Talk:Best of all possible worlds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

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?[edit]

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)

2 sections[edit]

use a tone and/or wording that is not adequate for an encyclopaedic entry. they take the tone of a personal dissertation instead. they should be rewritten and properly referenced, as third-person accounts of what the philosopher opined, not paraphrasing and personal interpretation-ridden text. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious Capitalization?[edit]

The article capitalizes the first letter of He and His when referring to God. This violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Religion I am too lazy to change it. Whoever does though, remember that it is ok in quotations if that's how it was written by the author of the quote. 86.1.220.125 (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)