Narrow search


By category:

By publication type:

By language:

By journals:

By document type:


Displaying: 221-240 of 430 documents

0.048 sec

221. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 22
Ohad Nachtomy Nicolas de Cues et G.W. Leibniz: Infini, Expression et Singularité
222. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 22
Paul Lodge Leibniz and the Two Sophies: The Philosophical Correspondence
223. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 22
Daniel Garber Robert Merrihew Adams and Leibniz
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This essay reviews Robert Merrihew Adams’ approaches to the philosophy of Leibniz, both his general methodological approaches, and some of the main themes of his work. It attempts to assess his contribution both to the study of Leibniz and to the history of philosophy more generally.
224. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 22
News from the Leibniz-Gesellschaft Wenchao Li (Hannover/Potsdam)
225. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 22
Alison Peterman Spinoza on the “Principles of Natural Things”
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This essay considers Spinoza’s responses to two questions: what is responsible for the variety in the physical world and by what mechanism do finite bodies causally interact? I begin by elucidating Spinoza’s solution to the problem of variety by considering his comments on Cartesian physics in an epistolary exchange with Tschirnhaus late in Spinoza’s life. I go on to reconstruct Spinoza’s unique account of causation among finite bodies by considering Leibniz’s attack on the Spinozist explanation of variety. It turns out that Spinoza’s explanations of the variety of bodies, on the one hand, and of causation among finite bodies, on the other, generate a tension in his system that can only be resolved by taking Spinoza to employ two notions of “existence.” I conclude by offering evidence that this is in fact what Spinoza does.
226. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 22
Mogens Lærke Paul Rateau (ed.), L’Idée de théodicée de Leibniz à Kant: héritage, transformations, critiques
227. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Stephen Puryear The Leibniz-De Volder Correspondence, with Selections from the Correspondence Between Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli, ed. P. Lodge
228. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Acknowledgments, Subscription Information, Abbreviations
229. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Sarah Tietz Divine Machines: Leibniz and the Sciences of Life, by Justin E. H. Smith
230. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Patrick Riley Brückenschläge: Daniel Ernst Jablonski im Europa der Frühaufklärung, ed. H. Rudolph
231. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Richard T. W. Arthur Massimo Mugnai and the Study of Leibniz
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This essay is an appreciation of Massimo Mugnai’s many contributions to Leibniz scholarship, as well as to the history of logic and history of philosophy more generally.
232. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Martin Lin Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance and Thought by Yitzhak Y. Melamed
233. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
News from the Leibniz-Gesellschaft
234. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Yitzhak Melamed Reply to Colin Marshall and Martin Lin
235. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Justin E. H. Smith Reply to Sarah Tietz
236. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Mogens Lærke, CNRS (UMR 5037) Ignorantia inflat Leibniz, Huet, and the Critique of the Cartesian Spirit
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This article explores the relations between Leibniz and the French erudite Pierre-Daniel Huet in the context of their shared anti-Cartesianism. After an introductory survey of the available commentaries and primary texts, I focus on a publication by Leibniz in the Journal des sçavans from 1693, where he fully endorses the critique of Descartes developed by Huet in his 1689 Censura philosophiae cartesianae. Next, I provide some indications as to Leibniz’s motivations behind this public approval of Huet. First, I show how Leibniz throughout the 1690s was attempting to have his 1692 Animadversiones in partem generalem Principiorum Cartesianorum and other anti-Cartesian items annexed to a reedition of Huet’s Censura. I finally show how these attempts to team up with Huet were prompted by Leibniz’s dislike of certain German Cartesians, in particular J. E. Schweling, and by his fear that orthodox Cartesianism might do irremediable damage to the intellectual ethics of the Republic of Letters.
237. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Richard T. W. Arthur Leibniz’s Mechanical Principles (c. 1676): Commentary and Translation
238. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Larry M. Jorgensen By Leaps and Bounds: Leibniz on Transcreation, Motion, and the Generation of Minds
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This paper traces Leibniz’s use of his neologism, “transcreation.” Leibniz coins the term in his 1676 discussions of motion, using it to identify a certain type of leap that is essential to motion. But Leibniz quickly dispensed with this theory of motion, arguing instead that “nature never acts by leaps,” and the term “transcreation” fell out of use. However, Leibniz surprisingly revived the term in 1709 in his discussion of the generation of rational beings. By contrasting the way Leibniz uses the term in his theory of motion with his use of the term in the generation of rational beings, we will see that Leibniz’s arguments against leaps early in his career are less forceful against the leaps purportedly involved in the generation of minds. Nevertheless, the “transcreation” of minds does not necessary entail a discontinuity in the “chain of being.”
239. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Colin Marshall Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance and Thought, by Yitzhak Melamed
240. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 23
Nicholas Rescher Leibniz and the English Language
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The only extensive study that Leibniz ever made of an English-language book, his New Essays on John Locke’s 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was based not on the English original, but on a French translation. And his correspondence with English scholars and political figures was invariably written in Latin or French. In consequence the impression is widespread among Anglophone Leibnizians that he did not know English. However, considerable evidence has come to light in recent years that Leibniz did somehow manage to acquire a capacity to handle the language in its written form.