Leibnizian Deliberation

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestiones Disputatae Pub Date : 2017-05-16 DOI:10.5840/qd2017727
Samuel Murray
{"title":"Leibnizian Deliberation","authors":"Samuel Murray","doi":"10.5840/qd2017727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Leibniz is an eclectic and ecumenical philosopher. He often worked out philosophical positions that reconciled seemingly opposed theoretical systems and chastised people for rejecting certain views too quickly. In this paper, I describe one episode of Leibnizian reconciliation. My target is the phenomenon of deliberation. Traditionally, philosophers have offered two different accounts of deliberation based on two different accounts of the compatibility of freedom and determinism. Leibniz, I argue, cannot accept either account because of his broader theoretical commitments. This leads Leibniz to formulate an interesting account of deliberation that adopts certain elements from each account while excising the untoward aspects of each one. I outline the various mechanisms involved in deliberation on Leibniz's view and show how deliberation fits into a broader theory of free action. I close with an assessment of whether Leibniz in fact succeeds in offering an account of deliberation that is distinct from the traditional positions.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestiones Disputatae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/qd2017727","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Leibniz is an eclectic and ecumenical philosopher. He often worked out philosophical positions that reconciled seemingly opposed theoretical systems and chastised people for rejecting certain views too quickly. In this paper, I describe one episode of Leibnizian reconciliation. My target is the phenomenon of deliberation. Traditionally, philosophers have offered two different accounts of deliberation based on two different accounts of the compatibility of freedom and determinism. Leibniz, I argue, cannot accept either account because of his broader theoretical commitments. This leads Leibniz to formulate an interesting account of deliberation that adopts certain elements from each account while excising the untoward aspects of each one. I outline the various mechanisms involved in deliberation on Leibniz's view and show how deliberation fits into a broader theory of free action. I close with an assessment of whether Leibniz in fact succeeds in offering an account of deliberation that is distinct from the traditional positions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Leibnizian审议
莱布尼茨是一位兼收并蓄的普世主义哲学家。他经常提出哲学立场,调和看似对立的理论体系,并惩罚那些过快拒绝某些观点的人。在本文中,我描述了莱布尼兹式和解的一个片段。我的目标是深思熟虑的现象。传统上,哲学家们基于自由和决定论的兼容性提出了两种不同的审议解释。我认为,莱布尼茨不能接受这两种说法,因为他有更广泛的理论承诺。这导致莱布尼茨形成了一个有趣的审议叙述,从每个叙述中采用某些元素,同时去掉每个叙述的不利方面。根据莱布尼茨的观点,我概述了审议中涉及的各种机制,并展示了审议如何适应更广泛的自由行动理论。最后,我对莱布尼茨是否实际上成功地提供了一种与传统立场不同的审议叙述进行了评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quaestiones Disputatae
Quaestiones Disputatae HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Remnants of Substances: A Neo-Aristotelian Resolution of the Puzzles After Survivalism and Corruptionism: Separated Souls as Incomplete Persons Evaluating Hylomorphism as a Hybrid Account of Personal Identity Editor’s Introduction Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Too-Many-Thinkers Problem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1