This journey shall provide the reader with a simple, though complete, guide to Leibniz’s metaphysics, incidentally preventing him or her from common errors. I will start with unfolding Leibniz’s definition of a simple substance as a free acting individual substance, which, in doing so, constitutes its complete concept. This latter contains everything that happens to the individual substance, a process taking place in God’s mind by forming the possibilities as combinations of his attributes before his decision to create the best (...) world. The totality of possibilities is divided through the compatibility relation into possible worlds. A world is a collection of all compatible individual substances. God creates the best among all possible worlds. The journey will enlighten the reader on Leibniz’s technical distinction between “possible” and “contingent”. In short, “possible” is defined by Leibniz in logical terms, as what is contradiction-free. “Contingent” is something that is, but might have been not. Just the fact that the non-being of contingent things remains possible saves Leibniz from Descartes’ and Spinoza’s determinism. (shrink)

I am glad to be able to use this opportunity to respond to Marcelo Dascal’s detailed review of volume VI,4 of the Academy edition published in the last issue of this journal. I do not do this in order to enter into the dispute between strong and soft reason, an attempt which would invite certain defeat, not least due to the excellent rhetoric displayed by my opponent. I would rather like to illuminate some points in a different way, based on (...) the sources. There is also the possibility that those who could not read my German Introduction or the Latin original documents might retain the impression the reviewer was trying to create. For them, being supplied only with his English translations, it will be difficult to investigate the reviewer’s arguments. On the other hand it will not be easy for me to weaken these arguments in a sufficient way now, one year after their publication. (shrink)

I am glad to be able to use this opportunity to respond to Marcelo Dascal’s detailed review of volume VI,4 of the Academy edition published in the last issue of this journal. I do not do this in order to enter into the dispute between strong and soft reason, an attempt which would invite certain defeat, not least due to the excellent rhetoric displayed by my opponent. I would rather like to illuminate some points in a different way, based on (...) the sources. There is also the possibility that those who could not read my German Introduction or the Latin original documents might retain the impression the reviewer was trying to create. For them, being supplied only with his English translations, it will be difficult to investigate the reviewer’s arguments. On the other hand it will not be easy for me to weaken these arguments in a sufficient way now, one year after their publication. (shrink)

I am glad to be able to use this opportunity to respond to Marcelo Dascal’s detailed review of volume VI,4 of the Academy edition published in the last issue of this journal. I do not do this in order to enter into the dispute between strong and soft reason, an attempt which would invite certain defeat, not least due to the excellent rhetoric displayed by my opponent. I would rather like to illuminate some points in a different way, based on (...) the sources. There is also the possibility that those who could not read my German Introduction or the Latin original documents might retain the impression the reviewer was trying to create. For them, being supplied only with his English translations, it will be difficult to investigate the reviewer’s arguments. On the other hand it will not be easy for me to weaken these arguments in a sufficient way now, one year after their publication. (shrink)

Leibniz’s letter to Magnus Wedderkopf (probably of May 1671) has been misunderstood due to the neglection of Wedderkopf ’s preceding inquiry, which had been available in print in the series I of the Academy edition. The letter is so interesting because Leibniz has already applied in it elements of his arguments which he later uses to solve the theodicy problem.