Narrow search

By category:

By publication type:

By language:

By journals:

By document type:

Displaying: 101-120 of 178 documents

0.172 sec

101. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 4
Donald L.M. Baxter Corporeal Substances and True Unities
102. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 5
Donald Rutherford Reply to Jolley’s Review of Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature
103. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 5
A. Guillermo Ranea News From Argentina
104. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 5
Udo Thiel News from Australia
105. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 5
Massimo Mugnai Reply to Cover’s Review of Leibniz’s Theory of Relations
106. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 5
Antonio Lamarra, Roberto Palaia News from Italy
107. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 6
Martha Brandt Bolton The Nominalist Argument of the New Essays
108. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 6
Paul Lodge Leibniz Microfilms at the University of Pennsylvania
109. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 6
Robert Merrihew Adams Response to Carriero, Mugnai, and Garber
110. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 6
Paul Lodge When Did Leibniz Adopt the Pre-established Harmony?
111. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 6
Phil Dowe Recent Work on Leibniz on Miracles
112. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 6
Michael Murray Intellect, Will, and Freedom: Leibniz and His Precursors
113. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 7
Laurence Carlin Infinite Accumulations and Pantheistic Implications: Leibniz and the Anima Mundi
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Throughout his early writings, Leibniz was concerned with developing an acceptable account of God's relationship to the created world. In some of these early writings, he endorsed the idea that this relationship was similar to the human soul's relationship to the body. Though he eventually came to reject this idea, theanima mundi thesis remained the topic of several essays and correspondences during his career, culminating in the correspondence with Clarke. At first glance,Leibniz's discussions of this thesis may seem less important in comparison to others, since it might seem like a topic which is far removed from what are regarded as his most important philosophical doctrines. I hope to show in what follows that such a view is mistaken. The large amount of attention Leibniz paid to this thesis is a sure indication of its importance to him. Further, as we shall see, his discussions of this thesis tum on some of his most interesting metaphysical topics, including the development of his thinking about the actual infinite, the structure of organic wholes, and the relationship between God and the created universe. In what follows, I examine these discussions chronologically, from the De Summa Rerum (1675-6), to the correspondence with Clarke (1715-6).
114. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 7
Michael J. Latzer Topical Outline of the THEODICY
115. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 7
Massimo Mugnai An Unpublished Latin Text on Terms and Relations
116. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 7
Paul Lodge Force and the Nature of Body in Discourse on Metaphysics §§17-18
117. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 7
Philip Beeley Response to Arthur, Mercer, Smith, and Wilson
118. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 7
Patrick Riley Response to Rutherford
119. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 8
Brandon Look On an Unpublished Manuscript of Leibniz (LH IV.I.1aBl.7): New Light on the Vinculum Substantiale and the Correspondence with Des Bosses
120. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 8
Marcelo Dascal Language in the Mind’s House
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
It happened to me one day to say that Cartesianism, in what good it has, was only the anteroom of true philosophy. A person in the company, who frequented the court, was well read, and even had ideas about science, pressed the figure into an allegory-maybe a little too far. For, he asked me whether I didn’t think that one could say, along the same line, that the ancients led us up the staircase, that the modem school had arrived at the guards’ room, and that, if the innovators of our century had managed to reach the anteroom, he wished me the honor of introducing us into Nature’s sanctum. This parallel made us all laugh, and I told him, “You see, Sir, your comparison has rejoiced the company. But you forgot that between the anteroom and the sanctum there is the audience chamber, and that it will be enough if we obtain audience, without purporting to penetrate in the inner sanctum” (VE, p. 1867).