In this paper, I argue a position that has almost never been held: that Leibniz was a materialist. At the conclusion of my article, I consider whether the difficulty of reconciling Leibnizs idea of concluding that there is instead a Leibnizian idea of which does a better job.

We present a set-theoretic model of the mental representation of classically quantified sentences (All P are Q, Some P are Q, Some P are not Q, and No P are Q). We take inclusion, exclusion, and their negations to be primitive concepts. It is shown that, although these sentences are known to have a diagrammatic expression (in the form of the Gergonne circles) which constitute a semantic representation, these concepts can also be expressed syntactically in the form of algebraic formulas. (...) It is hypothesized that the quantified sentences have an abstract underlying representation common to the formulas and their associated sets of diagrams (models). Nine predictions are derived (three semantic, two pragmatic, and four mixed) regarding people's assessment of how well each of the five diagrams expresses the meaning of each of the quantified sentences. The results from three experiments, using Gergonne's circles or an adaptation of Leibniz lines as external representations, are reported and shown to support the predictions. (shrink)

This book brings together papers from a conference that took place in the city of L'Aquila, 4–6 April 2019, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the earthquake that struck on 6 April 2009. Philosophers and scientists from diverse fields of research debated the problem that, on 6 April 1922, divided Einstein and Bergson: the nature of time. For Einstein, scientific time is the only time that matters and the only time we can rely on. Bergson, however, believes that scientific time (...) is derived by abstraction, even in the sense of extraction, from a more fundamental time. The plurality of times envisaged by the theory of Relativity does not, for him, contradict the philosophical intuition of the existence of a single time. But how do things stand today? What can we say about the relationship between the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of time in the light of contemporary science? What do quantum mechanics, biology and neuroscience teach us about the nature of time? The essays collected here take up the question that pitted Einstein against Bergson, science against philosophy, in an attempt to reverse the outcome of their monologue in two voices, with a multilogue in several voices. (shrink)

Today, many philosophers write on topics of contemporary interest, such as emerging technologies, scientific advancements, or major political events. However, many of these reflections, while philosophically valuable, fail to contribute to those who may benefit the most from them. In this article, we discuss our own experience of engaging with nursing researchers and practicing nurses. By drawing on the field of philosophical phenomenology, we intervene in a longstanding debate over the meaning of “empathy” in nursing, which has important implications for (...) nursing research, training, and practice. However, our intention is not only to introduce and discuss this philosophical intervention. Rather, we present this intervention as a model for how philosophers might successfully engage with the field of nursing, and perhaps with other fields as well, with the aim of effecting positive change in research or practice. The article proceeds in five parts. First, we introduce the problem of conceptual clarity in nursing and explain why many nursing concepts are still in need of refinement. Second, we discuss the origins of the concept of empathy in nursing and outline the challenges associated with borrowing theory from other fields. Third, we explain how nurses tend to conceptualize empathy today, drawing upon the psychological distinction between cognitive and emotional empathy. Fourth, we discuss our intervention in this debate and explain how we attempt to resolve existing conceptual confusions by developing the concept of empathy from the ground up. Fifth, we conclude by briefly reflecting upon some of the challenges of interdisciplinary engagement and providing some recommendations based upon our own experience. (shrink)

Is a whole something more than the sum of its parts? Are there things composed of the same parts? If you divide an object into parts, and divide those parts into smaller parts, will this process ever come to an end? Can something lose parts or gain new ones without ceasing to be the thing it is? Does any multitude of things (including disparate things such as you, this book, and the tail of a cat) compose a whole of some (...) sort? Questions such as these have occupied us for at least as long as philosophy has existed. They define the field that has come to be known as mereology-the study of all relations of part to whole and of part to part within a whole-and have deep and far-reaching ramifications in metaphysics as well as in logic, the foundations of mathematics, the philosophy of language, the philosophy of science, and beyond. In Mereology, A. J. Cotnoir and Achille C. Varzi have compiled decades of advanced research into a comprehensive, up-to-date, and formally rigorous picture. The early chapters cover the more classical aspects of mereology; the rest of the book deals with variants and extensions. Whether you are an established professional philosopher, an interested student, or a newcomer, inside you will find all the tools you need to join this ever-evolving field of inquiry and theorize about all things mereological. (shrink)

This essay proposes a new interpretation of a central, and yet overlooked, argument Leibniz offers against Descartes’s power-free ontology of the corporeal world. Appealing to considerations about the successiveness of motion, Leibniz attempts to show that the reality of motion requires force. It is often assumed that the argument is driven by concerns inspired by Zeno. Against such a reading, this essay contends that Leibniz’s argument is instead best understood against the background of an Aristotelian view of the priority of (...) real being over time. The essay also shows how this alternative interpretation can help to shed new light on the difference between Leibnizian forces and Aristotelian powers, as well as on Leibniz’s famous claim that accounting for force leads us beyond the mechanistic corporeal realm. (shrink)

Sumário: 1. El caso del método científico, Alberto Oliva; 2. Un capítulo de la prehistoria de las ciencias humanas: la defensa por Vico de la tópica, Jorge Alberto Molina; 3. La figura de lo cognoscible y los mundos, Pablo Vélez León; 4. Lebenswelt de Husserl y las neurociencias, Vanessa Fontana; 5. El uso estético del concepto de mundos posibles, Jairo Dias Carvalho; 6. Realismo normativo no naturalista y mundos morales imposibles, Alcino Eduardo Bonella; 7. En la lógica de pragmatismo, Hércules (...) de Araujo Feitosa, Luiz Henrique da Cruz Silvestrini; 8 La lógica, el tiempo y el lenguaje natural: un sistema formal para tiempos de portugués, Carlos Luciano Manholi. / Temas em filosofia contemporânea II / Jonas Rafael Becker Arenhart, Jaimir Conte, Cezar Augusto Mortari (orgs.) – Florianópolis : NEL/UFSC, 2016. 167 p. : tabs. - (Rumos da epistemologia ; v. 14); ISBN 978-85-87253-27-9 (papel); ISBN 978-85-87253-26-2 (e-book). (shrink)

In a recent paper Johan van Benthem reviews earlier work done by himself and colleagues on ‘natural logic’. His paper makes a number of challenging comments on the relationships between traditional logic, modern logic and natural logic. I respond to his challenge, by drawing what I think are the most significant lines dividing traditional logic from modern. The leading difference is in the way logic is expected to be used for checking arguments. For traditionals the checking is local, i.e. separately (...) for each inference step. Between inference steps, several kinds of paraphrasing are allowed. Today we formalise globally: we choose a symbolisation that works for the entire argument, and thus we eliminate intuitive steps and changes of viewpoint during the argument. Frege and Peano recast the logical rules so as to make this possible. I comment also on the traditional assumption that logical processing takes place at the top syntactic level, and I question Johan’s view that natural logic is ‘natural’. (shrink)

According to the standard view of his metaphysics, Leibniz endorses idealism: the thesis that the world is made up solely of minds or monads and their perceptual and appetitive states. Recently,this view has been challenged by some scholars, who argue that Leibniz can be seen as admitting corporeal substances, that is, animals or embodied souls, into his ontology, and that, therefore, it is false to attribute a strict idealism to him. Subtler accounts suggest that Leibniz begins his philosophical career as (...) an advocate of (some form of) the modern ‘mechanical’ philosophy and ends his career as an idealist, raising the issue when and why Leibniz adopts his monadological metaphysics. This article argues that, given a constellation of metaphysical, logical, and theological views, Leibniz is committed to the ontological primacy of mind or form even in his ‘middle years’. (shrink)

Les notions ou catégories de causalité et de déterminisme ont accompagné la formation des sciences modernes, et en premier lieu celle de la physique. L'usage courant de nos jours tend souvent, à tort, à les confondre, dans les remises en cause qui en sont faites en physique même. Nous nous proposons, dans ce travail, de clarifier la première de ces notions, plus exactement la causalité physique, en suivant son élaboration avec les débuts de la dynamique, à travers ses premières mises (...) en œuvre et conceptualisations qui accompagnent la mathématisation de la mécanique, avant d'être étendue à la physique d'une manière générale. Nous verrons comment, tout en s'appuyant sur l'un des aspects philosophiques traditionnels de l'idée de causalité (celui de « cause efficiente »), la causalité physique s'établit en rupture avec le sens métaphysique qui lui était précédemment attaché. Bien plutôt que dans les Principia de Newton, c'est dans la ré-élaboration par d'Alembert, dans son Traité de dynamique, des lois du mouvement formulés comme des principes, et exprimées par le calcul différentiel, que l'idée de causalité physique est expressément considérée indissociablement de son effet, qui est le changement de mouvement. Les pensées respectives de Newton et de d'Alembert sur les notions de cause et de force sont à cet égard en opposition en ce qui concerne la nature proprement physique de ce changement, considéré par d'Alembert comme immanent au mouvement, selon la cause circonscrite par son effet, alors qu'il reste mathématique et métaphysique dans la conception newtonienne de la force externe, comme substitut mathématique des causes, telle qu'elle se proposait avant Lagrange. C'est la conception physique, héritée de d'Alembert, qui devait par la suite prévaloir, à travers la mécanique analytique lagrangienne, qui permettait de réintégrer physiquement et rationnellement le concept de force dans sa transcription eulérienne différentielle. Les avatars ultérieurs de la notion de causalité, qui comprennent la causalité relativiste et les développements sur le déterminisme, font l'objet d'un travail complémentaire. (shrink)

No século XVII, vemos a emergência de uma nova abordagem geométrica às seções cônicas. Desenvolvida inicialmente por Girard Desargues e por Blaise Pascal, tal geometria é herdeira do método de representação pela perspectiva linear a aponta na direção da geometria projetiva do século XIX. Estudos recentes de J. Echeverría e de V. Debuiche iniciaram a discussão da recepção de tais trabalhos por Leibniz, assim como a relação deles com os trabalhos do próprio Leibniz em perspectiva e com a Geometria situs. (...) Este artigo percorre algumas questões associadas a estes domínios, assim como a importância do paradigma da perspectiva para a filosofia de Leibniz. (shrink)

Logical reflection in early modern philosophy (EMP) is marked by the instability of the period, although it is more lasting (the Port-Royal Logic was nevertheless used as a handbook in philosophy courses until the end of the nineteenth century). It started in the sixteenth century and ended in the nineteenth century, a period of 300 years during which there were deep transformations in the conceptions of authority and scientific method. For the history of twentieth-century philosophy, it was the period of (...) “classical logic,” which lasted from the Renaissance to the linguistic turn conducted by Gottlob Frege. The period was used to be thought of as centuries of little or no original contribution to logic, in which conceptions of logic were tainted by rhetoric, epistemology, and psychologism in the worst sense (Kneale and Kneale 1962; Michael 1997). From the last decades of the twentieth century, however, scholars began to regard this period more accurately with respect to reflection and changes in logic and semantics. It has recently become a promising field for historical and conceptual research; today we can say that the legacy of early modern logical reformism has a philosophical, logical, and semantic value in itself. (shrink)

With an unpublished letter by W. von Humboldt about the possibility of establishing a uniform phonetic alphabet as a starting point, we investigate the ideological assumptions shared by such a project and by some attempts of Universal languages or Pasigraphies at the end of the eighteenth century. The almost unanimous dismissal of these attempts among philologists and linguists aiming at comparison seems to be responsible for their suspicion about phonetic studies, while the history of problems of transcription in Humboldt's writings (...) ends up with a condemnation of any transfer of foreign sounds on the ground of the uniqueness of the genuine articulated sound in every language. (shrink)

https://revistes.uab.cat/enrahonar/article/view/v32-33-olesti.

Leibniz had a well-known argument against the existence of infinite wholes that is based on the part-whole axiom: the whole is greater than the part. The refutation of this argument by Russell and others is equally well known. In this note, I argue (against positions recently defended by Arthur, Breger, and Brown) for the following three claims: (1) Leibniz himself had all the means to devise and accept this refutation; (2) This refutation does not presuppose the consistency of Cantorian set (...) theory; (3) This refutation does not cast doubt on the part-whole axiom. Hence, should there be an obstacle to Gödel's wish to integrate Cantorian set theory within Leibniz' philosophy, it will not be this famous argument of Leibniz'. (shrink)

ResumenEn este trabajo presentamos el cálculo para la Silogística que Leibniz llamó «Regressus». En la sección primera exponemos desde la notación usada por el propio Leibniz hasta el método de producción de los modos no perfectos. En la sección segunda comparamos la «fundamentación» de la Silogística de Leibniz con la que dio Aristóteles. En la sección tercera consideramos la hipótesis de Couturat según la cual se trata de un método cuya única estrategia demostrativa es la reducción al absurdo. En la (...) sección cuarta lo presentamos como un algoritmo de producción de los modos imperfectos de la segunda y tercera figuras. Y concluimos, sección quinta, intentando hacer ver que, si se da «la vuelta» a dicho algoritmo, se obtiene un método de decisión para la Silogística con tres figuras.Palabras claveLeibniz, silogística, Historia de la LógicaAbstractIn this paper we present the calculus for Syllogistic that Leibniz named «Regressus». In the first section we will show the notation used by Leibniz and the method of production of the imperfect moods. In the second section we will compare the ground of Leibniz’s Syllogistic with Aristotle’s. In the third section we will explore Couturat’s hypothesis that holds that it is a method whose only demonstrative strategy is a reductio ad absurdum. In the fourth section we will present it as a production algorithm of the imperfect moods of second and third figures. And we will end, in the fifth section, trying to show that, if we «turn over» that algorithm, we obtain a method of decision for Syllogistic of three figures.KeywordsLeibniz; Syllogistic; History of Logic. (shrink)

Abstract You ask me to say a number, any number, and I say ?127?. Have I answered freely? ?Of course?, says Hume: no?one compelled me?the fact that my choice was necessitated is irrelevant. ?Yes?, says Leibniz: my choice was not necessitated?the fact that it was determined ( = ?inclined') is not enough to make it unfree. ?No?, says Freud: my choice was determined?the fact that it was not necessitated is not enough to make it free. The paper examines the interplay (...) between these answers. (shrink)

In this paper, the foundations for setting up a knowledge industry are laid. Firstly, it is established that this industry constitutes the only way of making use of the huge amounts of knowledge produced as a result of the introduction of the Science-Technology binomial in postindustrial society. Then, the elements which will lead to such an industry are defined, that is, the resources and means. Under the ‘Means’ section, special emphasis is placed on the processes involved, in other words, inference (...) methods and commonsense reasoning. Finally, it is concluded that the establishment of this industry, calledmindfacturing because of the raw material that it processes and uses, is, more than possible, desirable, provided that the precautions outlined in the epilogue are taken. (shrink)