37 found
Order:
  1.  29
    Ohad Nachtomy (2008). Leibniz's Rationality: Divine Intelligibility and Human Intelligibility. In Marcelo Dascal (ed.), Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist? Springer 73--82.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  66
    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.
    The article presents Leibniz's preoccupation (in 1675?6) with the difference between the notion of infinite number, which he regards as impossible, and that of the infinite being, which he regards as possible. I call this issue ?Leibniz's Problem? and examine Spinoza's solution to a similar problem that arises in the context of his philosophy. ?Spinoza's solution? is expounded in his letter on the infinite (Ep.12), which Leibniz read and annotated in April 1676. The gist of Spinoza's solution is to distinguish (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  47
    Ohad Nachtomy (2012). Leibniz and Kant on Possibility and Existence. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (5):953-972.
    This paper examines the Leibnizian background to Kant's critique of the ontological argument. I present Kant's claim that existence is not a real predicate, already formulated in his pre-critical essay of 1673, as a generalization of Leibniz's reasoning regarding the existence of created things. The first section studies Leibniz's equivocations on the notion of existence and shows that he employs two distinct notions of existence ? one for God and another for created substances. The second section examines Kant's position in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  15
    Ohad Nachtomy (2007). Leibniz on Nested Individuals. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15 (4):709 – 728.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5.  17
    Ohad Nachtomy (2002). Real Alternatives. The Leibniz Review 12:89-97.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  22
    Ohad Nachtomy (2008). Remarks on Possibilia in Leibniz, 1672-1676. The Leibniz Review 18:249-257.
  7.  13
    Ohad Nachtomy (2005). Leibniz on the Greatest Number and the Greatest Being. The Leibniz Review 15:49-66.
    In notes from 1675-76 Leibniz is using the notion of an infinite number as an illustration of an impossible notion. In the same notes, he is also using this notion in contrast to the possibility of the ‘Ens perfectissumum’ (A.6.3 572; Pk 91; A.6.3 325). I suggest that Leibniz’s concern about the possibility of the notion of ‘the greatest or the most perfect being’ is partly motivated by his observation that similar notions, such as ‘the greatest number’, are impossible. This (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8.  19
    Ohad Nachtomy, Ayelet Shavit & Zohar Yakhini (2007). Gene Expression and the Concept of the Phenotype. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (1):238-254.
    While the definition of the ‘genotype’ has undergone dramatic changes in the transition from classical to molecular genetics, the definition of the ‘phenotype’ has remained for a long time within the classical framework. In addition, while the notion of the genotype has received significant attention from philosophers of biology, the notion of the phenotype has not. Recent developments in the technology of measuring gene-expression levels have made it possible to conceive of phenotypic traits in terms of levels of gene expression. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  5
    Ohad Nachtomy & Tamar Levanon (2014). On Oneness and Substance in Leibniz’s Middle Years. Leibniz Society Review 24:69-91.
    We argue in this paper that Leibniz’s characterization of a substance as “un être” in his correspondence with Arnauld stresses the per se unity of substance rather than oneness in number. We employ two central lines of reasoning. The first is a response to Mogens Lærke’s claim that one can mark the difference between Spinoza and Leibniz by observing that, while Spinoza’s notion of substance is essentially non-numerical, Leibniz’s view of substance is numerical. We argue that Leibniz, like Spinoza, qualifies (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  18
    Ohad Nachtomy (2001). Individuals, Worlds, and Relations. The Leibniz Review 11:117-124.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  11
    Ohad Nachtomy (2008). Reply to Stefano Di Bella. The Leibniz Review 18:151-156.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  4
    Ohad Nachtomy (2014). Leibniz by Richard T. W. Arthur. Leibniz Society Review 24:123-130.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  15
    Ohad Nachtomy (2006). Pauline Phemister, Leibniz and the Natural World. Chromatikon: Annales de la Philosophie En Procès / Yearbook of Philosophy in Process 2:255-260.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  13
    Ohad Nachtomy (2012). Nicolas de Cues Et G.W. Leibniz: Infini, Expression Et Singularité. The Leibniz Review 22:167-173.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  2
    Ohad Nachtomy (2002). Leibniz on Possible Individuals. Studia Leibnitiana 34 (1):31 - 58.
    Während Leibniz' Vorstellung eines vollständigen Begriffs viel Beachtung fand, blieb die Frage seiner Begründung im Verstand Gottes eher unbeachtet. In diesem Aufsatz versuche ich auf diese Frage einzugehen, indem ich den Zeitraum (ungefähr 1672-1679), in dem Leibniz die Vorstellung eines vollständigen Begriffs als eine explizite Definition eines Individuums entwickelte, näher untersuche. Meine Darstellung über die Begründung des individuellen Begriffs im Verstand Gottes beinhaltet drei Thesen: (1) Leibniz sieht einen inneren Zusammenhang zwischen der Bildung einfacher Begriffe zu zusammengesetzten Begriffen und der (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16.  4
    Ohad Nachtomy (2014). Philosophical Religions From Plato to Spinoza: Reason, Religion, and Autonomy. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23 (1):193-196.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  11
    Ohad Nachtomy (2010). Leibniz Lecteur de Spinoza. La Genése d'Une Opposition Complexe. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (3):521-524.
  18.  4
    Ohad Nachtomy (2007). Leibniz and Russell. In P. Phemister & S. Brown (eds.), Leibniz and the English-Speaking World. Springer 207--218.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  8
    Ohad Nachtomy (2010). Review of Mark Kulstad, Mogens Laerke, David Snyder (Eds.), The Philosophy of the Young Leibniz. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010 (5).
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  3
    Ohad Nachtomy, Yaron Ramati, Ayelet Shavit & Zohar Yakhini (2009). It Takes Two to Tango: Genotyping and Phenotyping in Genome-Wide Association Studies. Biological Theory 4 (3):294-301.
    In this article we examine the “phenotype” concept in light of recent technological advances in Genome-Wide Association Studies . By observing the technology and its presuppositions, we put forward the thesis that at least in this case genotype and phenotype are effectively coidentifled one by means of the other. We suggest that the coidentiflcation of genotype-phenotype couples in expression-based GWAS also indicates a conceptual dependence, which we call “co-deñnition.” We note that viewing these terms as codeflned runs against possible expectations, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  3
    Ohad Nachtomy (2011). Leibniz on Infinite Beings and Non-Beings. In Smith Justin & Fraenkel Carlos (eds.), The Rationalists. Springer/Synthese 183--199.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Ohad Nachtomy (1998). The Individual's Place in the Logical Space: Leibniz on Possible Individuals and Their Relations. Studia Leibnitiana 30 (2):161-177.
    La communication qui suit porte sur le concept de relation tel que le définit Leibniz dans sa correspondance avec Arnauld. La première partie présente trois des présupposés impliqués dans ce concept, à savoir 1) qu'il y a des relations entre des individus possibles, 2) que ces relations sont nécessaires à la notion de mondes possibles et 3) qu'elles sont également nécessaires pour compléter l'individuation des individus possibles. Dans la deuxième partie, on verra que le premier présupposé semble entrer en conflit (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23. Ohad Nachtomy (2009). Abhandlungen-Leibniz and The Logic of Life. Studia Leibnitiana 41 (1):1.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Ohad Nachtomy (1998). A Leibnizian Approach to Possibility. Dissertation, Columbia University
    This work develops a Leibnizian approach to possibility by explicating the notions of possibility in general, in chapter 1; possible individuals in chapter 2; possible worlds in chapter 3; and actualization in chapter 4. ;A Leibnizian notion of possibility is characterized against the traditional view of an intelligible realm of thoughts in God's mind. It is understood in terms of self-consistent thoughts and is developed by explicating the notions of thought and of possibility in terms of the combinatorial structure common (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Ohad Nachtomy & Justin Smith (eds.) (2011). Corporeal Substances and Machines of Nature in Leibniz. Springer.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Ohad Nachtomy, Ayelet Shavit & Zohar Yakhini (2007). Gene Expression and the Concept of the Phenotype. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (1):238-254.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Ohad Nachtomy (2001). Individuals, Worlds, and Relations. Leibniz Society Review 11:117-124.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Ohad Nachtomy (2009). Leibniz and the Logic of Life. Studia Leibnitiana 41:1-21.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Ohad Nachtomy (2014). Leibniz et l’individualité organique by Jeanne Roland. Journal of the History of Philosophy 52 (2):378-379.
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Ohad Nachtomy (2005). Leibniz on the Greatest Number and the Greatest Being. Leibniz Society Review 15:49-66.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Ohad Nachtomy (2012). Nicolas de Cues Et G.W. Leibniz: Infini, Expression Et Singularité. Leibniz Society Review 22:167-173.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Ohad Nachtomy (2002). Real Alternatives. Leibniz Society Review 12:89-97.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Ohad Nachtomy (2008). Remarks on Possibilia in Leibniz, 1672-1676. Leibniz Society Review 18:249-257.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Ohad Nachtomy (2008). Reply to Stefano Di Bella. Leibniz Society Review 18:151-156.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  6
    Ohad Nachtomy & Justin E. H. Smith (eds.) (2014). The Life Sciences in Early Modern Philosophy. OUP Usa.
    This volume explores the intersection between early modern philosophy and the life sciences by presenting the contributions of important but often neglected figures such as Cudworth, Grew, Glisson, Hieronymus Fabricius, Stahl, Gallego, Hartsoeker, and More, as well as familiar figures such as Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Malebranche, and Kant.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Ohad Nachtomy & Justin E. H. Smith (eds.) (2014). The Life Sciences in Early Modern Philosophy. Oxford University Press Usa.
    The present volume advances a recent historiographical turn towards the intersection of early modern philosophy and the life sciences by bringing together many of its leading scholars to present the contributions of important but often neglected figures, such as Ralph Cudworth, Nehemiah Grew, Francis Glisson, Hieronymus Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Georg Ernst Stahl, Juan Gallego de la Serna, Nicholas Hartsoeker, Henry More, as well as more familiar figures such as Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Malebranche, and Kant. The contributions to this volume are (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. J. E. H. Smith & Ohad Nachtomy (eds.) (2011). Machines of Nature and Corporeal Substances in Leibniz. Springer.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography