/lit/ - Literature

>>18205668
omg I'm gonna cum

>>18205668
Insane version of metaphysics where there is no cause and effect and every atom is just preprogrammed to do what ever it does until the end of time. That ball you threw at the can didn't really knock it over the atoms in the ball and can have no effect on each other. Instead the ball and can were preprogrammed to change velocity and direction at that moment in time and only look like cause and effect. The whole world is a stage with the props moving at set times. Religion can drive even smart people stupid and crazy.

>>18205668
>Bart Simpson be peeping atchu

>>18205691
Nick Bostrom intensifies

>>18205691
wow, I'm about to start reading Leibniz... this is going to be a trip

>>18206084
Yeah, I'm reading through this list and I was wondering if the monad is related to the atomists. I didn't even think about the religious aspect though.

>>18205691
But this is literally how science works and is 100% true (in theory). cause and effect are just useful abstractions.

>>18205997
Hahaha now I can't unsee this. Oh well at least it makes a change from 4chan's usual breast obsession.

>>18205691
seething

>>18205691
It's even funnier than that. He said that no monad could affect another one ("monads are windowless") and hence they all have to be synchronized like clocks to *appear* to interact with eacy other, and when people said "but Gottfried, that's absurd" he said "ah, it *seems* absurd, because it would be so hard to synchronize trillions of minute entities, but that just goes to prove God must exist, because who else could achieve such a feat!?"

So he could pull God out of the hat as a sort of by-product. Well done Leibnitz.

>>18207279
>So he could pull God out of the hat as a sort of by-product.
Reminds me of Nagarjuna who engages in bad faith examinations of other positions and they says “well uh... that means it HAS to be sunyata (emptiness) that’s the cause of all things amirite”

>>18205691

This is the most Rational explanation.

>>18205668
Monad = mono gonad
i.e. one nut wonder

>>18205691
Stop this blasphemy against Leibniz.

>>18205691
Is this actually what he means by a monad? That's pretty cool, but seems very different to the definitions on wikipedia (which I don't understand, but they don't sound like this)

>>18208353
Pretty much.
God is a simple monad, because God has perception

>>18205668
I still don't know what a monad is

>>18205691
Every time I read about this I think of schizophrenic case studies

>>18209551
I think its like a sort of progenitor to the idea of an atom. But I stopped reading Monadology after he mentioned Descartes because I refuse to engage with anything tangentially related to that charlatan.

>>18205668
Monads aren't atoms because they're ideal and not physical. You can think of them as like Platonic forms, but where Platonic forms are universals, every monad is associated with an individual. Every individuated thing has a monad, and that monad contains all essential, contingent, and even relational predicates of that individual thing throughout all time. It's basically a precursor to those weird computer science metaphysics that think everything is information.

>>18205691
this is the only way dualism makes sense

>>18210003
Doesn't he start by saying that because there are compounds in the world, and compounds are made of simple substances, then monads must be real

Is he saying that all compounds are aggregates of their monads?

someone should made a chart about these german philosophers from the middle ages and the enlightenment, i can´t keep track of them, there are too many

>>18210585
There's no German philosophy in the Middle Ages if you mean "philosophy written in the German language". German philosophy starts with Luther (who had a philosophical bent) and Leibniz. If you're a schizo you can also read Jakob Böhme, Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa and Rosencrucian manifests.

>>18210641
>If you're a schizo you can also read Jakob Böhme, Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa and Rosencrucian manifests.

more i want MORE

>>18210585
all you need is daddy kant, everyone else is irrelevant and debunked

>>18210648
stop talking like a faggot

>>18210646
Read this book friend.

>>18210655

>>18210653
no

>>18210302
Kind of. If something is a unity, it has a single monad that accounts for that unity, but later he claims that monads can have something like "dominance" over other monads (while still remaining windowless somehow). So there is a monad associated with me, but also monads associated with all of the individual cells in my body, but the monad associated with me has "dominance" over them. I think this also has to do with what he calls degree of perception. When I die my monad will still be there but my degree of perception will have decreased, and so my dominance over the other monads that made up the parts of my body will also have decreased. Leibniz also sometimes calls God the most dominant monad. But to be honest I'm not certain if that initial argument about compounds in the Monadology actually commits Leibniz to any view of what a compound is (whether it's a collection of monads or something else). But I do know that a monad is supposed to account for an individual thing's unity.

>>18205668
What the fuck is(n't) a monad?

>>18205668
Milky!

>>18206084
Descartes is essential for Leibniz - really go into detail of how descartes describes substance

>>18209551
>>18205668
It's just a monoid in the category of endofunctors.

>>18209551
a simple substance

He really just meant "my 'nads".

>>18211376
You, since you're composite.

>>18211848
Your mind is just another monad. A dominant monad, but a monad nonetheless.

>>18211886
you are not just a res cogitans though

>>18211961
The definition of a monad is that which cannot be divided, thus having no extension, thus being immaterial.
A common property of all monads is perception. The form of a monad is meant to solve the Cartesian mind/body problem.

Leibniz is suggesting that all matter is "living", it's just some are "more living" than others.

Take for example a dead cow. The matter is still their, but unresponsive.
the cow is dead, but the monads are still there.

>>18211992
yes but Leibniz never says that a human is one singular monad.

>>18205668
>leibniz
It's a basic unit of all things. You have to understand he arrived at the monad via negativa-- he reasoned there MUST be some fundamental unit of thinginess, given how everything is composites of things. The thing which cannot be reduced any further is therefore a monad.

>monad in cs
It's a wrapper function that returns itself (e.g. an optional)

>monad in math
This is something I never fully grasped, but here's what I think it is. In category theory, there's a certain type of function called endofunctors (endo meaning self, functor meaning functions which map from one category to another). These endofunctors map unto themselves instead of another category.

I think a monad is a type of endofunctor which creates a result set that is equal in size to the original category. So with optionals for example, your wrapper function will always return a result set which is the same size as the original set.

Again, not a mathfag so I don't know if I understood this correctly.

>>18212273
*endo meaning from within

Close enough.

A birth defect where a male is only born with one testicle