4 ms·

Swift's satire of Leibniz wasn't premised on science, it came down to them each occupying opposing political stances at the time in respect of the Whigs and Tor

by nanna 8y ago

Swift's satire of Leibniz wasn't premised on science, it came down to them each occupying opposing political stances at the time in respect of the Whigs and Torys. Remember they were both heavily invested politically. Wiener argues that Swift also had a go at Leibniz through his satire of the little people who tie up Gulliver, which can be read as mocking his concept of infinitely divisible substances. Had a go looking for the refference but can't find. Might be in the manuscript to his last unpublished lectures... What really damaged his reputation for centuries was not Swift though, but the debacle with Newton over the invention of calculus.

olooney 8y ago
That's not surprising. Voltaire's caricature of Leibniz was politically motivated too, or religious, which was all tangled together during the enlightenment. Basically a liberal/atheist criticizing a conservative/religious thinker. And the Leibniz/Newton debate seems to me to have been primarily political too, dividing neatly on national lines. Politics is always with us, it seems. Regardless of who came first, Leibniz's work on calculus was excellent. He knew the chain rule, product and quotient rule, linearity, and how to differentiate powers of x; he defined both integration and differentiation and was aware of (but did not prove) the fundamental theorem of calculus (that integration and differentiation are opposites) We still use his notation today: sigma f(x) dx for integration, and dx/dy for differentiation. In fact, even the word for function, in the sense "f is a function of x", seems original to Leibniz and came directly out of his work on calculus. Leibniz could walk into a classroom today and lecture on his calculus and it wouldn't look much different than a modern Intro to Calculus class. If it hadn't been for the climate of German/English intellectual rivalry it wouldn't have even been an issue. https://www.maa.org/book/export/html/641727 https://www.maa.org/book/export/html/641727
- nanna 8y ago
  Wish I understood calculus as well as you obviously do. I guess the one thing I'd add is that it was a far broader art than just for maths. The classroom today would be pretty surprised to hear how its continuous with metaphysics too. Regarding Leibniz/Newton, not exactly the case that it divided on national lines, because the lines didn't exist in the same way as today. He worked as archivist for the Elector of Hanover George Ludwig, who would be brought over to the UK to become King George I towards the end of Leibniz's life. To Leibniz's consternation, George I would leave him behind in Hanover, where he would die. Lots of theories about why this was the case, but one reason is that Newton and his supporters via the Royal Academy ensured he wouldn't be brought over. Their spat (with Clarke as Newton's mouthpiece) was in the general context of that, hence its rancorous tone. Norbert Wiener at least considered the two centuries of suppression of Leibniz and his calculus and its superior notation in Britain to have held back the British and American sciences.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Minor correction: Voltaire was a deist, not an atheist.

by nanna 8y ago

olooney 8y ago

That's not surprising. Voltaire's caricature of Leibniz was politically motivated too, or religious, which was all tangled together during the enlightenment. Basically a liberal/atheist criticizing a conservative/religious thinker. And the Leibniz/Newton debate seems to me to have been primarily political too, dividing neatly on national lines. Politics is always with us, it seems. Regardless of who came first, Leibniz's work on calculus was excellent. He knew the chain rule, product and quotient rule, linearity, and how to differentiate powers of x; he defined both integration and differentiation and was aware of (but did not prove) the fundamental theorem of calculus (that integration and differentiation are opposites) We still use his notation today: sigma f(x) dx for integration, and dx/dy for differentiation. In fact, even the word for function, in the sense "f is a function of x", seems original to Leibniz and came directly out of his work on calculus. Leibniz could walk into a classroom today and lecture on his calculus and it wouldn't look much different than a modern Intro to Calculus class. If it hadn't been for the climate of German/English intellectual rivalry it wouldn't have even been an issue. https://www.maa.org/book/export/html/641727 https://www.maa.org/book/export/html/641727

nanna 8y ago
Wish I understood calculus as well as you obviously do. I guess the one thing I'd add is that it was a far broader art than just for maths. The classroom today would be pretty surprised to hear how its continuous with metaphysics too. Regarding Leibniz/Newton, not exactly the case that it divided on national lines, because the lines didn't exist in the same way as today. He worked as archivist for the Elector of Hanover George Ludwig, who would be brought over to the UK to become King George I towards the end of Leibniz's life. To Leibniz's consternation, George I would leave him behind in Hanover, where he would die. Lots of theories about why this was the case, but one reason is that Newton and his supporters via the Royal Academy ensured he wouldn't be brought over. Their spat (with Clarke as Newton's mouthpiece) was in the general context of that, hence its rancorous tone. Norbert Wiener at least considered the two centuries of suppression of Leibniz and his calculus and its superior notation in Britain to have held back the British and American sciences.
antidesitter 8y ago
Minor correction: Voltaire was a deist, not an atheist.