David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Religious Studies 25 (4):459 - 475 (1989)
One of the hallmarks of the early modern rationalists was their confidence that a great deal of metaphysics could be done by purely a priori reasoning. They thought so at least partly because they inherited via Descartes Anselm's confidence that the existence of God could be established by purely a priori reasoning in an ontological argument. They also inherited a Thomistic and scholastic confidence that the concept of God as supremely perfect being, if subjected to serious and deep analysis, would yield sound doctrine. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz all three took it that they had in their stock of ideas an idea of God sufficiently clear and detailed that a little analytic work could produce real metaphysical results, not only about God himself, but also about the universe in which they found themselves . Though they start with what purport to be ideas of the same God, they get radically different results in their analyses.
|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
Brandon C. Look (2007). Perfection, Power and the Passions in Spinoza and Leibniz. Revue Roumaine de la Philosophie 51 (1-2):21-38.
P. -F. Moreau (1988). Les Enjeux de la Publication En France des Papiers de Leibniz Sur Spinoza. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 93 (2):215 - 222.
David Werther (1995). Leibniz on Cartesian Omnipotence and Contingency. Religious Studies 31 (1):23 - 36.
Albert Ribas (2003). Leibniz' "Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese" and the Leibniz-Clarke Controversy. Philosophy East and West 53 (1):64-86.
Nicholas Okrent (2000). Leibniz on Substance and God in “That a Most Perfect Being Is Possible”. Philosophy and Theology 12 (1):79-93.
Albert Ribas (2003). Leibniz'. Philosophy East and West 53 (1).
Yirmiyahu Yovel (2003). Spinoza, the First Anti-Cartesian. Idealistic Studies 33 (2/3):121-140.
Mark A. Kulstad (2008). Newton, Spinoza, Stoics and Others. The Leibniz Review 18:81-121.
Yitzhak Melamed (2014). “Spinoza, Tschirnhaus Et Leibniz: Qu’Est Un Monde?“. In Raphaële Andrault Pierre-François Moreau (ed.), Spinoza/Leibniz. Rencontres, controverses, réceptions. Presses Universitaires de Paris 85-95.
Michael V. Griffin (2012). Leibniz, God and Necessity. Cambridge University Press.
Michael J. Murray (1994). Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. The Leibniz Review 4:2-5.
Ursula Goldenbaum (2007). Why Shouldn't Leibniz Have Studied Spinoza? The Leibniz Review 17:107-138.
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.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads16 ( #282,072 of 1,940,969 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,978 of 1,940,969 )
How can I increase my downloads?