Switch to: References

Citations of:

Confused versus Distinct Perception in Leibniz: Consciousness, Representation, and God's Mind

Margaret D. Wilson

In Phillip D. Cummins (ed.), Minds, Ideas, and Objects: Essays on the Theory of Representation in Modern Philosophy. Ridgeview Publishing Company (1992)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

Brandom's Leibniz.Zachary Micah Gartenberg - 2021 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 102 (1):73-102.details I discuss an objection by Margaret Wilson against Robert Brandom’s interpretation of Leibniz’s account of perceptual distinctness. According to Brandom, Leibniz holds that (i) the relative distinctness of a perception is a function of its inferentially articulated content and (ii) apperception, or awareness, is explicable in terms of degrees of perceptual distinctness. Wilson alleges that Brandom confuses ‘external deducibility’ from a perceptual state of a monad to the existence of properties in the world, with ‘internally accessible content’ for the monad (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Leibniz on Intellectual Pleasure, Perception of Perfection, and Power.Saja Parvizian - 2021 - Theoria 87 (3):600-627.details Leibniz is unclear about the nature of pleasure. In some texts, he describes pleasure as a perception of perfection, while in other texts he describes pleasure as being caused by a perception of perfection. In this article, I disambiguate two senses of “perception of perfection”, which clarifies Leibniz’s considered position. I argue that pleasure is a perception of an increase in a substance’s power which is caused by a substance’s knowledge of a perfection of the universe or God. This reading (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Monadic Interaction.Stephen Puryear - 2010 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (5):763-796.details Leibniz has almost universally been represented as denying that created substances, including human minds and the souls of animals, can causally interact either with one another or with bodies. Yet he frequently claims that such substances are capable of interacting in the special sense of what he calls 'ideal' interaction. In order to reconcile these claims with their favored interpretation, proponents of the traditional reading often suppose that ideal action is not in fact a genuine form of causation but instead (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 8 citations
Perception and Representation in Leibniz.Stephen Puryear - 2006 - Dissertation, University of Pittsburghdetails I argue for three main claims about Leibniz. (1) He views representation as a kind of structural correspondence between the representing thing and its target. (2) The primary sense in which he considers a perception or representation distinct, as opposed to confused, concerns the degree to which its structure is explicit or consciously accessible. (3) This is also the sense in which he takes concepts or ideas to be distinct. Download Export citation Bookmark 4 citations
Russell’s Leibnizian Concept of Vagueness.Larry M. Jorgensen - 2011 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 28 (3):289-301.details The account of vagueness Bertrand Russell provided in his 1923 paper, entitled simply “Vagueness” (see Russell [1923]1997), has been thought by some to be inconsistent. One main objection, raised by Timothy Williamson (1994), is that Russell’s attempt early in the paper to distinguish vagueness from generality is at odds with the definition of vagueness he presents later in the same paper. It is as if, as Williamson puts it, Russell “backslides” from his previous distinction (1994, 60), resulting in a conflation (...) Download Export citation Bookmark

1