David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 139 (1):143-164 (2004)
Leibniz, it seems, wishes to reduce statements involving relations or extrinsic denominations to ones solely in terms of individual accidents or, respectively, intrinsic denominations. His reasons for this appear to be that relations are merely mental things (since they cannot be individual accidents) and that extrinsic denominations do not represent substances as they are on their own. Three interpretations of Leibniz''s reductionism may be distinguished: First, he allowed only monadic predicates in reducing statements (hard reductionism); second, he allowed also `implicitly relational predicates'' such as `loves somebody'' (soft reductionism); third, he allowed also `explicitly relational predicates'' such as `loves Helen'' (nonreductionism). Hard reductionism is problematic with respect to Leibniz''s doctrines of universal expression and incompossibility (among other things). Nonreductionism, in turn, faces insurmountable problems with Leibniz''s doctrine of self-sufficiency and internal identification of substances, as well as with that of individual accidents. The remaining option, soft reductionism, standing between the other two interpretations, arguably avoids at least some of their problems.
|Keywords||Leibniz Relations Properties Substance|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ari Maunu (2008). Leibniz's Theory of Universal Expression Explicated. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (2):247-267.
Anja Jauernig (2010). Disentangling Leibniz's Views on Relations and Extrinsic Denominations. Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (2):pp. 171-205.
Dennis Plaisted (2002). Leibniz on Purely Extrinsic Denominations. University of Rochester Press.
Gary L. Cesarz (2004). Leibniz on Purely Extrinsic Denominations (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4):494-495.
Howard Burdick (1991). What Was Leibniz's Problem About Relations? Synthese 88 (1):1 - 13.
Massimo Mugnai (2009). “On extrinsic denominations” (LH IV, iii, 5a-e, Bl. 15). The Leibniz Review 19:64-66.
Sahotra Sarkar (1992). Models of Reduction and Categories of Reductionism. Synthese 91 (3):167-94.
Wlodek Rabinowicz & Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen (2000). A Distinction in Value: Intrinsic and for its Own Sake. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (1):33–51.
Michael Esfeld (2003). Do Relations Require Underlying Intrinsic Properties? A Physical Argument for a Metaphysics of Relations. Metaphysica: International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics 4 (1):5-25.
Ari Maunu (2004). Extrinsic Denominations and Universal Expression in Leibniz. Dialogue 43 (1):83-97.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads77 ( #54,562 of 1,796,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)36 ( #23,058 of 1,796,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?