{"title":"The Philosophically Peculiar Members of a Distributist Culture: An Essay in Chestertonian Platonism","authors":"C. Taliaferro","doi":"10.5840/QD20178112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD20178112","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88095693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyzes Leibniz's use of analogies in both natural philosophical and metaphysical contexts. Through an examination of Leibniz's notes on scientific methodology, I show that Leibniz explicitly recognizes the utility of analogies as heuristic tools that aid us in conceiving unfamiliar theoretical domains. I further argue that Leibniz uses the notion of a self-moving machine or automaton to help capture the activities of the immaterial soul. My account helps resist the conventional image of Leibniz as an arch-rationalist unconcerned with methods of empirical discovery and contributes to ongoing discussions on the nature of immaterial substance and mind in Leibniz.
{"title":"On Analogies in Leibniz's Philosophy: Scientific Discovery and the Case of the \"Spiritual Automaton\"","authors":"Christopher P. Noble","doi":"10.5840/QD2017722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017722","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes Leibniz's use of analogies in both natural philosophical and metaphysical contexts. Through an examination of Leibniz's notes on scientific methodology, I show that Leibniz explicitly recognizes the utility of analogies as heuristic tools that aid us in conceiving unfamiliar theoretical domains. I further argue that Leibniz uses the notion of a self-moving machine or automaton to help capture the activities of the immaterial soul. My account helps resist the conventional image of Leibniz as an arch-rationalist unconcerned with methods of empirical discovery and contributes to ongoing discussions on the nature of immaterial substance and mind in Leibniz.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83413929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"Leibnizian Deliberation","authors":"Samuel Murray","doi":"10.5840/qd2017727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/qd2017727","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":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87504513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, I analyze a previously unpublished Leibniz text from the early 1700s. I give it the title "On Unities and Transmigration" since it contains an outline of his doctrine of unities and an examination of the doctrine of transmigration. The text is valuable because in it Leibniz considers three very specific versions of transmigration that he does not address elsewhere in his writings; these are (1) where a soul is released by the destruction of its body and is then free to pass into another body, (2) where souls are exchanged without any destruction of bodies, and (3) where human souls (minds) are exchanged, again without any destruction of bodies. I show that when tackling these three versions of transmigration in "On Unities and Transmigration," Leibniz develops a series of objections that are not found anywhere else in his published writings, despite his lifelong opposition to the doctrine of transmigration. This paper is completed by two appendices, the first of which presents the previously unpublished "On Unities and Transmigration" text in full, in the original French (with all deletions indicated), while the second presents its English translation.
{"title":"Leibniz vs. Transmigration: A Previously Unpublished Text from the Early 1700s","authors":"L. Strickland","doi":"10.5840/QD2017728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017728","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I analyze a previously unpublished Leibniz text from the early 1700s. I give it the title \"On Unities and Transmigration\" since it contains an outline of his doctrine of unities and an examination of the doctrine of transmigration. The text is valuable because in it Leibniz considers three very specific versions of transmigration that he does not address elsewhere in his writings; these are (1) where a soul is released by the destruction of its body and is then free to pass into another body, (2) where souls are exchanged without any destruction of bodies, and (3) where human souls (minds) are exchanged, again without any destruction of bodies. I show that when tackling these three versions of transmigration in \"On Unities and Transmigration,\" Leibniz develops a series of objections that are not found anywhere else in his published writings, despite his lifelong opposition to the doctrine of transmigration. This paper is completed by two appendices, the first of which presents the previously unpublished \"On Unities and Transmigration\" text in full, in the original French (with all deletions indicated), while the second presents its English translation.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88095298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Leibniz's Ripples: The Continuing Relevance of the Last Great Polymath","authors":"Charles Joshua Horn","doi":"10.5840/qd2017721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/qd2017721","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77905216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Leibniz argues in the Theodicy that three conditions must be satisfied for a human being to be free. These are intelligence, spontaneity and contingency. While both intelligence and spontaneity present their own unique issues, the condition of contingency constitutes the most difficult problem in Leibniz's metaphysical corpus. In this paper, I focus on this problem. I argue that Leibniz offers a successful account of contingency. First, I explain what Leibniz means by contingency in the context of his discussion of freedom. Second, I argue that the standard interpretation of the problem of contingency, the theory of internal possibility, is unsuccessful. Third, I offer an original interpretation of contingency in terms of Leibniz's ideas about simple imperfection and original limitation of all creatures. Finally, I demonstrate that Leibniz relies on the latter notion of contingency in his understanding of moral agency.
{"title":"\"Contingency, Imperfection and Evil\": Leibniz's Conception of Freedom","authors":"Saša D. Stanković","doi":"10.5840/QD2017724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017724","url":null,"abstract":"Leibniz argues in the Theodicy that three conditions must be satisfied for a human being to be free. These are intelligence, spontaneity and contingency. While both intelligence and spontaneity present their own unique issues, the condition of contingency constitutes the most difficult problem in Leibniz's metaphysical corpus. In this paper, I focus on this problem. I argue that Leibniz offers a successful account of contingency. First, I explain what Leibniz means by contingency in the context of his discussion of freedom. Second, I argue that the standard interpretation of the problem of contingency, the theory of internal possibility, is unsuccessful. Third, I offer an original interpretation of contingency in terms of Leibniz's ideas about simple imperfection and original limitation of all creatures. Finally, I demonstrate that Leibniz relies on the latter notion of contingency in his understanding of moral agency.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79407655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the philosophical systems of G. W. Leibniz and David Lewis both feature possible worlds, the ways in which their systems are similar and dissimilar are ultimately surprising. At first glance, Leibniz's modal metaphysics might strike us as one of the most contemporarily relevant aspects of his system. But I clarify in this paper major interpretive problems that result from understanding Leibniz's system in terms of contemporary views (like Lewis's, for instance). Specifically, I argue that Leibniz rejects the inference that if something is possible, it therefore occurs in some possible world. This discussion highlights how Leibniz's account of individual substance (with his strict notion of identity) constrains his modal theorizing and produces fatalistic threats. I then make an unexpected connection between Leibniz's and Lewis's systems by showing that Leibniz's treatment of fatalism bears similarities to the response Lewis gives to the fatalist when considering the paradoxes of time travel.
{"title":"Leibniz and Lewis on Modal Metaphysics and Fatalism","authors":"Chloe Armstrong","doi":"10.5840/QD2017725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017725","url":null,"abstract":"Although the philosophical systems of G. W. Leibniz and David Lewis both feature possible worlds, the ways in which their systems are similar and dissimilar are ultimately surprising. At first glance, Leibniz's modal metaphysics might strike us as one of the most contemporarily relevant aspects of his system. But I clarify in this paper major interpretive problems that result from understanding Leibniz's system in terms of contemporary views (like Lewis's, for instance). Specifically, I argue that Leibniz rejects the inference that if something is possible, it therefore occurs in some possible world. This discussion highlights how Leibniz's account of individual substance (with his strict notion of identity) constrains his modal theorizing and produces fatalistic threats. I then make an unexpected connection between Leibniz's and Lewis's systems by showing that Leibniz's treatment of fatalism bears similarities to the response Lewis gives to the fatalist when considering the paradoxes of time travel.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74124861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Most philosophers will grant that on some issues and in some circumstances, we can acquire knowledge from another. But when it comes to moral knowledge, the presumption is on the side of autonomy; we must not rely on others for our moral beliefs. I argue here for the surprising thesis that in some circumstances we must rely on others in order to acquire moral knowledge. I believe that this, or something trivially different, is a position that Leibniz would hold. When woven together, his comments on teaching, authority, errors of conscience, and testimony provide concrescent support for this surprising thesis.
{"title":"\"Because I Said So!\": Leibniz on Moral Knowledge via Testimony","authors":"S. Napier","doi":"10.5840/QD2017723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017723","url":null,"abstract":"Most philosophers will grant that on some issues and in some circumstances, we can acquire knowledge from another. But when it comes to moral knowledge, the presumption is on the side of autonomy; we must not rely on others for our moral beliefs. I argue here for the surprising thesis that in some circumstances we must rely on others in order to acquire moral knowledge. I believe that this, or something trivially different, is a position that Leibniz would hold. When woven together, his comments on teaching, authority, errors of conscience, and testimony provide concrescent support for this surprising thesis.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87106010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this essay, it is argued that Leibniz's theodicy is even stronger than it might first appear, but only if we also take into account his superessentialism, the view that every property of a substance is essential to it, and theory of compossibility, the notion that possible worlds are intrinsically possible just in case they are compossible—that is, they are internally consistent. After describing how we should understand these principles in Leibniz's thought, I argue that although there are obvious cases of evil in the best of all possible worlds, if such cases of evil did not occur, then the overall goodness of the actual world be diminished. Due to the unique nature of his solution to the problem of evil, Leibniz remains an important interlocutor even today in metaphysics, theology, and philosophy of religion.
{"title":"Leibniz's Contemporary Modal Theodicy","authors":"Charles Joshua Horn","doi":"10.5840/QD2017726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017726","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, it is argued that Leibniz's theodicy is even stronger than it might first appear, but only if we also take into account his superessentialism, the view that every property of a substance is essential to it, and theory of compossibility, the notion that possible worlds are intrinsically possible just in case they are compossible—that is, they are internally consistent. After describing how we should understand these principles in Leibniz's thought, I argue that although there are obvious cases of evil in the best of all possible worlds, if such cases of evil did not occur, then the overall goodness of the actual world be diminished. Due to the unique nature of his solution to the problem of evil, Leibniz remains an important interlocutor even today in metaphysics, theology, and philosophy of religion.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87170679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper aims to clarify the structure of temporality as it is originally experienced in time-consciousness. At a pre-reflective level, time-consciousness presents us with changing or unchanging worldly objects as persisting through time. However, time-consciousness is not simply a consciousness of worldly temporal events but, rather, a consciousness of these events as they appear in our experience. Accordingly, the phenomenal time that is experienced in time-consciousness consists in a correlative unity between two different temporal series: that of the appearing objects and that of their modes of appearance. This article concludes with an analysis of the “immanent” side of phenomenal temporality. Following Husserl, I argue that appearances or experiences have the same temporal structure as worldly events, and that this isomorphism makes it possible for worldly processes of change and persistence to present themselves to us as perceptual phenomena.
{"title":"Phenomenological Temporality","authors":"Bernhard Obsieger","doi":"10.5840/qd20167119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/qd20167119","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to clarify the structure of temporality as it is originally experienced in time-consciousness. At a pre-reflective level, time-consciousness presents us with changing or unchanging worldly objects as persisting through time. However, time-consciousness is not simply a consciousness of worldly temporal events but, rather, a consciousness of these events as they appear in our experience. Accordingly, the phenomenal time that is experienced in time-consciousness consists in a correlative unity between two different temporal series: that of the appearing objects and that of their modes of appearance. This article concludes with an analysis of the “immanent” side of phenomenal temporality. Following Husserl, I argue that appearances or experiences have the same temporal structure as worldly events, and that this isomorphism makes it possible for worldly processes of change and persistence to present themselves to us as perceptual phenomena.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83021715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：