„Corpus non est Substantia, sed modus tantum Entis“ leibniz o fenomenalitě látkového světa

Studia Neoaristotelica 2 (1):39-66 (2005)
„Corpus non est Substantia se modus tantum Entis“: Leibniz de mundo materiali ut mero phaenomenoFinis huiusce dissertationis est, argumentationes ac discursus praecipuos, quibus Leibniz usus est ad sententiam suam stabiliendam circa „statum ontologicum“ rerum materialium (seu corporum) necnon ipsam materiam, prae oculis ponere atque analysi subicere. Duo accurate statuuntur ac explicantur: primo, duplex Leibnizii via argumentandi (viae scil., ut aiunt, „epistemica“ et „realistica“) pro thesi, quod nihil materiale, nec a fortiori ullum corpus, rigore metaphysico substantia vocari possit; secundo, propositiones ipsius, quomodo mundus materialis ex substantiis modisque sit construendus, suadentes. Speciali praetereaindustria puncta cardinalia Leibnizii argumentationis indicantur et ita exprimuntur, uti facultas detur comparandi Leibnizii theses ad alias circa eandem materiam sententias praecipuas Leibnizii aetate.“Corpus non est Substantia sed modus tantum Entis” Leibniz on Phenomenality of the Material WorldThe aim of this article is to present and analyze the argumentative structures which are decisive for Leibniz’s position regarding the issue of the ontological status of material things (or bodies) and matter. I reconstruct and thoroughly analyze (i) two different argumentative strategies of Leibniz’s – viz. an “epistemic” and a “realistic” one – for his general thesis that nothing material (and a fortiori no body) has rigore metaphysico the status of a substance, as well as (ii) the corresponding suggestions of his as to how the material world is to be construed out of substances and their modes. Throughout, I lay special emphasis onpinpointing the real key elements of Leibniz’s arguments and on articulating them in such terms that would allow for their direct confrontation with other paradigmatic positions regarding the issue in Leibniz’s times
Keywords Catholic Tradition  History of Philosophy  Philosophy and Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1214-8407
DOI 10.5840/studneoar20052119
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,453
External links
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
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. pp. 85-95.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1972). Leibniz. Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books.
Anja Jauernig (2008). Kant's Critique of the Leibnizian Philosophy : Contra the Leibnizians, but Pro Leibniz. In Daniel Garber & Béatrice Longuenesse (eds.), Kant and the Early Moderns. Princeton University Press. pp. 41-63.
Dennis Plaisted (2003). Leibniz's Argument for Primitive Concepts. Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (3):329-341.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

16 ( #281,538 of 1,925,272 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #212,137 of 1,925,272 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.