ysical philosophy is based on his logical studies, but at the same time there are inconsistencies and contradictions in his thought, as can be seen from the three premisses under discussion:
The explanation, in Bertrand Russell's opinion, is that Leibniz, having an eye to education and to the maintenance of his reputation for orthodoxy, shrank from drawing the logical conclusions of his premisses (Copleston 270).
Jean Baruzi, on the other hand, stated that Leibniz was primarily a religious-minded thinker and that he was animated above all by his zeal for the glory of God. Kuno Fisher offered still another interpretation by stating that Leibniz was the chief embodiment of the spirit of the Enlightenment. Copleston believes there is some truth in all these lines of interpretation:
It is, for example, undoubtedly true that there is a close connection between Leibniz's logical studies and his metaphysics; and it is also true that he wrote down reflections which indicate some apprehension about possible reactions to the conclusions of the lines of thought he was developing, were he to make those conclusions public (Copleston 271).
Ultimately, though, it is simply difficult to pigeon-hole Leibniz in any one way.
Descartes maintained that reality consists fundamentally of two substances, while Spinoza maintained that there is only one. Leibniz argued that there are infinitely many substances, the monads, the simplest units of existence. Each monad is a different substance which is unextended and without parts. Reality therefore does not ultimately consist of anything physical. The human being is a colony of monads, with the dominant monad being that of the spirit, a monad that unifies the colony in being conscious. The individual monads were created all at once by God, and each monad carries within it, from the time of its creation, all that it will ever be. Each monad then unfolds its being in a way that is harmon...