WORKSHOP ON TEACHING THE PHILOSOPHY OF LEIBNIZ

Session at the conference on Leibniz and the English-Speaking World

Liverpool, 5 September 2003

Report by George MacDonald Ross

The session was attended by 16 people, the majority of whom were from outside the UK
(especially from the US). It lasted a little over one hour. This report does not rigidly
adhere to the order in which points were made, and I have taken the liberty of adding a
few details in square brackets.

Levels at which Leibniz is taught

Leibniz was sometimes taught as part of an elementary Descartes-to-Kant course (on
which some students might go no further in philosophy) — though there was a move
away from a cocktail of as many as 8 philosophers. If fewer philosophers were
included, each could be covered in greater depth (though Leibniz might not be one of
them). Some departments could offer a more advanced course (e.g. the Continental
rationalists), in which Leibniz would play a greater role. In a few cases Leibniz might
be taught in a specialised taught course for postgraduates, in which case a much more
scholarly approach could be taken.

Choice of core text

The Monadology was a suitable text, because it was succinct, and could provide
continuity between other selected passages. However, some considered it unsuitable, on
the grounds that:
• it was written for a particular occasion;
• it was for a popular audience;
• it was insincere;
• it covered only part of Leibniz’s philosophy, and was written towards the
end of his life;
• it gave a wrong impression of what philosophy is about, since it lacked
philosophical argumentation.
Rescher’s edition of the Monadology was commended as especially useful, because it
included explanations, and extracts from other relevant works.
One participant suggested that the Discourse on Metaphysics went down better with
students. Another (from Belgium) had given a course on the Discourse and the
Monadology, taking advantage of good commentaries in French; but much explanation
was still needed. Yet another (from Japan) had used the Monadology in conjunction
with Rescher’s book — and it worked well.
It was suggested that different works might be suitable for different students — for
example, students of the philosophy of religion would profit from extracts from the
Theodicy.
Texts versus excerpts
Should a complete treatise be used, or just excerpts? A UK participant preferred to use a
whole work, supplemented by extracts from other writings (even as only part of a
general course on pre-Kantian philosophy). Excerpts required more explanation, with
the result that teaching could become heavily lecture-focussed. A German participant
pointed out that if you give the students too much to read, they don’t read anything.
A US participant said that, while students were capable of reading Locke by themselves,
because they could pick out what was important, they found this too difficult in the case
of Leibniz — so it might be better to give them secondary literature instead.

Collected editions
At least at graduate level, students needed more than there is in undergraduate texts, but
less than there is in, say, the Yale translations. There was some discussion as to whether
postgraduates should use translations at all, and a distinction was made between taught
courses for postgraduates who were not specialising in Leibniz, and those who were
writing PhD theses on Leibniz. Loemker was about the right length, but the book was
poorly organised, and the translations were often inaccurate. It seemed to have queered
the pitch for a better collected edition of a similar length.
One person suggested that it would be helpful to have a selection of texts arranged by
topic. Anther suggested that texts should be in chronological order, so that students
could follow Leibniz’s development.
Much of the secondary literature which publishers marketed as for students was too
difficult (e.g. Savile’s book).

Leibniz’s philosophy as bizarre

Leibniz’s philosophy might seem less bizarre if one started with something even more
bizarre, such as Conway. Yet the bizarreness could be an advantage, by setting up
markers for questions.

Teaching methods
A Belgian participant suggested that teaching should be more of an entertainment. She
had used techniques such as:
• setting the students homework in small groups;
• playing games such as a debate between Leibniz and a critic;
• getting the students to compile a glossary of difficult terms, with each
student responsible for a number of terms.
It was suggested that students found it easier to write in the form of a dialogue than of a
formal essay — in Leibniz’s own time, some textbooks were in dialogue form (and the
same was true of many philosophical classics).
There was some discussion of the problem of getting students to read independently at
all, given that many now enter university without having had any such experience at
school. Two suggestions were made, both labour-intensive:
• give frequent feedback on exercises;
• require students to contribute to a threaded discussion list, and monitor
contributions (though some students are put off by electronic media).
Leibniz’s references to other philosophers
The fact that Leibniz’s writings contain many references to other philosophers ought to
be an opportunity rather than a problem. It should be possible to treat everything in
Leibniz as a response to philosophers previously studied. One US participant had tried
this using Ariew & Garber, but not very successfully. There was a danger of talking
about too many philosophers.

Why teach Leibniz?

One participant raised the fundamental question of what our objective is in teaching
Leibniz at undergraduate level. Suggestions were:
• Leibniz is an essential part of a historical story, which philosophy students
need to understand (by contrast with science students);
• Leibniz is a supreme exemplar of a philosopher uniting everything into a
single coherent system (though it is often difficult for young undergraduates
to appreciate this, and there is insufficient time for more than the broadest
overview);
• Leibniz is essential background for understanding other philosophers, such
as Kant (the suggestion was made that Wolff might be more appropriate, but
there was little enthusiasm for replacing Leibniz by Wolff in the pantheon of
canonical philosophers);
• Leibniz’s philosophy is more controversial than, say, that of Locke (which
most students seem to find common sense), and it stimulates more fruitful
philosophical discussion among students.

On-line resources
One UK participant based a course on an on-line version of Ariew & Garber, which had
the advantage of allowing exercises involving searches. However, it was expensive (the
site licence cost the department about $700 p.a.). It was regrettable that other collections
were not available on-line, because, although Ariew & Garber was better for Leibniz’s
science and for his criticisms of Descartes, Francks & Woolhouse was better for
metaphysics and the philosophy of mind.
The problem was raised that, if students were left to their own devices, they had no
means of evaluating the quality of websites they might visit on their own accord.
However, they could be given guidance through gateways such as the HUMBUL
humanities gateway, where the philosophy resources had been evaluated by employees
of the PRS-LTSN [http://www.humbul.ac.uk/philosophy]. [Students might also be
directed to the Resource Discovery Network Virtual Training Suite, which provides a
tutorial on how to search the net for philosophy materials — also supplied by the PRS-
LTSN: http://www.vts.rdn.ac.uk/tutorial/philosophy.]
For Leibniz materials, the websites maintained by Greg Brown
[http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/Leibniz] and Don Rutherford
[http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rutherford/Leibniz] were particularly recommended. It
was noted that Paul Lodge’s site was no longer active.
Philip Bealey announced that Glenn Hartz was intending to include a section on internet
resources in future issues of the Leibniz Review, with a special emphasis on electronic
texts and translations. The URLs of any items should be sent to Philip [beeley@uni-
muenster.de] or Glenn [hartz.1@osu.edu]. The Bibliothèque Nationale of France had an
impressive list of electronic Leibniz resources, and A.VI.4 would soon be freely
available in pdf format from the Münster site [http://www.uni-
muenster.de/Leibniz/Welcome.html]. Reference was also made to translations recently
made available by Lloyd Strickland [http://www.leibniz-translations.com/index.php].
[George MacDonald Ross has a freely available translation of the Monadology, with a
running commentary viewable in a split screen, at http://www.prs-
ltsn.leeds.ac.uk/generic/screentexts/leibframe.html. Clicking the link in the translation
brings up the relevant commentary, and vice versa.]