Although Leibniz's writing forms an enormous corpus, no single work stands as a canonical expression of his whole philosophy. In addition, the wide range of Leibniz's work--letters, published papers, and fragments on a variety of philosophical, religious, mathematical, and scientific questions over a fifty-year period--heightens the challenge of preparing an edition of his Although Leibniz's writing forms an enormous corpus, no single work stands as a canonical expression of his whole philosophy. In addition, the wide range of Leibniz's work--letters, published papers, and fragments on a variety of philosophical, religious, mathematical, and scientific questions over a fifty-year period--heightens the challenge of preparing an edition of his writings in English translation from the French and Latin.
Leibniz: Philosophical Essays (Hackett Classics)
Although Leibniz's writing forms an enormous corpus, no single work stands as a canonical expression of his whole philosophy. In addition, the wide range of Leibniz's work--letters, published papers, and fragments on a variety of philosophical, religious, mathematical, and scientific questions over a fifty-year period--heightens the challenge of preparing an edition of his Although Leibniz's writing forms an enormous corpus, no single work stands as a canonical expression of his whole philosophy. In addition, the wide range of Leibniz's work--letters, published papers, and fragments on a variety of philosophical, religious, mathematical, and scientific questions over a fifty-year period--heightens the challenge of preparing an edition of his writings in English translation from the French and Latin.
Compare
Related products
Storm
Chasin' the Bird: Charlie Parker in California
Reckless Rock Star (Cocky Hero Club)
The Ballad of Tubs Marshfield
One Time Only (One Time Only, #1)
Dolly Parton, Songteller: My Life in Lyrics
Super Fake Love Song
Ella Grace –
What an interesting read! Because of our modern day knowledge of atoms and because nothing works perfectly, I don't think his concept of monads would work but it was interesting to think about that perhaps these perfect monads worked before the Fall and atoms are part of a new broken world. Also, I found his discussion on the connection between mind and body interesting since it was quite different from Socrates' teachings. What an interesting read! Because of our modern day knowledge of atoms and because nothing works perfectly, I don't think his concept of monads would work but it was interesting to think about that perhaps these perfect monads worked before the Fall and atoms are part of a new broken world. Also, I found his discussion on the connection between mind and body interesting since it was quite different from Socrates' teachings.
Roberto Rigolin F Lopes –
We are somewhere between 1660 and 1715, Leibniz is exchanging letters with friends about recent developments on the state-of-the-art. Sometimes sharing his criticism over other people ideas (say Descartes, Lock and Newton) and other times replying to criticism on his ideas. He very often uses “god” in his arguments; Kindle says that there are 986 appearances of “god” in this text, about two “gods” per page! And his “god” is indeed formidable but fiction (even a priest wrote him saying that his i We are somewhere between 1660 and 1715, Leibniz is exchanging letters with friends about recent developments on the state-of-the-art. Sometimes sharing his criticism over other people ideas (say Descartes, Lock and Newton) and other times replying to criticism on his ideas. He very often uses “god” in his arguments; Kindle says that there are 986 appearances of “god” in this text, about two “gods” per page! And his “god” is indeed formidable but fiction (even a priest wrote him saying that his ideas are hard to reconcile with free will). If you want to play Nietzsche (THE god-challenger), you can challenge Leibniz’s god just using the BIG BANG (1927) + EVOLUTION (1859). But, hey, this is a pretty easy win sitting on more than three centuries of scientific developments (I am writing this blah in 2018). So showing some respect to his mathematics, you can replace his “god” by three types as follows. A-god = nature. B-god = “I have no idea!” (he should shout this instead of creating a perfect god). C-god = NONSENSE (the creator of souls, angels, miracles and so on). B and C-gods are all over this book, but if you are up to a challenge, GO. I need his math/physics after this struggle.
jaime tobar –
Locussolus –
Cole Simmons –
Hazel –
Buck –
Jim –
Thomas Pon –
Nathan Cox –
Luke –
Ryan Healey –
chris keller –
Eli –
John Schroeder –
Larisa Blinova –
J –
Irving –
Thai Divone –
Michael Lloyd-Billington –
Veronica –
Spectraz –
Alexi Parizeau –
Max –
Billy Candelaria –
Sean Namei –
Dimitris –
Randy –
Blake –
Atte –
jeffrey –
Robert –
Kale –
Greg Gauthier –
Nathan Rubene dos Santos –
Matt Sawyer –
Arman –
Amy VanHym –
Jenny Bâûr –
Zhang –