Cover of The Leibniz Review
Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-20 of 455 documents


1. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share

articles

2. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Daniel Garber

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
3. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Donald Rutherford

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Leibniz denies that the actual world possesses the per se unity of a substance. Instead, he seems to hold, the world is limited to the mind-dependent unity of an aggregate. Against this answer, criticized by Kant in his Inaugural Dissertation, I argue that for Leibniz the unity of the actual world is not grounded simply in God’s perception of relations among created substances but in the common dependence of those substances on a unitary cause. First, the actual world is one because every created substance is continuously dependent on God for its perfection. Without being the soul of the world, God is an emanative cause through which the created world is unified. Second, every substance is a unique “concentration” of an ideal world that is God’s model for creation. Consequently, while extensionally many, created substances are versions of the same one world chosen by God for creation.
Bookmark and Share
4. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Matteo Favaretti Camposampiero

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In a 1687 letter to Arnauld, Leibniz draws on an argument against mind-body causation that is reminiscent of one from Spinoza’s Ethics. According to this argument, mind-body causation is impossible because of the lack of proportion between thoughts and motions. This paper aims to shed light on Leibniz’s use of Spinoza’s argument by reconstructing both its internal structure and its development in Leibniz’s later works. In particular, the reconstruction focuses on the new version of this argument that Leibniz adopts against Stahl’s vitalism as well as on the change that this new version reveals in Leibniz’s attitude towards occasionalism. The possible influence of Cordemoy is also taken into consideration. The epistemological and metaphysical issues surrounding this argument are an essential part of the history of Leibniz’s psycho-physical parallelism.
Bookmark and Share

texts

5. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Osvaldo Ottaviani, Richard Arthur

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share

book reviews

6. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Aleksandra Horowska

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
7. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Justin J. Daeley

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
8. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Nabeel Hamid

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
9. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Stefano Di Bella

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
10. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Damian Melamedoff-Vosters

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share

news, recent works, acknowledgments, abbreviations

11. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Charlotte Wahl

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
12. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31
Paul Rateau

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
13. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 31

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share

articles

14. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 30
Thomas Feeney

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
To explain why God is not the author of sin, despite grounding all features of the world, the early Leibniz marginalized the divine will and defined existence as harmony. These moves support each other. It is easier to nearly eliminate the divine will from creation if existence itself is something wholly intelligible, and easier to identify existence with an internal feature of the possibles if the divine will is not responsible for creation. Both moves, however, commit Leibniz to a necessitarianism that is stronger than what prominent interpreters such as Robert Sleigh and Mogens Lærke have found in the early Leibniz, and stronger than the necessitarianism that threatens his later philosophy. I defend this reading of Leibniz and propose that some features of Leibniz’s later metaphysics, including his “striving possibles” doctrine, are an artifact of the effort to rescue the early theodicy from its unwelcome implications.
Bookmark and Share
15. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 30
Fiorenza Manzo

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper focuses on Leibniz’s engagement with Thomas Hobbes’s political anthropology in the Mainz-period writings, and demonstrates that Leibniz tried to construct an alternative to the English philosopher by conceiving of a physically- and ontologically-grounded psychology of actions. I provide textual evidence of this attempt, and account for Leibniz’s rejection of Hobbes’s political theory and anthropological assumptions. In doing so, I refer to diverse aspects of Leibniz’s work, thereby highlighting his aspiration to congruity and consistency between different areas of investigation. Furthermore, Leibniz’s political writings and letters will reveal another—sometimes neglected—aspect of the issue: his concern to defend and legitimize the existence of pluralist and collective constitutional political systems like the Holy Roman Empire by providing the theoretical ground of their ability to last.
Bookmark and Share

text

16. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 30
Osvaldo Ottaviani, Alessandro Becchi

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share

book reviews

17. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 30
Julia Borcherding

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
18. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 30
Markku Roinila

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
19. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 30
Richard T. W. Arthur

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share
20. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 30
Adam Harmer

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Bookmark and Share