Daniel Cook

Leibniz was interested in Jews and Judaism not only within the framework of his philosophy, but also within his studies as a lawyer, librarian, ecumenical theologian, and on a personal basis as resident of Hannover. However, research has so far neglected his attitude towards Judaism and its expression in Jewish religion, the Kabbala, the Hebrew Bible, the Rabbinic tradition, and even his Jewish contemporaries, their works and their legal status. This volume closes the gap by presenting the results of an international conference in Potsdam, where notable Leibniz scholars discussed his attitudes towards Jews and Judaism and studied them from a variety of perspectives. German info text: Leibniz beschaftigte sich nicht nur in seiner Philosophie, sondern auch in seinen Arbeiten als Jurist, als Bibliothekar, als theologischer Okumeniker und nicht zuletzt in seinem Alltagsleben in der Residenz Hannover immer wieder mit Juden und mit Judentum. Dennoch wurde bisher in der Forschung seine Einstellung zum Judentum kaum durchleuchtet etwa zur juedischen Religion, zur Kabbala, zur hebraischen Bibel und rabbinischen Tradition oder zu seinen juedischen Zeitgenossen selbst, ihren Werken und ihrer Rechtsstellung. Hier blieb die Analyse von Leibniz personlicher Haltung und theoretischer Reflexion ein Desiderat. Diese Forschungsluecke schlieat der vorliegende Band. Er prasentiert die Ergebnisse einer internationalen Konferenz in Potsdam, auf der ausgewiesene Leibniz-Forscher dessen Verhaltnis zu Judentum und Juden diskutierten und aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven in den Blick nahmen.

During Leibniz's lifetime, interest in the interpretation of the Bible and biblical prophecy became central to the theological and political concerns of Protestant Europe. Leibniz's treatment of this phenomenon will be examined in the light of his views on the nature of revelation and its role in his defence of Christianity. It will be argued that Leibniz's defence of the miracle of revelation (and its vehicle, biblical prophecy) – unlike his arguments on behalf of the core Christian mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation – is demonstrable by purely natural and scientific means, especially the verification of history

During Leibniz's lifetime, interest in the interpretation of the Bible and biblical prophecy became central to the theological and political concerns of Protestant Europe. Leibniz's treatment of this phenomenon will be examined in the light of his views on the nature of revelation and its role in his defence of Christianity. It will be argued that Leibniz's defence of the miracle of revelation – unlike his arguments on behalf of the core Christian mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation – is demonstrable by purely natural and scientific means, especially the verification of history

Während viel über Leibniz und China geschrieben wurde, fand seine Beschäftigung mit dem anderen "Orient" — dem Nahen Osten — wenig Beachtung. Mein Beitrag widmet sich daher Leibniz' Haltung gegenüber dem Islam und dessen Anhängern. Abgesehen von der osmanischen Bedrohung für Zentral-Europa, die zur Zeit seiner mittleren Schaffensperiode im Abnehmen begriffen war, wird der Islam von Leibniz in erster Linie als theologisches System behandelt. Leibniz äußerte sich zu den ihm zur Verfügung stehenden islamischen und arabischen Quellen und zeigte ein wachsendes Interesse an ihnen. In dem Leibniz' Haltung gegenüber dem islamischen/arabischen Orient untersucht wird, vertieft sich auch unser Verständnis gegenüber seiner lebenslangen Suche nach einem Dialog zwischen Christentum und anderen Glaubensrichtungen, wie auch die Rolle der islamischen Theologie innerhalb des europäischen religiösen Denkens beleuchtet wird. Schließlich zeigt sich Leibniz' Haltung gegenüber dem Islam als repräsentativ für viele Denker im Europa der frühen Aufklärung

G. W. Leibniz has been praised as an exemplar of tolerance on both theological and political grounds. His irenic efforts within Christendom as well as his positive attitude towards pagans like the Chinese is well documented. He thought that “the great majority of mankind” were already “civilized”. This paper highlights Leibniz’s political treatment of the “uncivilized” peoples, whom he termed “barbarians” and “savages”. Given Leibniz’s worldly outlook and prodigious reading, including writings detailing the horrors inflicted on the natives of the Americas, he blithely ignored a reality that was quite at odds with his own vision for such peoples. The dissonance between his ideas on how to treat “barbarian” peoples (whom he considered to be fully human and deserving of mutual respect) and his awareness of their actual treatment in many nascent European colonies is striking. The only conclusion that can be reached (though Leibniz never says so explicitly) is that their conversion to Christianity and the consequent enlightenment of their posterity trumped their present suffering.

The right to refuse medical intervention is well established, but it remains unclear how best to respect and exercise this right in life support. Contemporary ethical guidelines for critical care give ambiguous advice, largely because they focus on the moral equivalence of withdrawing and withholding care without confronting the very real differences regarding who is aware and informed of intervention options and how patient values are communicated and enacted. In withholding care, doctors typically withhold information about interventions judged too futile to offer. They thus retain greater decision-making burden and face weaker obligations to secure consent from patients or proxies. In withdrawing care, there is a clearer imperative for the doctor to include patients in decisions, share information and secure consent, even when continued life support is deemed futile. How decisions to withhold and withdraw life support differ ethically in their implications for positive versus negative interpretations of patient autonomy, imperatives for consent, definitions of futility and the subjective evaluation of benefits and burdens of life support in critical care settings are explored. Professional reflection is required to respond to trends favouring a more positive interpretation of patient autonomy in the context of life support decisions in critical care. Both the bioethics and critical care communities should investigate the possibilities and limits of growing pressure for doctors to disclose their reasoning or seek patient consent when decisions to withhold life support are made