finally getting around to reading leibniz's discourse on metaphysics, it's quite short so i will be done soon.

i reread parts of kant's first critique to settle me into actually reading leibniz in his own words. leibniz is one of the few philosophers kant mounts systematic argumentation against in this text.

it seems to me that kant was much more influenced by hume than i realised--i used to enjoy the savaging of the 'scholastic rationalist' leibniz by kant, but now after having given leibniz independent attention i am fed up with the whole noumena/phenomena distinction.

and, frankly, kant's whole philosophy strikes me as far too skeptical. hume may have awoken kant from his 'dogmatic slumbers' but is the alternative adopted actually any good?

having spent a long time as a post-grad, i can tell you that in analytic philosophy you are only permitted to speak favourably of hume, and to some extent kant. metaphysics, plato, rationalism--everything linked to leibniz is taboo.