Narrow search


By category:

By publication type:

By language:

By journals:

By document type:


Displaying: 101-120 of 430 documents

0.046 sec

101. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 15
Ohad Nachtomy Leibniz on the Greatest Number and the Greatest Being
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In notes from 1675-76 Leibniz is using the notion of an infinite number as an illustration of an impossible notion. In the same notes, he is also using this notion in contrast to the possibility of the ‘Ens perfectissumum’ (A.6.3 572; Pk 91; A.6.3 325). I suggest that Leibniz’s concern about the possibility of the notion of ‘the greatest or the most perfect being’ is partly motivated by his observation that similar notions, such as ‘the greatest number’, are impossible. This leads to the question how Leibniz convinced himself that the notion of the greatest number is self-contradictory and that of the greatest being is not. I consider two suggestions, one that stress the difference between beings and numbers and one that stress the difference between two notions of infinity, and conclude that neither of them provides a satisfactory solution to this question.
102. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 15
Marleen Rozemond Leibniz: Nature and Freedom
103. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 15
Yitzhak Y. Melamed Causa sive Ratio: La Raison de la cause, de Suarez à Leibniz
104. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 15
(LH XXXV, I, 14, bl. 57)
105. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 15
Acknowledgements, Abbreviations Used in Articles and Reviews
106. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 15
Paul Lodge Garber’s Interpretations of Leibniz on Corporeal Substance in the ‘Middle Years’
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In 1985 Daniel Garber published his highly intluential paper “Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years”. In two recent articles, Garber returns to these issues with a new position - that we should perhaps conclude that Leibniz did not have a view concerning the ultimate ontology of substance during his middle years. I discuss the viability of this position and consider some more general methodological issues that arise from this discussion.
107. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Herbert Breger News from the Leibniz-Gesellschaft
108. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Glenn A. Hartz Reply to Philip Beeley
109. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Acknowledgments, Abbreviations Used in Articles and Reviews
110. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Andreas Blank Reply to Brandon Look
111. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Jérémie Griard Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe
112. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Stefano Di Bella Reply to Donald Rutherford
113. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Yitzhak Y. Melamed Inherence and the Immanent Cause in Spinoza
114. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Michael J. Murray Leibniz and His Correspondents
115. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Andreas Blank Leibniz on Justice as a Common Concept: A Rejoinder to Patrick Riley
116. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Donald Rutherford The Science of the Individual: Leibniz’s Ontology of Individual Substance
117. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Vincenzo De Risi Leibniz around 1700: Three Texts on Metaphysics
118. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Brandon C. Look Leibniz: Metaphilosophy and Metaphysics, 1666-1686
119. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Peter Loptson Leibniz’s Body Realism: Two Interpretations
120. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 16
Michael J. Seidler The Gift of Science: Leibniz and the Modern Legal Tradition