Leibniz: Monadology

[@heartofgold5070]

This was a really good presentation, I enjoyed it greatly. Thank you.

[@tamburinha]

Thank you! Great video.

[@SK-le1gm]

i’m trying out a thought experiment where i simply sub out the word “monad” with the word *words* and consider his philosophy a rumination on tielhard de chardin’s _nöosphere_ aka the “gutenberg galaxy” of mcluhan. it is yielding interesting insights! thanks for this video 🍻

[@Anders01]

Good explanation! I haven't listened to it all yet but monads related to compatibilism was a new connection to me that made me want to look into more about what compatibilism is. Previously I have dismissed compatibilism as seeming contradictory but maybe I have made a too hasty and shallow judgment about it.

[@marineblue2035]

It was amazing! Thank you so much 💫

[@Caligulahahah]

Thanks for uploading such great content! Keep it up!

[@awesomesauce3938]

This was really helpful, thank you!

[@philosophyversuslogic]

Thank you for Leibniz! Why the monads have some hierarchy, and they are simple at the same time. I'd say that the higher the more comlex a thing is.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Maybe the monad is simple but its perceptions are complex.

[@philosophyversuslogic]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy Ok, so here's another point - the perception is someting that isn't the essence of this monads. Anyway, thank you for videos and for comments! Good luck to you!

[@michakocher1392]

Monads are simple, but physical objects are complex. How is it possible, that every phisical object has it's own monad? Is your cup a distinct monad or a colletion of many monads?

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

It's a distinct monad corresponding to matter. The matter has parts, and the parts have monads. The cup's monad is simple, but the matter of the cup has lots of molecules with one monad for each molecule. (I think.)

[@sanchezdot]

Monads are like Holons, groups of monads are also monads

[@larianton1008]

A cup is obviously not a monad, for it is composed of parts. A cup is a change in the monad of a visual field.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

No, the teacup is not itself a monad. But I think there is a monad corresponding to it. Now my brain is _not_ in Leibniz mode at the moment. But somewhere around 67-70 or so of _Monadology_ , it looks to me like Leibniz is saying that every physical object has a monad corresponding to it.

[@larianton1008]

@@TeacherOfPhilosophy okay. Thats interesting. Thank you for the reply!

[@TheLastOutlaw-KTS]

I wonder if Leibniz read the Neoplatonists? Plotnius... The best of all possible worlds….so my life will be the best it can ever possibly be huh I just have to watch 😂

[@websurfer352]

You really mean that every monad is sentient!! You also mean that every monad is a simple being!! You also refer to the existence of the necessarily singular absolutely simple being which is God!! You are right in that a monad is a purely intrinsic value and as such it derives its value not from extrinsic sources!! I believe that heaven would consist only of sentient beings, trees and plants and even the very ground there would be sentient!! - Jaime Tan

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

And in Leibniz it's true on earth too!

[@BreezeTalk]

❤️

[@webmasterultra3487]

Dang, you don’t suck at explaining philosophy. You made me realize how bad a lot of people are at explaining philosophy.

[@TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Thank you!

[@websurfer352]

Simple beings differ from absolutely simple being in that there can be more than one simple being and each simple being is an individuated consciousness meaning one simple being meeting another simple being can tell I from thou, it can tell another simple being as being not-self but absolutely simple being is necessarily singular, if it were nit singular it would be just another simple being!! Every simple being shares in the nature of an absolutely simple being save one attribute that of necessarily being singular!! Plus an absolutely simple being has no restrictions as to its mode of being while simple beings are restricted by being individuated and plural!! So, a simple being would say I do not share my being with that other simple being, absolutely simple being on the other hand due to the lack of restrictions to its mode of being can say that it shares of its being with all simple beings!! It can say that it is the underpinning existence from which all other simple beings share, a simple being cannot say that other simple beings derive their being from it, a simple being cannot say that due to its individuation!! So simple beings have derive their being from a common metaphysical ground which can only be absolutely simple due to its nature as being unrestricted!! By means of analogy a cup on a table cannot say that it holds up the other cup on the table, only the table can say that it holds up both cups by nature of its extension as the common ground holding both cups up!!