articles |
261.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Stefano Di Bella
Leibniz’s Theory of Conditions:
A Framework for Ontological Dependence
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
The aim of this paper is to trace in Leibniz’s drafts the sketched outline of a conceptual framework he organized around the key concept of ‘requisite’. We are faced with the project of a semi-formal theory of conditions, whose logical skeleton can have a lot of different interpretations. In particular, it is well suited to capture some crucial relations of ontological dependence. Firstly the area of ‘mediate requisites’ is explored - where causal and temporal relations are dealt with on the basis of a general theory of ‘consequence’.Then the study of ‘immediate requisites’ is taken into account - a true sample of mereological inquiry, where Leibniz strives for a unitary treatment of part-whole relation, conceptual inclusion and inherence. Far from simply conflating these relations one with another and with causality, therefore, Leibniz tried to spell them out, while at the same time understanding them within a single conceptual framework.
|
|
|
262.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Stephen M. Puryear
Was Leibniz Confused about Confusion?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Leibniz’s physicalism about colors and other sensible qualities commits him to two theses about our knowledge of those qualities: first, that we can acquire ideas of sensible qualities apart from any direct acquaintance with the qualities themselves; second, that we can acquire distinct (i.e., non-confused) ideas of such qualities through the development of physical-theoretical accounts. According to some commentators, however, Leibniz frequently denies both claims. His views on the subject are muddled and incoherent, they say, both because he is ambivalent about the nature of sensible qualities, and because he gets confused about confusion, losing sight of his own distinction between the confusion proper to perceptions and that proper to ideas. In opposition to this, I argue that the critics have misunderstood Leibniz’s views, which are both consistent over time and coherent. The key to understanding his position is toappreciate what he characterizes as a kind of redundancy in our ideas of sensible qualities, a crucial feature of his view overlooked by the critics.
|
|
|
leibniz texts |
263.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Vincenzo De Risi
Leibniz on Geometry:
Two Unpublished Texts with Translation and Commentary
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
264.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
(LH XXXV, I, 14, bl. 57)
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
265.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
(LH XXXV, I, 14, bl. 23-24)
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
book reviews |
266.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Marleen Rozemond
Leibniz:
Nature and Freedom
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
267.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Yitzhak Y. Melamed
Causa sive Ratio:
La Raison de la cause, de Suarez à Leibniz
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
268.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Massimo Mugnai
Calculus Universalis:
Studien zur Logik von G. W. Leibniz
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
discussion |
269.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Patrick Riley
Leibniz’ Méditation sur la notion commune de la justice:
A Reply to Andreas Blank
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
270.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Recent Works on Leibniz
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
271.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Herbert Breger
News from the Leibniz-Gesellschaft
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
272.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
15
Acknowledgements, Abbreviations Used in Articles and Reviews
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
273.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
Michael J. Murray
Pre-Leibnizian Moral Necessity
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
The mature Leibniz frequently uses the phrase “moral necessity” in the context of discussing free choice. In this essay I provide a seventeenth century geneology of the phrase. I show that the doctrine of moral necessity was developed by scholastic philosophers who sought to retain a robust notion of freedom while purging bruteness from their systems. Two sorts of bruteness were special targets. The first is metaphysical bruteness, according to which contingent events or states of affairs occur without a sufficient explanation. The second is semantic bruteness according to which a proposition can be true without a truth maker. Denying eithersort of bruteness was thought by some to raise problems for freedom. Defenders of moral necessity thought the notion solved these problems without having to invoke bruteness.
|
|
|
leibniz texts |
274.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
Wolfgang David Cirilo de Melo, James Cussens
Leibniz on Estimating the Uncertain:
An English Translation of De incerti aestimatione with Commentary
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Leibniz’s De incerti aestimatione, which contains his solution to the division problem, has not received much attention, let alone much appreciation. This is surprising because it is in this work that the definition of probability in terms of equally possible cases appears for the first time. The division problem is used to establish and test probability theory; it can be stated as follows: if two players agree to play a game in which one has to win a certain number of rounds in order to win the pool, but if they break the game off before either of them has won the required number of rounds, how should the pool be distributed?Our article has two aims: it provides the readers with the first published English translation of De incerti aestimatione, and it also gives them a brief commentary that explains Leibniz’s philosophical and mathematical concepts necessary in order to understand this work. The translation is as literal as possible throughout; it shows how Leibniz struggled at times to find a solution to the division problem and how he approached it from different angles. The commentary discusses Leibniz’s views on four key concepts: fairness, hope, authority and possibility. The commentary then outlines how Leibniz attempted to solve the problem of division.
|
|
|
275.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
On Estimating the Uncertain
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
book reviews |
276.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
Massimo Mugnai
Substance and Individuation in Leibniz
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
277.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
Patrick Riley
Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Vierte Reihe, Politische Schriften
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
278.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
Nick Trakakis
On Leibniz
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
279.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
J. A. Cover
Leibniz on Purely Extrinsic Denominations
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
280.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
14
Dennis Plaisted
Reply to Cover
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|