David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (1):pp. 108-110 (2010)
This book is a significant accomplishment, and for now the most comprehensive intervention in a debate that has been more than three hundred years in the making. At least since Pierre Bayle, commentators have imagined a sort of paradox in the pairing of Spinoza’s irreproachable way of life with his scandalous philosophy, in contrast with the perfect fit between Leibniz’s optimism for the status quo with his supposedly opportunistic relation to his courtly benefactors. Together with these biographical coordinates, to which Lærke’s work is attentive and sensitive, there is a philosophical opposition that is supposed to be absolute: each philosopher is the other’s perfect opposite. Matthew Stewart’s bestseller The Courtier and the Heretic is the latest iteration of this myth, and Lærke’s study might best be summed up as the perfect antidote to Stewart’s: it is a rigorous, dense, and, most importantly, a just treatment of the authors themselves, whose own words often belie the roles in which they would posthumously be cast. While Lærke acknowledges that there is indeed an easy opposition one can construct between the major metaphysical commitments of the two thinkers, he nonetheless wants to know how their systematic differences might have grown out of an intense engagement on Leibniz’s part with a philosophy he indeed ended up opposing, yet against which he felt compelled to articulate his own views, and back to which he often seemed in danger of returning
|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
Justin Erik Halldór Smith (1999). Mundus Combinatus. The Leibniz Review 9:97-103.
Maria Rosa Antognazza (2009). Leibniz Lecteur de Spinoza. The Leibniz Review 19:71-75.
Ursula Goldenbaum (2007). Why Shouldn't Leibniz Have Studied Spinoza? The Leibniz Review 17:107-138.
Mogens Lærke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58-84.
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.
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.
Ursula Goldenbaum (2007). Why Shouldn't Leibniz Have Studied Spinoza?: The Rise of the Claim of Continuity in Leibniz' Philosophy Out of the Ideological Rejection of Spinoza's Impact on Leibniz. The Leibniz Review:107-138.
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.
Ohad Nachtomy (2010). Leibniz Lecteur de Spinoza. La Genése d'Une Opposition Complexe. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (3):521-524.
Added to index2010-01-16
Total downloads27 ( #125,001 of 1,777,121 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #205,424 of 1,777,121 )
How can I increase my downloads?