Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-10 of 13 documents


articles
1. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Mogens Lærke Monism, Separability and Real Distinction in the Young Leibniz
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this article, I discuss how Leibniz’s first correspondence with Malebranche from early 1676 can shed new light on the notorious “all-things-are-one”-passage (ATOP) found in the Quod ens perfectissimum sit possibile from late 1676—a passage that has been taken as an expression of monism or Spinozism in the young Leibniz. The correspondence with Malebranche provides a deeper understanding of Leibniz’s use of the notions of “real distinction” and “separability” in the ATOP. This forms the background for a discussion of Leibniz’s commitment to the monist position expounded in the ATOP. Thus, on the basis of a close analysis of Leibniz’s use of these key terms in the Malebranche correspondence, I provide two possible, and contrary, interpretations of the ATOP, namely, a “non-commitment account” and a “commitment account.” Finally, I explain why I consider the commitment account to be the more compelling of the two.
2. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Marius Stan Kant’s Early Theory of Motion: Metaphysical Dynamics and Relativity
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper examines the young Kant’s claim that all motion is relative, and argues that it is the core of a metaphysical dynamics of impact inspired by Leibniz and Wolff. I start with some background to Kant’s early dynamics, and show that he rejects Newton’s absolute space as a foundation for it. Then I reconstruct the exact meaning of Kant’s relativity, and the model of impact he wants it to support. I detail (in Section II and III) his polemic engagement with Wolffian predecessors, and how he grounds collisions in a priori dynamics. I conclude that, for the young Kant, the philosophical problematic of Newton’s science takes a back seat to an agenda set by the Leibniz-Wolff tradition of rationalist dynamics. This results matters, because Kant’s views on motion survive well into the 1780s. In addition, his doctrine attests to the richness of early modern views of the relativity of motion.
leibniz texts
3. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Massimo Mugnai “On extrinsic denominations” (LH IV, iii, 5a-e, Bl. 15): Transcription and English Translation
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
book reviews
4. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Maria Rosa Antognazza Leibniz lecteur de Spinoza: La genèse d’une opposition complexe
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
5. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Mogens Lærke La Question du mal chez Leibniz: Fondements et élaboration de la Théodicée
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
6. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Patrick Riley Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Reihe I “Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel,” Band 21: (April – December 1702), (Ed. Leibniz-Archiv Hannover)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
7. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Robert Merrihew Adams Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
8. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Philip Beeley Leibniz und das Judentum
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
discussion
9. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Edward Slowik Another Go-Around on Leibniz and Rotation
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
10. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 19
Anja Jauernig Leibniz on Motion – Reply to Edward Slowik
view |  rights & permissions | cited by