anon 0x484 said in #2653 1w ago:
Continuing off of a few prior threads:
https://sofiechan.com/p/2513
https://sofiechan.com/p/2589
https://sofiechan.com/p/2632
I wanted to address something that had come up in the prior thread on supercoordination, which was the mention of Leibniz's characteristica universalis. I have done pretty extensive research on this topic. I self-published my first book on this topic, and I have a second manuscript ready.
There is a lot to say. But from my reading, what is going on with Leibniz's characteric (also called analysis situs, geometry of situations, mathesis universalis, etc.) is that it does in fact represent an altogether different branch of scientific inquiry, that was not able to emerge, because of certain prior historical conditions. The reason that Leibniz's approach to science was buried had a lot to do with a more political conflict, the priority dispute over the differential calculus, between Newton and Leibniz. This led to a nascent political conflict between England and Germany.
In my reading, Leibniz actually made much more headway into the universal science than he is currently credited with. The reason that he is not credited with this is because his idea of science was based in the prior Aristotelian understanding of science, which was the predominant form of science, prior to what we now understand by that word. In fact, much of what we now know as science was discovered prior to Galileo, Descartes, Newton. See (https://x.com/ScriptoriumP/status/1755693732165189916) as well as Pierre Duhem and Stanley Jaki.
The Aristotelian science became discredited with polemics of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and later Voltaire, mostly because of its association with the Catholic Church.
In my reading, Leibniz was preserving the Aristotelian science. The Aristotelian science can be understood as based in organic observation, rather than over-reliance on extrinsic instruments. It can also be understood as allowing for the divine, or divine science (metaphysics). In my reading, Leibniz was giving new life to the Aristotelian science within the Christian context, by applying geometrical rigor to its hylomorphic (combination of mind and body) principles.
Now famously, Aristotelian science had already been treated in the Christian context, by St. Thomas Aquinas. But in the scientific era of the early 17th century, St. Thomas' form of science was considered as overly reliant on dubious metaphysical commitments. Hence, Leibniz felt the need to treat the Aristotelian science geometrically, but also still within the Christian, rather than pagan, view of the cosmos. As mentioned, the Aristotelian "paradigm" of science became discredited by mechanical approaches, which were seen as having more explanatory power.
But if Leibniz succeeded in harmonizing the Aristotelian and modern geometrical approaches, as he claims in many places, then there is truly a basis for the Aristotelian science, via Leibniz. And I have discovered a way in which Leibniz was, actually doing geometrical proofs within his writings. Leibniz used an ancient form of rhetoric that was re-discovered in the twentieth century by the scholar Leo Strauss. This was known as the "art of writing" or "esoteric writing". Ancient writers would write very carefully, so that their meaning would be understood by other philosophers, and would be missed by careless readers, or non-philosophers.
Now Leibniz applied this art of writing in the form to geometrical proofs. See (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0015.035/--leibniz-and-the-art-of-exoteric-writing?view=image). The key thing to understand about the art of writing is that the authors who utilize this technique always explicitly tell you that they are doing it. But only the careful readers will put in the effort to understand what they are saying between the lines.
Well, Leibniz does often tell his reader that he is using this technique. And he even explicitly identifies this technique with the geometrical form of exposition and proof. He does this primarily in unpublished writings.
https://sofiechan.com/p/2513
https://sofiechan.com/p/2589
https://sofiechan.com/p/2632
I wanted to address something that had come up in the prior thread on supercoordination, which was the mention of Leibniz's characteristica universalis. I have done pretty extensive research on this topic. I self-published my first book on this topic, and I have a second manuscript ready.
There is a lot to say. But from my reading, what is going on with Leibniz's characteric (also called analysis situs, geometry of situations, mathesis universalis, etc.) is that it does in fact represent an altogether different branch of scientific inquiry, that was not able to emerge, because of certain prior historical conditions. The reason that Leibniz's approach to science was buried had a lot to do with a more political conflict, the priority dispute over the differential calculus, between Newton and Leibniz. This led to a nascent political conflict between England and Germany.
In my reading, Leibniz actually made much more headway into the universal science than he is currently credited with. The reason that he is not credited with this is because his idea of science was based in the prior Aristotelian understanding of science, which was the predominant form of science, prior to what we now understand by that word. In fact, much of what we now know as science was discovered prior to Galileo, Descartes, Newton. See (https://x.com/ScriptoriumP/status/1755693732165189916) as well as Pierre Duhem and Stanley Jaki.
The Aristotelian science became discredited with polemics of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and later Voltaire, mostly because of its association with the Catholic Church.
In my reading, Leibniz was preserving the Aristotelian science. The Aristotelian science can be understood as based in organic observation, rather than over-reliance on extrinsic instruments. It can also be understood as allowing for the divine, or divine science (metaphysics). In my reading, Leibniz was giving new life to the Aristotelian science within the Christian context, by applying geometrical rigor to its hylomorphic (combination of mind and body) principles.
Now famously, Aristotelian science had already been treated in the Christian context, by St. Thomas Aquinas. But in the scientific era of the early 17th century, St. Thomas' form of science was considered as overly reliant on dubious metaphysical commitments. Hence, Leibniz felt the need to treat the Aristotelian science geometrically, but also still within the Christian, rather than pagan, view of the cosmos. As mentioned, the Aristotelian "paradigm" of science became discredited by mechanical approaches, which were seen as having more explanatory power.
But if Leibniz succeeded in harmonizing the Aristotelian and modern geometrical approaches, as he claims in many places, then there is truly a basis for the Aristotelian science, via Leibniz. And I have discovered a way in which Leibniz was, actually doing geometrical proofs within his writings. Leibniz used an ancient form of rhetoric that was re-discovered in the twentieth century by the scholar Leo Strauss. This was known as the "art of writing" or "esoteric writing". Ancient writers would write very carefully, so that their meaning would be understood by other philosophers, and would be missed by careless readers, or non-philosophers.
Now Leibniz applied this art of writing in the form to geometrical proofs. See (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0015.035/--leibniz-and-the-art-of-exoteric-writing?view=image). The key thing to understand about the art of writing is that the authors who utilize this technique always explicitly tell you that they are doing it. But only the careful readers will put in the effort to understand what they are saying between the lines.
Well, Leibniz does often tell his reader that he is using this technique. And he even explicitly identifies this technique with the geometrical form of exposition and proof. He does this primarily in unpublished writings.
referenced by: >>2655 >>2657
Continuing off of a