In this lecture Peikoff exposes his radical misunderstanding of the core ideas of Leibniz's philosophy. Or, if he does understand them, his exposition of them is a malicious travesty. I presume the idola theatri made him either incapable of understanding, or willing to be dishonest.
@markburk4590 You made me listen to that ignorant or malicious presentation of Leibniz's ideas again. He starts his lecture: (2:08) "Let's look at one of these finite substances, like a table or a chair, or a rock, or a mountain." According to Leibniz THESE ARE NOT FINITE SUBSTANCES, they are beings by aggregation. They don't have a primitive active force (entelechy, soul, monad, mind); consequently, they are totally passive and have no life. Only beings like humans, animals, plants, cells, etc are finite substances, i.e. complete finite substances, that is to say, ones consisting of a material body and a soul (monad). Then he goes on: (2:28) They are compounds and if "we break compounds down to ultimate constituents, we must reach the ultimate indivisible substances, such a simple substance Leibniz calls a monad". No! For Leibniz COMPOUNDS ARE DIVISIBLE AD INFINITUM. You cannot find a soul (mind, spirit, monad, the principle of life) by dividing matter, you can only find it by metaphysical reasoning about empirical data. A monad may be an elephant or a virus; so, it has nothing to do with division or size; it is all about organic material unity and a unifying force behind it (monas, unum, one) which is called simple because you can't divide what is beyond the categories of space and time. He goes on: (11:33) "What is matter for Leibniz? Leibniz says that matter isn't conscious, (that) it perceives unconsciously without being aware that it's perceiving." This is total nonsense! For Leibniz there is no matter without a soul (excluding a theoretical notion of materia nuda - naked matter). It always comes with a soul (substance, monad) and IT IS ONLY THE SOUL THAT PERCEIVES. The material part of a complete finite substance (soul+body, e.g. an animal) is just a machine with parts in parts (partes extra partes), governed by cause and effect, going its mechanical train as if there was no soul. But for Leibniz matter in itself is not even real, it is only an expression of a confused (imperfect) perception of a monad. Yes, a body (but not matter in general, not a chair, a rock or a mountain!!!) must have some senses, but they are just a phenomenal material expression of its monad's particular perceptive capacity. However, one may colloquially say that a body (not matter) perceives, just as we colloquially say that the sun sets behind the horizon. Then Peikoff says what is most preposterous: (12:44) "Only conscious beings can be unconscious at times. How a completely non-conscious entity, like a chair, can be unconsciously aware without ever being consciously aware of anything - Leibniz doesn't explain." Of course he doesn't. Leibniz explains his theory and not Peikoff's laughable misunderstandings of it. There he goes with his chair again, and Leibniz's revolutionary notion of small perceptions (des petites perceptions) seems to escape him totally. Here Peikoff (so that his audience could have a laugh) created such a ridiculous strawman that even a cursory knowledge of Leibniz can easily find to be a figment either of Peikoff's insufficien knowledge or prejudice, or of his bad will. I find it hard to believe he could have so outrageously misconstrued Leibniz unawares - my conclusion is he did it on purpose. I stopped re-listening at 13:00 not to waste my time.
@@RogerFusselman I didn't major in anything. I'm a construction worker - and I stand by what I said. Tell me which one of my objections you object to, and why.
Keep in mind this guy was one of the inventors of Calculus!
In this lecture Peikoff exposes his radical misunderstanding of the core ideas of Leibniz's philosophy. Or, if he does understand them, his exposition of them is a malicious travesty.
I presume the idola theatri made him either incapable of understanding, or willing to be dishonest.
@markburk4590 You made me listen to that ignorant or malicious presentation of Leibniz's ideas again.
He starts his lecture:
(2:08) "Let's look at one of these finite substances, like a table or a chair, or a rock, or a mountain."
According to Leibniz THESE ARE NOT FINITE SUBSTANCES, they are beings by aggregation. They don't have a primitive active force (entelechy, soul, monad, mind); consequently, they are totally passive and have no life. Only beings like humans, animals, plants, cells, etc are finite substances, i.e. complete finite substances, that is to say, ones consisting of a material body and a soul (monad).
Then he goes on:
(2:28) They are compounds and if "we break compounds down to ultimate constituents, we must reach the ultimate indivisible substances, such a simple substance Leibniz calls a monad".
No! For Leibniz COMPOUNDS ARE DIVISIBLE AD INFINITUM. You cannot find a soul (mind, spirit, monad, the principle of life) by dividing matter, you can only find it by metaphysical reasoning about empirical data. A monad may be an elephant or a virus; so, it has nothing to do with division or size; it is all about organic material unity and a unifying force behind it (monas, unum, one) which is called simple because you can't divide what is beyond the categories of space and time.
He goes on:
(11:33) "What is matter for Leibniz? Leibniz says that matter isn't conscious, (that) it perceives unconsciously without being aware that it's perceiving."
This is total nonsense! For Leibniz there is no matter without a soul (excluding a theoretical notion of materia nuda - naked matter). It always comes with a soul (substance, monad) and IT IS ONLY THE SOUL THAT PERCEIVES. The material part of a complete finite substance (soul+body, e.g. an animal) is just a machine with parts in parts (partes extra partes), governed by cause and effect, going its mechanical train as if there was no soul. But for Leibniz matter in itself is not even real, it is only an expression of a confused (imperfect) perception of a monad. Yes, a body (but not matter in general, not a chair, a rock or a mountain!!!) must have some senses, but they are just a phenomenal material expression of its monad's particular perceptive capacity. However, one may colloquially say that a body (not matter) perceives, just as we colloquially say that the sun sets behind the horizon.
Then Peikoff says what is most preposterous:
(12:44) "Only conscious beings can be unconscious at times. How a completely non-conscious entity, like a chair, can be unconsciously aware without ever being consciously aware of anything - Leibniz doesn't explain."
Of course he doesn't. Leibniz explains his theory and not Peikoff's laughable misunderstandings of it. There he goes with his chair again, and Leibniz's revolutionary notion of small perceptions (des petites perceptions) seems to escape him totally.
Here Peikoff (so that his audience could have a laugh) created such a ridiculous strawman that even a cursory knowledge of Leibniz can easily find to be a figment either of Peikoff's insufficien knowledge or prejudice, or of his bad will. I find it hard to believe he could have so outrageously misconstrued Leibniz unawares - my conclusion is he did it on purpose.
I stopped re-listening at 13:00 not to waste my time.
i think it is the second...
I majored in philosophy, and Dr. Peikoff understands Leibnitz quite well.
@@RogerFusselman I didn't major in anything. I'm a construction worker - and I stand by what I said.
Tell me which one of my objections you object to, and why.
@@wieslawluczynski5188 Do you have any recommending reading on Leibniz?
Leibniz had a silly wig.