>> Go to Current Issue

The Leibniz Review

Volume 29, December 2019
Dedicated to Daniel Garber

Table of Contents

Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-18 of 18 documents


1. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Dedication
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
articles
2. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
R. C. Sleigh, Jr. An Appreciation of Dan Garber
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
3. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Robert Merrihew Adams Daniel Garber, Leibniz, and Early Modern Philosophy
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
4. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Marleen Rozemond Leibniz on Internal Action and Why Mills Can't Think
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
5. 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?
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
texts
6. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Wolfgang Lenzen Principia Calculi rationalis: Edition & English translation
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
7. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Wolfgang Lenzen “Ex nihilo nihil fit”: On Leibniz’s “Principia Calculi rationalis”
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In the essay “Principia Calculi rationalis” Leibniz attempts to prove the theory of the syllogism within his own logic of concepts. This task would be quite easy if one made unrestricted use of the fundamental laws discovered by Leibniz, e.g., in the “General Inquiries” of 1686. In the essays of August 1690, Leibniz had developed some similar proofs which, however, he considered as unsatisfactory because they presupposed the unproven law of contraposition: “If concept A contains concept B, then conversely Non-B contains Non-A”. The proof in “Principia Calculi rationalis” appears to reach its goal without resorting to this law. However, it contains a subtle flaw which results from failing to postulate that the ingredient concepts have to be “possible”, i.e. self-consistent. Once this flaw is corrected, it turns out that the proof – though formally valid – would not have been approved by Leibniz because, again, it rests on an unproven principle even stronger than the law of contraposition.
8. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Lucia Oliveri The Leibniz-Treuer Correspondence: (with text and English translation of excerpts from Treuer's De mente sensu non errante and Correspondence with Leibniz)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
book reviews
9. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Matteo Favaretti Camposampiero Organisme et corps organique de Leibniz à Kant, by F. Duchesneau
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
10. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
François Duchesneau A Reply to M. F. Camposampiero
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
11. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Dwight K. Lewis Jr. Another Mind-Body Problem: A History of Racial Non-Being, by J. Harfouch
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
12. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Christopher P. Noble Living Mirrors: Infinity, Unity, and Life in Leibniz's Philosophy, by O. Nachtomy
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
13. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Ohad Nachtomy Response to C. Noble
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
14. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Kristen Irwin Leibniz on the Problem of Evil, by P. Rateau
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
15. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Chloe Armstrong The Oxford Handbook of Leibniz, ed. M. R. Antognazza
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
translation, in memoriam, news, recent works, acknowledgements, abbreviation
16. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Antonio Lamarra, Catherine Fullarton, Ursula Goldenbaum (English translation of) “Contexte génétique et première réception de la Monadologie. Leibniz, Wolff et la Doctrine de L’harmonie préétablie,”
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The many equivocations that, in several respects, characterised the reception of Leibniz's Principes de la Nature et de la Grâce and Monadologie, up until the last century, find their origins in the genetic circumstances of their manuscripts, which gave rise to misinformation published in an anonymous review that appeared in the Leipzig Acta eruditorum in 1721. Archival research demonstrates that the author of this review, as well as of the Latin review of the Monadologie, which appeared, the same year, in the Supplementa of the Acta eruditorum, was Christian Wolff, who possessed a copy of the Leibnizian manuscrip since at least 1717. This translation figured as a precise cultural strategy that aimed to defuse any idealist interpretation of Leibniz’s monadology. An essential part of this strategy consists in reading the theory of pre-established harmony as a doctrine founded on a strictly dualistic substance metaphysics.
17. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
Justin E. H. Smith In Memoriam Heinrich Schepers (1925-2020)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
18. The Leibniz Review: Volume > 29
News, Recent Works, Acknowledgments, Abbreviations
view |  rights & permissions | cited by