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?
|
|
|