Philosophy Compass 13 (1):e12469 (2018)

Authors
Adam Harmer
University of California, Riverside
Abstract
Leibniz argues that God doesn't create everything possible because not all possible things are compossible, that is, compatible with each other. Much recent debate has focused on Leibniz's conception of compossibility. One important aspect of this debate, which has not been examined directly, is the distinction between possible worlds and possible creations: the notion of possible world is more robust than simply whatever God can create. Many commentators have relied on this distinction without a clear formulation of it. I develop the distinction between possible worlds and possible creations by looking at how Leibniz characterizes what God is capable of creating. I argue that possible creations must be both logically consistent and determinate. Possible creations differ from possible worlds insofar as possible creations fail to be either maximal or harmonious. I conclude, therefore, that focusing on the notion of determinateness offers a new approach to answering the question why doesn't God create everything possible?
Keywords Leibniz  God  Compossibility
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2018
DOI 10.1111/phc3.12469
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,118
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on Their Correspondence.Ezio Vailati - 1990 - Philosophical Review 101 (4):851-853.
Substance and Individuation in Leibniz.J. A. Cover & John O'leary-Hawthorne - 2001 - Philosophical Quarterly 51 (205):541-543.
Leibniz's World-Apart Doctrine.Adam Harmer - 2016 - In Yual Chiek & Gregory Brown (eds.), Leibniz on Compossibility and Possible Worlds. Springer. pp. 37-63.
Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on Their Correspondence.David Blumenfeld - 1993 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (4):933-943.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Leibniz, Acosmism, and Incompossibility.Thomas Feeney - 2016 - In Gregory Brown & Yual Chiek (eds.), Leibniz on Compossibility and Possible Worlds. Springer. pp. 145-174.
Leibniz's World-Apart Doctrine.Adam Harmer - 2016 - In Yual Chiek & Gregory Brown (eds.), Leibniz on Compossibility and Possible Worlds. Springer. pp. 37-63.
Was Leibniz Entitled to Possible Worlds?Lynne Rudder Baker - 1985 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15 (1):57-74.
Leibniz’s Contemporary Modal Theodicy.Charles Joshua Horn - 2017 - Quaestiones Disputatae 7 (2):97-119.
Divine Faculties and the Puzzle of Incompossibility.Julia Jorati - 2016 - In Gregory Brown & Yual Chiek (eds.), Leibniz on Compossibility and Possible Worlds. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 175–199.
Leibniz, Creation and the Best of All Possible Worlds.Jesse R. Steinberg - 2007 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (3):123 - 133.
Leibniz.Harry G. Frankfurt - 1972 - Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books.
Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays.Harry G. Frankfurt - 1972 - University of Notre Dame Press.
The Problem of Plurality of the World in Cosmology and Philosophy.A. M. Mostepanenko - 1983 - der 16. Weltkongress Für Philosophie 2:906-910.
Leibniz's Palace of the Fates: A 17th Century Virtual Reality System.Eric Steinhart - 1997 - Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6 (1):133-135.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-13

Total views
32 ( #299,366 of 2,324,601 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #461,830 of 2,324,601 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes