321.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
8
R. S. Woolhouse
John Toland and ‘Remarques Critiques sur le Systême de Monsr. Leibnitz de l’Harmonie préétablie’
|
|
|
322.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
8
Stuart Brown
Leibniz on Individuals and Individuation:
The Persistence of Premodern Ideas in Modern Philosophy
|
|
|
323.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
8
Richard Arthur
Infinite Aggregates and Phenomenal Wholes:
Leibniz’s Theory of Substance as a Solution to the Continuum Problem
|
|
|
324.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
8
Laurence B. McCullough
Response to Brown
|
|
|
325.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
8
Marleen Rozemond
Leibniz’s ‘New System’ and Associated Contemporary Texts
|
|
|
326.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
George Gale
Leibniz:
Representation, Continuity, and the Spatio-Temporal
|
|
|
327.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Mark A. Kulstad
Leibnizian Meditations on Monism, Force, and Substance, in relation to Descartes, Spinoza and Malebranche
|
|
|
328.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Franklin Perkins
Ideas and Self-Reflection in Leibniz
|
|
|
329.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Herbert Breger
News from Germany
|
|
|
330.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Acknowledgments, Abbreviations Used in Articles and Reviews
|
|
|
331.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Recent Works on Leibniz
|
|
|
332.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Richard Arthur
Infinite Number and the World Soul; in Defence of Carlin and Leibniz
|
|
|
333.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Marc Bobro
Is Leibniz’s Theory of Personal Identity Coherent?
|
|
|
334.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Justin Erik Halldór Smith
Mundus combinatus:
Studien zur Struktur der barocken Universalwissenschaft, am Beispiel Athanasius Kirchers, SJ, 1602-1680
|
|
|
335.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Patrick Riley
Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Fünfzehnter Band
|
|
|
336.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
9
Catherine Wilson
Margaret Dauler Wilson:
A Life in Philosophy
|
|
|
337.
|
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.
|
|
|
338.
|
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.
|
|
|
339.
|
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.
|
|
|
340.
|
The Leibniz Review:
Volume >
28
Dedication
|
|
|