Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy Compass 4 (6):962-977 (2009)
|Abstract||Leibniz's well-known thesis that the actual world is just one among many possible worlds relies on the claim that some possibles are incompossible , meaning that they cannot belong to the same world. Notwithstanding its central role in Leibniz's philosophy, commentators have disagreed about how to understand the compossibility relation. We examine several influential interpretations and demonstrate their shortcomings. We then sketch a new reading, the cosmological interpretation, and argue that it accommodates two key conditions that any successful interpretation must satisfy.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Harry G. Frankfurt (1972). Leibniz. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Books.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1976). Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays. University of Notre Dame Press.
Donald Rutherford (1995). Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge University Press.
Lynne Rudder Baker (1985). Was Leibniz Entitled to Possible Worlds? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15 (1):57-74.
Gregory Brown (1987). Compossibility, Harmony, and Perfection in Leibniz. Philosophical Review 96 (2):173-203.
F. B. D'Agostino (1976). Leibniz on Compossibility and Relational Predicates. Philosophical Quarterly 26 (103):125-138.
Michael K. Shim (2006). Leibniz on Concept and Substance. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (3):309-325.
Catherine Wilson (2000). Plenitude and Compossibility in Leibniz. The Leibniz Review 10:1-20.
Mogens Lærke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58-84.
Added to index2009-11-26
Total downloads28 ( #49,908 of 739,466 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,287 of 739,466 )
How can I increase my downloads?