ONE KIND OF PHILOSOPHICAL PUZZLEMENT arises when we have an apparent conflict of intuitions. If we are philosophers, we then try to show that the apparent conflict of intuitions is only an apparent conflict and not a real one. If we fail, we may have to say that what we took to be an apparent conflict of intuitions was in fact a conflict of apparent intuitions, and then we must decide which of the conflicting apparent intuitions is only an apparent (...) intuition. But if we succeed, then both of the intuitions will be preserved. Since there was an apparent conflict, we will have to conclude that the formulation of at least one of the intuitions was defective. And though the formulation may be imbedded in our ordinary language, we will have to say that, strictly and philosophically, a different formulation is to be preferred. But to make it clear that we are not rejecting the intuition we are reformulating, we must show systematically how to interpret the ordinary formulation into the philosophical one. The extent to which we can show this will be one mark of our success in dealing with the philosophical puzzle. Another will be the extent to which our proposed solution contributes to the solution of still other philosophical puzzles. (shrink)

Robert Adams’s book has already established itself as a major contribution to the Leibniz literature. It is marked by a rare combination of scholarly and philosophical virtues. Adams knows Leibniz’s texts as well as anyone working today and has an unmatched ability to draw from them novel and penetrating interpretations of Leibniz’s doctrines. In describing the book, Adams declares that it is “not an introduction to Leibniz’s philosophy, nor even a fully comprehensive account of his metaphysics. It is a piece (...) of research into three areas related to the three attributes mentioned in the title”. This is a fair assessment of the volume’s scope, yet any implied limitations are more than compensated for by the depth of Adams’s treatment of his topics, by the connections he establishes between them, and by the range of textual evidence on which he draws. (shrink)