Topics Philosophers

Question Dear Philosophers, 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? Thank you in advance for any tangible arguments or inspiring ideas. Kind regards, Pablo

Accepted:
May 4, 2011

Comments

There are many reasons why Descartes is taken as a reference point for early modern metaphysics and epistemology rather than Leibniz: I present a few. Descartes preceded Leibniz, and certain of Leibniz's philosophical innovations, and especially those in the philosophy of mind, were developed in response to Descartes, who continues to be referred to as 'the father of modern philosophy'. Many of Leibniz's most interesting philosophical works were not published during his lifetime--or even for many years after his death--and he wrote no single, magisterial statement of his views in metaphysics and epistemology like Descartes's Meditations, so it is somewhat more difficult to isolate Leibniz's views than it is to do so for Descartes. Although all professional philosophers are exposed to Descartes's Meditations--most likely, multiple times--over the course of their training, and may even teach the work itself, or at least parts of it, even if they are not specialists in the history of early modern philosophy, it is rarer for non-specialists to be exposed to a wide enough range of Leibniz's writings for them to appreciate what is distinctive about his philosophical views, and rarer still, I think, for non-specialists to teach Leibniz, say, in an introductory course. Consequently, 'Cartesian' remains a term to be conjured with, not only in philosophy, but also in other disciplines, in a way that 'Leibnizian' doesn't.