Talk:Characteristica universalis

message: There should be a mention to Leibniz's first ideas on this topic, as exposed in De Arte Combinatoria.
I may do this when I have the time. Also any other wikipedian might do it... Javirl 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: De Arte Combinatoria

message: I have edited out the following comments on the account that the notion of an error by Leibniz, and the notion of  "an architectonic structure for human knowledge" is not previously mentioned as part of the Characteristica Universalis in the article, or in Leibniz's writings, but also there is no evidence given for this claim. If evidence can be given then it should be reinstated in the main article. Sholto Maud 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have forgotten where I inserted the passage to which you object. Hence I cannot comment on how it fits in with any wider point I sought to make. I wrote "error" to avoid employing Loemker's much stronger word "delusion." For a man as kind as Loemker was to employ the word "delusion" was to make a very strong statement indeed. As for my last sentence, the point it makes strikes me as utterly obvious. Believe me, it is remarkable how little people employed in different university departments have in common. That Leibniz also intended his characteristica and the like to serve and advance an architectonic structure of human knowledge also strikes me as obvious. That Leibniz could be capable of error also requires no discussion, and is amply attested to by many footnotes in, e.g., Loemker.202.36.179.65 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Leibniz also intended his characteristica and the like to serve and advance an architectonic structure of human knowledge is obvious to me too, but I have not seen mention of this in Leibniz's work...I may not have looked hard enough...(I am hesitant about saying anything about the "architectonic" content of Leibniz's works because this is precisely how historians have labelled H.T.Odum's works). This article is getting good, tight citations, so I thought one should follow this trend. Sholto Maud 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leibniz's error

message: The last sentence is "Even now, most of this huge Nachlass remains unpublished." I honestly believe that sentence does support Gödels conspiracy claims, doesn't it ? Why was is not published ? Does this also mean that Gödel only studied the miniscule fraction of published texts ? This should be a) looked at properly, Gödel was a bright man, perhaps he was on to something b) the sentence should be changed in some way as to show the discrepancy.--83.189.52.169 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gödels Conpiracy Theory

message: To all who have thus far contributed and continue to take an interest, even though there is more to be done, I think it can be said that we have done some good collaborative work in expounding this aspect of Leibniz's philosophy. Well done. :) Sholto Maud 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work so far

message: Maybe it would be good to class these into different aspects of Leibniz's approach to spirituatlity, logic, systematic philosophy, physics, etc. This might also clarify further whether the article needs main sections on how the characteristica is related to such aspects, to spell out more clearly how the characteristica was related to Leibniz's metaphysics, religious views and the like. Sholto Maud 10:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Recent projects

message: I've changed "specieuse generale" to "spécieuse générale", based on my rather elementary knowledge of French; Googling for "specieuse generale" with the search restricted to French-language pages strongly suggests that this is the correct spelling. Please let me know if I'm wrong about this. -- The Anome 10:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spécieuse générale 

message: Some of the removed text below may be more relevant to unversal language, IALA and the Gode pages.Sholto Maud 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gode

message: I don't think this section is notable whatsoever; it is both vague in its relationship to Leibniz's overall philosophy, and it gives the false implication that Leibniz subscribed to an Aristotelian view of matter's composition. I suggest its removal. Fearwig 04:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose its removal on the reason that it is a part of Leibniz's work and related to his CU. Sholto Maud 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: "His diagrammatic reasoning" 

message: Where exactly does he mention this concept? This information is very important, as it would allow an insight in Leibniz' texts themselves.--Hannesde Correct me! 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring concept 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Characteristica universalis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207025559/http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu:80/~rutherford/Leibniz/intro.htm to http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rutherford/Leibniz/intro.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a connection between this and Leibniz' essay Lingua generalis? --Palnatoke (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection?