Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Why Leibniz thinks Descartes was wrong and the Scholastics were right.Tyler Doggett - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 149 (1):1-18.
    Leibniz believes that if there are corporeal substances, they have substantial forms, believes there are substantial forms, and believes there is a close connection between the first two claims. Why does he believe there is this close connection? This paper answers that question and draws out its bearing on the realism/idealism debate.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Replies to Perry, Falkenstein, and Garrett. [REVIEW]Donald L. M. Baxter - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 146 (3):445 - 455.
    Pace Perry, wondering whether perceived things are identical is thinking about them, for Hume, with no thought of perceptions of them. Hume is not a proto-Fregean; Hume's Difficulty is not a version of Frege's Puzzle. Pace Falkenstein, wondering about an identity is not wondering whether clearly distinct things--stages, surfaces, names--are connected in some way. Pace Garrett, wondering about the identity of an observed object is wondering whether it is really one or two things, not whether there is one F or (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Corporeal Substances and True Unities.Donald L. M. Baxter - 1995 - Studia Leibnitiana 27 (2):157.
    In the correspondence with Arnauld, Leibniz contends that each corporeal substance has a substantial form. In support he argues that to be real a corporeal substance must be one and indivisible, a true unity. I will show how this argument precludes a tempting interpretation of corporeal substances as composite unities. Rather it mandates the interpretation that each corporeal substance is a single monad.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations