Talk:Best of all possible worlds

I've moved this (slightly tidied) comment here:

"Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy suggested (based on Leibniz's private papers) that Leibniz was not himself satisfied with the argument, but published it to keep favour with his sponsors."

Russell's view of Leibniz (that he had two philosophies, one esoteric for himself and other philosophers, one exoteric for his patrons, etc.) has long been out of fashion. Most commentators now hold (so far as I'm aware) that Leibniz was committed to this view while realising that there were problems with it that needed attention. Indeed, the maerial on Leibniz is among the more misleading in what is a a rather misleading (but dangerously readable and attractively written) book. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement "the idea fell almost entirely out of favour with philosophers after the 1755 lisbon earthquake" is a rather general statement that without a citation is an obvious POV and clearly unencyclopedic. I am removing it.--Colinmorley1000 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Horrendous?

Why is it that Leibniz's philosophical ideas get no attention on Wikipedia. There is virtually no information paid to his monads or to the greatest possible world. What's with this? I think he's one of the most important thinkers to ever live. --96.253.50.232 (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)