David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Theology 12 (1):79-93 (2000)
Leibniz used Descartes’ strict notion of substance in “That a Most Perfect being is Possible” to characterize God but did not intend to undermine his own philosophical views by denying that there are created substances. The metaphysical view of substance in this passage is Cartesian. A discussion of radical substance without any sort of denial in the possibility of other substances does not indicate Spinozism. If this interpretation is correct, then the passage is neither anomalous nor mysterious. There is reason to believe that the passage expresses just the beliefs that we should expect Leibniz to hold in his De Summa Rerum period. Furthermore, this interpretation indicates that while Leibniz’s metaphysics during this stage of his career is suggestively similar to Spinoza’s, there is no evidence that Leibniz accepted Spinoza’s pantheistic conclusion
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Ohad Nachtomy (2011). A Tale of Two Thinkers, One Meeting, and Three Degrees of Infinity: Leibniz and Spinoza (1675–8). British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (5):935-961.
Ari Maunu (2008). Leibniz's Theory of Universal Expression Explicated. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (2):247-267.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1976). Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays. University of Notre Dame Press.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1972). Leibniz. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Books.
John Whipple (2011). Continual Creation and Finite Substance in Leibniz's Metaphysics. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:1-30.
Justin E. H. Smith (2003). Confused Perception and Corporeal Substance in Leibniz. The Leibniz Review 13:45-64.
T. Allan Hillman (2009). Substantial Simplicity in Leibniz. Review of Metaphysics 63 (1):91-138.
Michael V. Griffin (2012). Leibniz, God and Necessity. Cambridge University Press.
Brandon C. Look (forthcoming). Existence, Essence, Et Expression: Leibniz Sur 'Toutes les Absurdités du Dieu de Spinoza'. In Pierre-Francois Moreau & Mogens Laerke (eds.), Spinoza et Leibniz.
Justin E. H. Smith (2007). Leibniz on Spermatozoa and Immortality. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 89 (3):264-282.
Brandon C. Look (2010). Leibniz's Metaphysics and Metametaphysics: Idealism, Realism, and the Nature of Substance. Philosophy Compass 5 (11):871-879.
Stephen Puryear (2010). Review of Daniel Garber, Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010 (8).
Jonathan Bennett (1980). Spinoza's Vacuum Argument. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5 (1):391-400.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads10 ( #156,754 of 1,140,057 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #92,708 of 1,140,057 )
How can I increase my downloads?