Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
The world is made of countless simple mind-like units, nothing happens without a reason, and God chose the best of all possible worlds.
Placement
Polymath: monads, pre-established harmony and the “best of all possible worlds.”
Key ideas
- Monadology
- Principle of sufficient reason
- Best of all possible worlds
Influence
Influenced by 11
Confucius
influenced by ✓
Leibniz read Confucius in the Jesuit Latin version Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (1687) and in Novissima Sinica (1697) praised Chinese practical and civil philosophy. G. W. Leibniz, Novissima Sinica (1697), preface; P. Couplet et al., Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (1687); D. E. Mungello, Leibniz and Confucianism: The Search for Accord (1977)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Confucius › traditionally 551–479 BCE
Plato
influenced by ✓
Leibniz paraphrased Plato’s Phaedo and Theaetetus (1676) and, defending innate ideas against Locke, called his own system closer to Plato’s (New Essays, written 1704). G. W. Leibniz, paraphrases of Phaedo and Theaetetus (Paris, 1676; Akademie-Ausgabe VI.3); Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain (written 1704, publ. 1765), preface
Plato › 428–348 BCE
Aristotle
influenced by ✓
Leibniz rehabilitated Aristotle’s substantial forms against the mechanists in the Discourse on Metaphysics (1686) and later called his simple substances ‘entelechies’ (Monadology, 1714). G. W. Leibniz, Discours de métaphysique (1686); Monadologie (1714); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
Aristotle › 384–322 BCE
Maimonides
influenced by ✓
Leibniz excerpted and annotated Buxtorf’s Latin translation of Maimonides’ Guide, remarking that it was more philosophical than he had expected, and cited its reckoning of good and evil (Guide III.12) in the Theodicy (1710, §§262–263). Leibniz, notes on Doctor perplexorum (between 1677 and 1691), A VI 4, 2484–2497; Theodicy (1710), §§262–263; L. Strickland, Leibniz’ Anthology of Maimonides’ Guide (2022)
Maimonides › 1138–1204
Thomas Hobbes
influenced by ✓
The young Leibniz wrote to Hobbes in 1670 and built his early physics on Hobbes’ conatus, the beginning of motion (Theory of Abstract Motion, 1671). G. W. Leibniz, letter to T. Hobbes (1670); Theoria motus abstracti (1671); SEP “Leibniz’s Philosophy of Physics”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Thomas Hobbes › 1588–1679
Nicolas Malebranche
influenced by ✓
Leibniz, who met Malebranche in Paris in 1675, agreed that created substances do not act on one another, but replaced occasional causes by pre-established harmony (New System, 1695). G. W. Leibniz, Système nouveau de la nature (Journal des savants, 1695); M. R. Antognazza, Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography (2009); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Nicolas Malebranche › 1638–1715
Show all (11)Show fewer
Zhu Xi
influenced by disputed
In his Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese (1716) Leibniz likened Zhu Xi’s li to God; he knew it only from missionaries, and influence is disputed. G. W. Leibniz, Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois (letter to N. Remond, 1716); N. Longobardi, Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois (1701); D. E. Mungello, Leibniz and Confucianism (1977)
Evidence: AI draft
Zhu Xi › 1130–1200
Ramon Llull
influenced by ✓
In the Dissertation on the Combinatorial Art (1666) Leibniz took up and generalised Llull’s art of combining basic concepts, aiming at an alphabet of human thoughts. G. W. Leibniz, Dissertatio de arte combinatoria (1666); SEP “Ramon Llull”
Ramon Llull › c. 1232–1316
Lorenzo Valla
influenced by
At the end of the Theodicy (1710) Leibniz retold Valla’s dialogue On Free Will and continued its fable to reconcile divine foreknowledge with human freedom. G. W. Leibniz, Essais de Théodicée (1710); L. Valla, De libero arbitrio; SEP “Lorenzo Valla”
Evidence: AI draft
Lorenzo Valla › c. 1407–1457
Francisco Suárez
influenced by ✓
Leibniz recalled reading scholastics such as Suárez in his youth; his dissertation On the Principle of Individuation (1663) defended, with Suárez, individuation by the whole entity. G. W. Leibniz, Disputatio metaphysica de principio individui (1663); Vita Leibnitii a se ipso breviter delineata; SEP “Francisco Suárez”
Francisco Suárez › 1548–1617
Anne Conway
influenced by
Leibniz, who knew her Principles (1690) through van Helmont, wrote in 1697 that his views came ‘somewhat close’ to Conway’s; how far she shaped him is debated. G. W. Leibniz, letter to T. Burnett (1697); A. Conway, Principia philosophiae antiquissimae et recentissimae (1690); SEP “Anne Conway”
Evidence: AI draft
Anne Conway › 1631–1679
Influenced 14
Christian Wolff
influenced ✓
Wolff built his German Metaphysics (1720) on Leibniz’s principles of contradiction and sufficient reason, but accepted pre-established harmony only as the most probable hypothesis. C. Wolff, Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen (1720); Leibniz–Wolff correspondence (1704–1716), ed. C. I. Gerhardt (1860); SEP “Christian Wolff”
Christian Wolff › 1679–1754
Émilie du Châtelet
influenced ✓
In the Institutions de physique (1740) Du Châtelet grounded Newtonian physics on Leibniz’s principles of contradiction and sufficient reason and defended his measure of living force. É. Du Châtelet, Institutions de physique (1740; 2nd ed. 1742); SEP “Émilie Du Châtelet”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Émilie du Châtelet › 1706–1749
Moses Mendelssohn
influenced ✓
Mendelssohn defended Leibniz’s metaphysics; in Pope a Metaphysician! (1755, with Lessing) he set Leibniz’s optimism apart from the poetic optimism of Pope’s Essay on Man. M. Mendelssohn and G. E. Lessing, Pope ein Metaphysiker! (1755); SEP “Moses Mendelssohn”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Moses Mendelssohn › 1729–1786
Bertrand Russell
influenced ✓
Russell argued that Leibniz’s metaphysics follows from a few logical premises, above all the subject–predicate doctrine of propositions (A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz, 1900). B. Russell, A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (1900); SEP “Bertrand Russell”; SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
Bertrand Russell › 1872–1970
Martin Heidegger
influenced
Heidegger took Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason as a guide to the question of ground, from his logic lectures of 1928 to Der Satz vom Grund (1957). M. Heidegger, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Logik im Ausgang von Leibniz (lectures 1928, GA 26); Vom Wesen des Grundes (1929); Der Satz vom Grund (1957)
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
Martin Heidegger › 1889–1976
Gilles Deleuze
influenced ✓
In The Fold (1988) Deleuze read Leibniz as the Baroque philosopher whose monads express the whole world from a point of view and whose matter is infinitely folded. G. Deleuze, Le pli. Leibniz et le baroque (1988); SEP “Gilles Deleuze”; SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Gilles Deleuze › 1925–1995
Show all (14)Show fewer
Anton Wilhelm Amo
influenced disputed
Amo grew up at the Wolfenbüttel court, whose library Leibniz directed until 1716; whether Leibniz shaped his De humanae mentis apatheia (1734) is disputed. A. W. Amo, De humanae mentis apatheia (1734); D. Menn and J. E. H. Smith (eds.), Anton Wilhelm Amo’s Philosophical Dissertations on Mind and Body (2020); J. E. H. Smith, Nature, Human Nature, and Human Difference (2015)
Evidence: AI draft
Anton Wilhelm Amo › c. 1703–1759
Johann Gottfried Herder
influenced ✓
Herder took over Leibniz’s concept of living force and his doctrine of obscure perceptions, on which On the Cognition and Sensation of the Human Soul (1778) builds. J. G. Herder, Vom Erkennen und Empfinden der menschlichen Seele (1778); SEP “Johann Gottfried von Herder”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Johann Gottfried Herder › 1744–1803
Bernard Bolzano
influenced
Bolzano, called ‘the Bohemian Leibniz’ in his lifetime, developed a monadology of simple substances which, unlike Leibniz’s monads, have location in space (Athanasia, 1827). B. Bolzano, Athanasia oder Gründe für die Unsterblichkeit der Seele (1827); P. Simons, “Bolzano’s Monadology”; SEP “Bernard Bolzano”
Evidence: AI draft
Bernard Bolzano › 1781–1848
Gabriel Tarde
influenced
Tarde renewed Leibniz’s monadology as a sociology: every thing is a society of small, numerous elements, and ‘to exist is to differ’ (‘Monadologie et sociologie’, 1893). G. Tarde, “Monadologie et sociologie” (1893), in Essais et mélanges sociologiques (1895); B. Latour, “Gabriel Tarde and the End of the Social” (2002); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
Evidence: AI draft
Gabriel Tarde › 1843–1904
Gottlob Frege
influenced
Frege presented his Begriffsschrift (1879) as a step towards Leibniz’s universal characteristic and adopted Leibniz’s definition of identity as substitutability salva veritate (Grundlagen der Arithmetik, 1884). G. Frege, Begriffsschrift (1879), preface; Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik (1884); SEP “Leibniz’s Influence on 19th Century Logic”; SEP “Gottlob Frege”
Evidence: AI draft
Gottlob Frege › 1848–1925
Ernst Cassirer
influenced
Cassirer’s first book reconstructed Leibniz’s system from its mathematical and scientific foundations (Leibniz’ System in seinen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen, 1902); he also edited Leibniz’s main writings (1904–06). E. Cassirer, Leibniz’ System in seinen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen (1902); G. W. Leibniz, Hauptschriften zur Grundlegung der Philosophie, ed. E. Cassirer (1904–06); SEP “Ernst Cassirer”
Evidence: AI draft
Ernst Cassirer › 1874–1945
Kurt Gödel
influenced
Gödel studied Leibniz intensively and, like him, sought to show first that God is possible, in a modal ontological proof built on positive properties (notes 1970; publ. 1987). K. Gödel, “Ontological Proof” (1970), in Collected Works III (1995); J. H. Sobel, “Gödel’s Ontological Proof”, in J. J. Thomson (ed.), On Being and Saying (1987); SEP “Kurt Gödel”
Evidence: AI draft
Kurt Gödel › 1906–1978
David Lewis
influenced
Lewis took up Leibniz’s possible worlds but as concrete, real worlds; his world-bound individuals with counterparts are often compared to Leibniz’s view (On the Plurality of Worlds, 1986). D. Lewis, “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic”, Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968); On the Plurality of Worlds (1986); SEP “David Lewis”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
David Lewis › 1941–2001
Criticism
Mutual critique 1
Pierre Bayle ⇄ mutual
criticised
Leibniz’s Theodicy (1710) answered Bayle’s claim that reason cannot reconcile evil with a good God, arguing that faith and reason agree and this is the best possible world. G. W. Leibniz, Essais de Théodicée (1710), Discours préliminaire, Parts I–III; SEP “Leibniz on the Problem of Evil”
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
In the article ‘Rorarius’ of his Dictionnaire (1697; 2nd ed. 1702) Bayle questioned Leibniz’s pre-established harmony: how could a dog’s soul pass from pleasure to pain unprompted? P. Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, art. “Rorarius”, remarks H and L; G. W. Leibniz, Éclaircissement (1698); SEP “Pierre Bayle”
Evidence: AI draft
Pierre Bayle › 1647–1706
Criticized by 5
Antoine Arnauld influenced by
influenced by
Answering Arnauld’s objections in their correspondence (1686–1690), Leibniz clarified his distinction between hypothetical and absolute necessity and his hypothesis of the concomitance of substances. The Leibniz–Arnauld Correspondence (1686–1690), ed. and tr. S. Voss (2016); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
Arnauld objected that Leibniz’s complete individual concept, containing all that will befall Adam, implies a ‘more than fatal’ necessity (letters on the Discourse on Metaphysics, 1686). Arnauld to Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels, 13 Mar. 1686; Leibniz–Arnauld correspondence 1686–1690; SEP “Antoine Arnauld”
Evidence: AI draft
Antoine Arnauld › 1612–1694
Damaris Masham
criticised by
In letters to Leibniz (1703–1705) Masham questioned his pre-established harmony and defended her father Cudworth’s plastic natures, having known his system from the Journal des savants (1695). Leibniz–Masham correspondence (1703–1705), in Die philosophischen Schriften, ed. C. I. Gerhardt, III; SEP “Lady Damaris Masham”
Evidence: AI draft
Damaris Masham › 1659–1708
Emanuel Swedenborg
criticised by
In The Intercourse between the Soul and the Body (1769) Swedenborg rejected Leibniz’s pre-established harmony, as well as physical influx, in favour of a spiritual influx. E. Swedenborg, De commercio animae et corporis (1769)
Evidence: AI draft
Emanuel Swedenborg › 1688–1772
Voltaire
criticised by
Voltaire mocked Leibnizian optimism through Pangloss, for whom all is for the best in the best of possible worlds (Candide, 1759; Poem on the Lisbon Disaster, 1756). Voltaire, Candide, ou l’Optimisme (1759); Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne (1756)
Evidence: AI draft
Voltaire › 1694–1778
Immanuel Kant influenced
influenced ✓
Kant’s early works, such as the New Elucidation (1755), argued within Leibniz’s principles, and in 1790 he called the Critique ‘the genuine apology for Leibniz’. I. Kant, Principiorum primorum cognitionis metaphysicae nova dilucidatio (1755); Über eine Entdeckung, nach der alle neue Kritik der reinen Vernunft durch eine ältere entbehrlich gemacht werden soll (1790); SEP “Leibniz’s Influence on Kant”
criticised by
Kant held that Leibniz ‘intellectualised the appearances’, taking sensibility for confused thought, and so misapplied the identity of indiscernibles (Critique of Pure Reason, A 263–264, A 271). I. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection, A 260–289 / B 316–346
Evidence: AI draft
Immanuel Kant › 1724–1804
Criticizes 6
Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
criticised
Leibniz rejected the Averroist doctrine of a single intellect shared by all human beings in his “Considerations on the Doctrine of a Single Universal Spirit” (1702) and in the Preliminary Discourse of the Theodicy (1710). Leibniz, Considérations sur la doctrine d’un esprit universel unique (1702); Essais de Théodicée (1710), Discours préliminaire
Evidence: AI draft
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) › 1126–1198
René Descartes influenced by
influenced by ✓
In Meditations on Knowledge, Truth and Ideas (1684) Leibniz refined Descartes’ clear and distinct ideas and completed his ontological proof by requiring God’s possibility to be shown. G. W. Leibniz, Meditationes de cognitione, veritate et ideis (Acta Eruditorum, 1684); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
criticised
Leibniz argued that Descartes’ law conserving quantity of motion is false: what is conserved is living force, mv² (Brevis demonstratio, 1686; Discourse on Metaphysics, §17). G. W. Leibniz, Brevis demonstratio erroris memorabilis Cartesii (Acta Eruditorum, 1686); Discours de métaphysique (1686), §17
Evidence: AI draft
René Descartes › 1596–1650
John Locke
criticised
In the New Essays (written 1704, published 1765) Leibniz defended innate ideas against Locke: the mind is not a blank tablet but like veined marble. G. W. Leibniz, Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain (1704; publ. 1765), Preface and Book I
Evidence: AI draft
John Locke › 1632–1704
Baruch de Spinoza influenced by
influenced by ✓
In 1676 Leibniz visited Spinoza in The Hague, showed him a proof that a most perfect being is possible and later annotated the posthumously printed Ethics (1677). G. W. Leibniz, Quod ens perfectissimum existit (The Hague, 1676); M. R. Antognazza, Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography (2009); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
criticised
Leibniz rejected Spinoza’s blind necessity, which leaves God neither choice nor goodness (Theodicy, 1710, §173), adding that Spinoza would be right were there no monads. G. W. Leibniz, Essais de Théodicée (1710), §§173–174; letter to Bourguet, Dec. 1714 (GP III 575)
Evidence: AI draft
Baruch de Spinoza › 1632–1677
Isaac Newton
criticised
In his letters to Clarke (1715–16) Leibniz rejected Newton’s absolute space and a God who must mend his clockwork, and called gravitation without mechanism a perpetual miracle. Leibniz–Clarke Correspondence (1715–16), Leibniz’s letters 1–5
Evidence: AI draft
Isaac Newton › 1643–1727
John Toland
criticised
Leibniz annotated Toland’s Christianity not Mysterious (1701), defending mysteries above but not against reason, and argued against his materialism at the Berlin court (letter to Sophie Charlotte, 1702). G. W. Leibniz, Annotatiunculae subitaneae ad Tolandi librum De Christianismo mysteriis carente (1701); Lettre touchant ce qui est indépendant des sens et de la matière (1702)
Evidence: AI draft
John Toland › 1670–1722
Works
A dialogue answering Locke's empiricism point by point.
- 1710Theodicy
Why a good God permits evil: the best of all possible worlds.
- 1714Monadology
The world as windowless monads in pre-established harmony.
Position
Leibniz’s metaphysics starts from simple, indivisible substances: monads, centres of force and perception without “windows” to the outside. They do not act on each other; God has coordinated them from the outset in a pre-established harmony. Everything has a sufficient reason, and among infinitely many possible worlds God chose the best – which is why evil must be understood within the whole (theodicy). He distinguished truths of reason from truths of fact and dreamed of a universal symbolic language in which disputes could be settled by calculation. He developed the calculus independently of Newton, worked out binary arithmetic and shaped Wolff and Kant.
Life & context
Born in Leipzig in 1646, Leibniz studied law and philosophy and spent four formative years in Paris, where he developed the calculus. From 1676 he served the House of Brunswick in Hanover as librarian, historian and adviser, while corresponding with scholars across Europe. He was the first president of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. He died in Hanover in 1716, largely forgotten by his patrons.
Further main works
- Discourse on Metaphysics (1686)
- Correspondence with Clarke (1715–1716)
Appears in
- Journey ‘Asia and Europe in Dialogue’ · Stop 4 of 11
- Debate ‘Leibniz and Clarke on Space, Time and God’
As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made