Leibniz (Theodicy)

I searched a little on pdf versions. About « E. 475 b; 477 b; G. vi. 40, 44 », I've got :
« Éd. Erdm., p. 475 b; p. 477 b »
Which led me to a commentary of the Monadology, which contained in footnote :
« [Note d'E. Boutroux :] Nous donnons (comme a déjà fait Erdmann, mais non sans quelques inexactitudes) les renvoies à la Théodicée, que l'on lit, écrits la main de Leibniz, dans la marge de la première copie de la Monadologie. »
( We give (like Erdmann already did, not without any mistakes) the referrals to the Theodicy, that we read, hand-written by Leibniz, into the margin of the first copy of the Monadology )

So from what I get, the page number refer to the Erdmann edition, and he could very much be mistaking

I am preparing a seminar on specific paragraphs of the Monadology and those paragraph references always seem to add and clarify a lot

So it's just a mistake? It refers to nothing?

Specifically, what commentary is this?

I'm sorry lad, I've been stuck in medieval metaphysics and modern political philosophy so I haven't read Leibniz yet.

(I'm trying to keep the thread alive so talk to me)

What are you stuck on? I can't seem to grasp reading philosophy and not getting really into Descartes and those post-cartesian bastards

I'm going through Aquinas selected works, Human Condition by Hannah Arendt, will be reading After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre after those, but as I read fiction too that makes it go a bit slower.
Also read a lot of Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc this year, want to read more Hayek. There's a lot of stuff basically.
Descartes is not that interesting, the only thing which is is the method itself.
Basically I've read very little of the modern mindset philosophers, no Hume, only Kant's ethics, no Mill or Marx, no Gramsci. There's a ton and not studying philosophy is contributing.

Oh I see. I guess I didn't consider looking at philosophy as, ultimately what it really is, just something else to be read. Studying it academically made me stop reading fiction altogether, which is a bummer come to think of it. In university, at least the one I attend to, modern philosophy is the strongest research area. But then again, specifically the one I study in has a solid spinozist tradition

I know from what my buddies tell me, it's very kantian/platonic here with added logic. I wouldn't find it as interesting since the Aquinas course is really poor, they can't even explain the 5 ways properly which is in a way understandable because you need to go fucking deep to get it.
I'll read Leibniz and Spinoza eventually, but they aren't as pressing because they'd be more of historical reading as opposed to applied reading.

Where exactly is the "here" you're referring to?
I haven't gotten into medieval philophy yet, at least not anything before Descartes, but it sure seems dense and, well, historical as you put it. Mostly reading modern philosophy to me is better understanding German Idealism, considering that a good understanding of Spinoza does wonders when reading Hegel. And, I read it somewhere in a joke article but it really does apply here: "There's no overcoming Kant like Hegel's overcoming of Kant".

>Where exactly is the "here" you're referring to?
Ex commie slav country
>I haven't gotten into medieval philophy yet, at least not anything before Descartes, but it sure seems dense and, well, historical as you put it.
It's specific because it requires another mindset completely alien to us to properly understand.
It's also interesting because it solves most problems of modern philosophy with ease, it's gotten a sudden revival which started around 1920 and has quite distinguished authors now. It died around 1600 and was completely forgotten for 300 years, to the point most critiques of it don't get it, such as Hume or Locke.
>Mostly reading modern philosophy to me is better understanding German Idealism, considering that a good understanding of Spinoza does wonders when reading Hegel. And, I read it somewhere in a joke article but it really does apply here: "There's no overcoming Kant like Hegel's overcoming of Kant".
I've never gotten into it, it seems quite alien to me in all areas.

I've never quite put it into words like that, but you're absolutely right, those things really are alien to us.

>It's specific because it requires another mindset completely alien to us to properly understand.
>It's also interesting because it solves most problems of modern philosophy with ease, it's gotten a sudden revival which started around 1920 and has quite distinguished authors now. It died around 1600 and was completely forgotten for 300 years, to the point most critiques of it don't get it, such as Hume or Locke.

I'll look into medieval philosophy then, I have no idea but it seems pretty reasonable that this would happen.
About Hegel, you should spend (a lot of) time and read it imo. To me, Hegel is the basis of understanding such different things like German Romanticism to literally every thinker of the 20th century. I mean, Hegel, Marx and Lacan are the future of academia, or so I'm told.

I don't know if it's a mistake, but that's a possible path to try to follow.
The commentary is the one by E. Boutroux, you can find it on : ac-grenoble.fr/PhiloSophie/old2/file/leibniz_monadologie.pdf , p.11.
Note that this a commentary by the professor which helped in the electronic edition of Leibniz' work in public domain ; so I don't know if he's a acknowledged specialist of Leibniz. Nonetheless, once again, the footnote is a possible path about this mysterious referral. If you find the Erdmann (from what I get, it's an acknowledged translation) edition, you could go check directly p. 475 and 477...