Leibniz thinks that every created substance is causally active, and yet causally independent of every other: none can cause changes in any but itself. This is not controversial. But Leibniz also thinks that every created substance is existentially independent of every other: it is metaphysically possible for any to exist with or without any other. This is controversial. I argue that, given a mainstream reading of Leibniz’s essentialism, if one accepts the former, uncontroversial interpretation concerning causal independence, then one ought (...) also to accept the latter, controversial one concerning existential independence. This is a new way to defend the ‘existential independence’ interpretation. Moreover, this defense provides a new approach for defending the broadly ‘non-logical’ interpretive camp in the longstanding debate over Leibniz’s views on incompossibility, against perhaps the strongest objection leveled by advocates of the opposing broadly ‘logical’ interpretation. (shrink)

La finalidad de este artículo es elucidar el sentido de la doctrina leibniziana de la exigencia de existencia y el combate de los posibles, situándola dentro del conjunto de la metafísica de Leibniz y mostrando su absoluta compatibilidad con la afirmación de la creación libre y voluntaria por parte de Dios. Se intentará explicar qué elementos de la afirmación de la ‘exigencia de existencia’ y el ‘combate de los posibles’ reflejan tesis estric- tamente metafísicas, y cuáles pueden considerarse recursos metafóricos. (...) En este contexto, se explicará qué papel que juega la voluntad divina antecedente en la fundamentación de la tendencia de los posibles a la existencia, y se intentará focalizar el papel específico de la ‘sabiduría’, como atributo divino, en la determinación y elección del mejor mundo posible. Finalmente, se extraerán algunas consecuencias del análisis anterior, en relación con la libertad divina en el acto creador. (shrink)

How many formulations of Principle of Sufficient Reason can one find in Leibniz's works? This paper suggests that there are at least two different formulations, which start from different basic concepts, trying to sketch the relations between them and the evolution from the more ancient formulation to the mature one.

This paper addresses D. C. Williams’s question, “How can Leibniz know that he is a member of the actual world and not merely a possible monad on the shelf of essence?” A variety of answers are considered. Ultimately, it is argued that no particular perception of a state of affairs in the world can warrant knowledge of one’s actuality, nor can the awareness of any property within oneself; rather, it is the nature of experience itself, with the flow of perceptions, (...) that guarantees our actuality. A consequence of this view is that no non-actual individuals can truly be said to experience their worlds, nor can they ask the question if they are actual or not. (shrink)

This paper addresses D. C. Williams’s question, “How can Leibniz know that he is a member of the actual world and not merely a possible monad on the shelf of essence?” A variety of answers are considered. Ultimately, it is argued that no particular perception of a state of affairs in the world can warrant knowledge of one’s actuality, nor can the awareness of any property within oneself; rather, it is the nature of experience itself, with the flow of perceptions, (...) that guarantees our actuality. A consequence of this view is that no non-actual individuals can truly be said to experience their worlds, nor can they ask the question if they are actual or not. (shrink)