Narrow search


By category:

By publication type:

By language:

By journals:

By document type:


Displaying: 121-140 of 189 documents

0.124 sec

121. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 8
Paul Lodge The Failure of Leibniz’s Correspondence with De Volder
122. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 8
Konrad Moll Science and Ethics in Leibniz: A reply to Philip Beeley’s review of “Der junge Leibniz III”
123. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 8
R. S. Woolhouse John Toland and ‘Remarques Critiques sur le Systême de Monsr. Leibnitz de l’Harmonie préétablie’
124. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 8
Richard Arthur Infinite Aggregates and Phenomenal Wholes: Leibniz’s Theory of Substance as a Solution to the Continuum Problem
125. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 8
Laurence B. McCullough Response to Brown
126. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 9
Mark A. Kulstad Leibnizian Meditations on Monism, Force, and Substance, in relation to Descartes, Spinoza and Malebranche
127. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 9
Franklin Perkins Ideas and Self-Reflection in Leibniz
128. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 9
Richard Arthur Infinite Number and the World Soul; in Defence of Carlin and Leibniz
129. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 9
Marc Bobro Is Leibniz’s Theory of Personal Identity Coherent?
130. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 9
Catherine Wilson Margaret Dauler Wilson: A Life in Philosophy
131. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 28
Massimo Mugnai An Appreciation of Richard Arthur
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This is an appreciation of Richard Arthur, assessing his contributions to Leibniz studies and recounting the nature of our friendship over the past 30 years.
132. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 28
Jen Nguyen Leibniz on Place
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Although scholars have given much attention to Leibniz’s view of space, they have given far less attention to his view of place. This neglect is regrettable because Leibniz holds that place is more fundamental than space. What is more, I argue that Leibniz’s view of place is novel, strange and yet, appealing. To have a Leibnizian place is to have a point of view. And nothing more. Because this reading is likely to sound counterintuitive, the first half of the paper motivates my reading by arguing that point of view plays a foundational role for Leibniz. Consequently, it would be reasonable for Leibniz to identify place with something so foundational. Having provided Leibnizian reasons for identifying place with point of view, I then argue that Leibniz identifies place with point of view by analyzing some neglected texts. I close by considering a worry from the Clarke Correspondence.
133. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 28
Richard T. W. Arthur The Hegelian Roots of Russell's Critique of Leibniz
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
At the turn of the century (1899-1903) Bertrand Russell advocated an absolutist theory of space and time, and scornfully rejected Leibniz’s relational theory in his Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (1900). But by the time of the second edition (1937), he had proposed highly influential relational theories of space and time that had much in common with Leibniz’s own views. Ironically, he never acknowledges this. In trying to get to the bottom of this enigma, I looked further at contemporary texts by Russell, and also those he might have relied on, especially that of Robert Latta. I found that, like Latta’s, Russell’s interpretation of Leibniz was heavily conditioned by his immersion in neo-Hegelian and neo-Kantian philosophy prior to 1898, and that the doctrine of internal relations he attributes to Leibniz was more nearly the view of Lotze.
134. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 28
Richard T. W. Arthur On the Non-Idealist Leibniz: A Reply to Samuel Levey
135. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 28
Tamar Levanon Organism and Harmony: Leibniz's Thought at the Turn of the Twentieth Century
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This paper examines the role that Leibniz’s philosophy played in the debate between the Idealists and their opponents at the turn of the twentieth century. While it is Russell’s The Philosophy of Leibniz (1900) which is most frequently referred to in this context, this paper focuses on John Dewey’s Leibniz’s New Essays which was written twelve years earlier, during the Hegelian phase of Dewey’s career. It is important to shift our attention to Dewey’s commentary not only because it has been almost entirely neglected, but also because it provides a broader perspective on the role of the Leibnizian system in one of the leading debates in the history of philosophy, namely the debate over the intelligibility of the idea of internal relations. In particular, Dewey’s book reveals Leibniz’s involvement in the emergence of the notion of organism which was at the heart of the debate.
136. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 28
Paul Rateau The Bulletin Leibnizien IV 2018: A Critical Notice
137. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
R. C. Sleigh, Jr. An Appreciation of Dan Garber
138. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Marleen Rozemond Leibniz on Internal Action and Why Mills Can't Think
139. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Robert Merrihew Adams Daniel Garber, Leibniz, and Early Modern Philosophy
140. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Paul Rateau Comments on “Leibniz on Internal Action and Why Mills Can't Think”: Or, Is the "Mill Argument" a Real Argument?