Write an essay (of roughly 3-4 pp. or 900-1200 words) posing an interpretive problem concerning one of pieces by Leibniz that we have read.

This is intended to be analogous to the first component of a standard sort of essay on a philosopher—i.e., one which poses and suggests a solution to a problem of interpretation raised by something that philosopher says.

Although it is not the only possibility, the sort of problem that is most commonly addressed—and probably the one it will be easiest for you to pose—is a case where the philosopher makes a claim or claims that seem obviously wrong for some reason. The extreme example of this is a case of apparent inconsistency, where a claim appears to contradict a claim made by the philosopher elsewhere. However, it is enough that a claim violates common sense or otherwise to leads you to ask, “Could that really be what was meant?”

I’d recommend that you focus, in the first instance, on a single passage or group of closely related passages. Particularly with Leibniz, the problematic assertion might show up in many places; but, in this short paper, you should not attempt to survey such a range of examples.

Of course, you will need to describe this passage and relevant aspects of its context. And you will also need to explain why you think there is a problem with it. Beyond this, you might consider a failed attempt at a solution to the problem; and, in doing this, you may need to briefly address other passages. For example, you may need to cite evidence to show that the problem cannot be avoided by supposing that Leibniz understood the claim to have a weaker sense than it appears to have.

Although it would not be wrong to suggest a solution to the problem you pose—a solution, that is, which you think may be viable—you should not devote very much of this paper to such a suggestion. Your focus here should be on describing what Leibniz says and why it seems problematic.