Switch to: References

Citations of:

Chapter 4. What Leibniz Really Said?

In Daniel Garber & Béatrice Longuenesse (eds.), Kant and the Early Moderns. Princeton University Press. pp. 64-78 (2008)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. On Kant’s Knowledge of Leibniz’ Metaphysics—a Reply to Garber.Stefan Storrie - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (4):1147-1155.
    Daniel Garber has put forward an argument that aims to show that Kant’s understanding of Leibniz’ metaphysics should be discounted because he could only have had access to a small and narrow sample of Leibniz’ works from around 1710–1714. In particular, Garber argues that as Kant could not have read Leibniz’ correspondence with Arnauld or his correspondence with Des Bosses he could not have had an adequate conception of Leibniz’ understanding of the relation between substance and body. I will show (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Why did Leibniz fail to complete his dynamics?Stephen Howard - 2017 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25 (1):22-40.
    Leibniz’s ‘new science of dynamics’ is typically taken to have been completed in the late monadological metaphysics. On this view, stemming from Martial Gueroult and continuing in the recent interpretations of Robert Adams and Pauline Phemister, Leibniz accomplished his dynamics in his later account of physical forces as merely phenomenal modifications of monadic, metaphysical forces. This paper argues, by contrast, that Leibniz considered the dynamics to be an unfinished project: this is evident in statements from throughout his mature period until (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation