181.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
2
Graeme Hunter
Leibniz et l’école moderne du droit naturel
|
|
|
182.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Robert Merrihew Adams
Continuity and Development of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Body:
A Response to Daniel Garber’s Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad
|
|
|
183.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
News from the Leibniz-Gesellschaft
|
|
|
184.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Recent Works on Leibniz
|
|
|
185.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Announcement, Acknowledgments, Subscription Information, Abbreviations
|
|
|
186.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Tamar Levanon
A Reply to Anja Jauernig’s article, ‘Leibniz on Motion and the Equivalence of Hypothesis,’ The Leibniz Review, Vol. 18, 2008
|
|
|
187.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Paul Lodge
The Empirical Grounds for Leibniz’s ‘Real Metaphysics’
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
In discussion of Leibniz’s philosophical methodology Donald Rutherford defends the view that Leibniz regarded metaphysics as an a priori demonstrative science. In the course of this discussion Rutherford isolates and tries to deflect a significant challenge for his view, namely the observation that in many of his mature writings on metaphysics Leibniz appears to defend his views by means of a posteriori arguments. I present some prima facie difficulties with Rutherford’s position and then offer an alternative account of how Leibniz thought he needed to establish metaphysical claims. My suggestion is that the challenge that Rutherford poses may be best answered by attending to the fact that Leibniz recognized a kind of metaphysical enquiry, ‘real metaphysics’, that is essentially a posteriori, in virtue of the fact that it is concerned not just with possible kinds of beings, but with the kinds of beings that God actually created.
|
|
|
188.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
R. C. Sleigh,
Comments on Dan Garber’s Book, Leibniz:
Body, Substance, Monad
|
|
|
189.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Massimo Mugnai
Leibniz’s “Schedae de novis formis syllogisticis” (1715):
Text and Translation
|
|
|
190.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Massimo Mugnai
Leibniz and ‘Bradley’s Regress’
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
In a text written during his stay in Paris, Leibniz, to deny ontological reality to relations, employs an argument well known to the medieval thinkers and which later would be revived by Francis H. Bradley. If one assumes that relations are real and that a relation links any property to a subject – so runs the argument – then one falls prey to an infinite regress. Leibniz seems to be well aware of the consequences that this argument has for his own metaphysical views, where the relation of inherence (‘inesse’) plays such a central role. Thus, he attempts first to interpret the relation of inherence as something ‘metaphoric’, originating from our ‘spatial way’ of looking at the surrounding world; and then he tries to reduce it to the part-whole relation which clearly he considers weaker, from the ontological point of view, than that of ‘being in’.
|
|
|
191.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Patrick Riley
Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe
|
|
|
192.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Patrick Riley
L’Angelologia Leibniziana
|
|
|
193.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Daniel Garber
Reply to Robert Sleigh and Robert Adams
|
|
|
194.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
20
Justin E. H. Smith
Leibniz, le vivant et l’organisme
|
|
|
195.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
21
Mogens Lærke
A Conjecture about a Textual Mystery:
Leibniz, Tschirnhaus and Spinoza’s Korte Verhandeling
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
In this article, I propose a conjecture concerning the transmission of Spinoza’s Korte Verhandeling (KV) in the 1670s involving Leibniz. On the basis of a report about Spinoza’s philosophy written down by Leibniz after some conversations with Tschirnhaus in early 1676, I suggest that Tschirnhaus may have had in his possession a manuscript copy of KV and that his account of Spinoza’s doctrine to Leibniz was colored by this text. I support the hypothesis partly by means of external evidence, but mainly through a comparative analysis of Leibniz’s report and the doctrine contained in KV, showing that the report in important respects corresponds better to this text than to Ethics. I finally point to the importance that this hypothesis, if true, would have for our knowledge of Tschirnhaus’ role in the first diffusion of Spinoza’s philosophy outside Holland and for our understanding Leibniz’s reception of Spinoza in the mid-1670s.
|
|
|
196.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
21
Mogens Lærke
Toland et Leibniz. L’Invention du néo-spinozisme
|
|
|
197.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
21
Yitzhak Y. Melamed
From Bondage to Freedom:
Spinoza on Human Excellence
|
|
|
198.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
21
Michael LeBuffe
Reply to Yitzhak Melamed
|
|
|
199.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
21
Michael Futch
La métaphysique du temps chez Leibniz et Kant
|
|
|
200.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
21
Recent Works on Leibniz
|
|
|