes to that best plan. With that, I concur.
Part of what makes this a hard read is that it's an occasional book: Leibniz wrote it in large part to refute the writings of Pierre Bayle. But the book also expresses his mature thoughts about the problem of evil. For that, it's worth reading, even if his refutation of Bayle no longer seems relevant.
That being said, Theodicy deserves a better translation and edition. The introduction by Farrer isn't the best. That actual translation leaves many sentences in Latin and any other language other than the original French text untranslated, which isn't helpful to many English readers. Furthermore, there are no footnotes or endnotes that help the reader make sense of the text. If this text were published in a Penguin Classics, Oxford's World Classics, or Hackett edition, it would have such notes. The time for a new translation, with such notes, is now.
Still, philosophers and theologians would do well to wrestle through this book. Chew on it and spit out the bones.
March 11, 2024
Leibniz’s Theodicy is really about justifying evil in light of god’s existence rather than justifying god’s existence in light of the problem of evil so may not be what you’re looking for. The reasoning goes that god couldn’t make a perfect world since that wouldn’t be distinguishable from god so the creation would have to be less than the creator. God however could only create the best of all possible worlds which not being perfect is the best because it exists rather than not exist as a mere possibility of omnipotence. Thus evil which ultimately springs from privation and free will is necessary in a good albeit imperfect world. This line of reasoning preserves for Leibniz a transcendental god, free will and a distinction between good and evil, although the most this kind of reasoning by itself can establish is some sort of deism that evil can be reconciled with an orderly universe and a supreme being but for traditional theism is a more positive and difficult endeavor. These arguments rely on a lot of assumptions given how it relies on contingency rather than necessity. Leibniz also has to deny that all possible universes exist or that they are all part of the same universe. Schopenhauer’s response was that if the world was any worse it couldn’t exist at all but Leibniz denied the strict necessity of all events. Yet if all is contingent then the there still has to be some necessary reasoning for this particular universe to exist among others which is where Leibniz argues for the ethical necessity of the world assuming the existence of god.
February 16, 2021
Man kann das Werk auf eine Streitfrage herunterbrechen: Ist es möglich, dass sämtliche Widrigkeiten des Lebens einem höheren Ziel dienlich sind? Leibniz nimmt eine bejahende Position ein und verteidigt sich gegen seine Gegner. Zur Frage, inwiefern sämtliche Leiden diesem sogenannten Ziel dienen, schweigt er sich jedoch aus. Demenstprechend ist seine Argumentation trotz der schönen Aufmachung nicht sonderlich stichhaltig und bleibt - obwohl in sich geschlossen - fundamental lückenhaft.
February 21, 2020
First an explanation of what it means to "read" 500 pages of old philosophical prose--you skim through sections looking for the good, engaging material, the new idea, the argument you really want to focus on. You don't always painstakingly read every word.
For a while I was overwhelmed by the thoroughness of this book, so unlike Leibniz's Discourse and Monadology which are short and succinct. But eventually I grew deep admiration for Leibniz.
For one, he may have been one of the most well-read intellectuals ever. The sheer breadth and diversity of figures he sites is incredible, some of them now minor or forgotten folk (like his detailed discussion of the supralapsarian theologians). This contrasts with what I read about Descartes last year in a biography, that he didn't like reading other people's books.
Also, Leibniz will spend pages and pages trying to fully grasp another authors arguments, sometimes presenting it in a better light than the author themselves did, before then refuting it with objections.
So, a monumental intellectual achievement . . . but I still disagree with him about most of his conclusions. I am not persuaded that this is the best of all possible worlds, that pre-established harmony is the solution to the mind-body problem, and more.
For a while I was overwhelmed by the thoroughness of this book, so unlike Leibniz's Discourse and Monadology which are short and succinct. But eventually I grew deep admiration for Leibniz.
For one, he may have been one of the most well-read intellectuals ever. The sheer breadth and diversity of figures he sites is incredible, some of them now minor or forgotten folk (like his detailed discussion of the supralapsarian theologians). This contrasts with what I read about Descartes last year in a biography, that he didn't like reading other people's books.
Also, Leibniz will spend pages and pages trying to fully grasp another authors arguments, sometimes presenting it in a better light than the author themselves did, before then refuting it with objections.
So, a monumental intellectual achievement . . . but I still disagree with him about most of his conclusions. I am not persuaded that this is the best of all possible worlds, that pre-established harmony is the solution to the mind-body problem, and more.
May 12, 2017
While this was very interesting -- it needs to be read and reread bit by bit. Leibniz' thoughts are very deep. I found myself reading aloud and reading sections twice. I have bookmarked sections that I want to spend more time with. It certainly made me think and I also have a better understanding of the philosophers of the time.
January 14, 2014
One of the nicest explications of the knowable- that which is available to comprehend, that which may be only apprehended. The thought is elegant and makes a nice map of paradox or Kant's realm of possible human experience.
August 9, 2014
Content: 3 stars, added one more because of brainy Leibniz.
July 13, 2017
Not quite there but decent logic
September 7, 2017
2,5
Meb yayınlarından çıkmış ama çok saçma bir dipnot sistemi var, daha doğrusu dipnot numaraları orda ama dipnotlar ortada yok. O yüzden bol bol uzun Latince pasajları anlamaya çalışırken buldum kendimi, keyifliydi. Tanrı'ya iman hakkında bir kitap ne kadar rasyonel olabilirse bu kitap ondan biraz daha az rasyonel olmalı. İçinde Tanrı'ya iman olan bir felsefenin ayaklarını yere değdirmenin yolları üzerine bol alıntılı-incelemeli bir deneme. Anladığım kadarıyla benim elimdeki kitap bir giriş niteliğindeydi sadece.
Meb yayınlarından çıkmış ama çok saçma bir dipnot sistemi var, daha doğrusu dipnot numaraları orda ama dipnotlar ortada yok. O yüzden bol bol uzun Latince pasajları anlamaya çalışırken buldum kendimi, keyifliydi. Tanrı'ya iman hakkında bir kitap ne kadar rasyonel olabilirse bu kitap ondan biraz daha az rasyonel olmalı. İçinde Tanrı'ya iman olan bir felsefenin ayaklarını yere değdirmenin yolları üzerine bol alıntılı-incelemeli bir deneme. Anladığım kadarıyla benim elimdeki kitap bir giriş niteliğindeydi sadece.
April 18, 2022
Brilliant mind at work.
This author expresses himself of so many great and Brilliant ideas, that it would be unworthy to fault him for any shortcomings, the most of which would fall into the category of Revelations of science, subsequent to his time of writing.
This author expresses himself of so many great and Brilliant ideas, that it would be unworthy to fault him for any shortcomings, the most of which would fall into the category of Revelations of science, subsequent to his time of writing.
January 8, 2021
It was good in the first handful of chapters, but this book is certainly hard work. Gave up, but it is not ruled out from a future attempt if I consider it relevant again.
October 14, 2022
The biologic chemistry has taken the Formula for granted.
February 27, 2017
Fizik, matematik, felsefe, dil ne varsa hepsinden birden anlayan son ustalardan Leibniz. Hiçbir şey boşuna olmaz. Ahlaki kötülük günahtır, fiziksel kötülük ağrıdır ve metafizik kötülük sınırlamadır. Biraz korkak bir adam ama bu kitabında işi ciddiye alıyor, dili de sıkıcı aslında nerden baksan, hayatta kalmak için her şeyi sınırlamaya çalışıyor, ama gaddarlaşmıyor en azından ben olsam gaddarlaşırım.
February 7, 2018
Contradicted!
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews