Search

This paper aims to explain Leibniz's opinion according to which creation and demonstration in mathematics are founded upon a certain general logic that is conversant not only with syllogisms and prosyllogisms, but also with the rules of particular progressions or functions. If this is the case, there would be a universal mathematics or good characteristics, bringing several consequences on what is thought to be the foundation and range of human knowledge. We intend to do such an inquiry mainly using the fictional clash between Theophilus, that stands for Leibniz himself, and Philalethes, that stands for the English philosopher John Locke, regarding the alleged impossibility of squaring the circle claimed by the latter, that is portrayed in the New Essays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we aim at introducing the reader to the Locke-Leibniz controversy concerning History, Politics and Language. In order to do so, we will follow this scheme: firstly, we will show in what ways Leibniz's researches on etymology shift Locke's main arguments into a different field, apart from his original art of inventing, finding and reasoning, i.e., we will show how Leibniz, based on those researches, denies not only Locke's conventionalism and nominalism, but also his somiotics; secondly, in order to show how Leibniz reclaims Adam's heritage, tracing it back from the sons of Noah to the modern Prussian monarchy trough his historical-etymological investigations, we aim at reconstructing how this dispute started with Filmer's own account of Adam's lineage and Locke's refutation of this attempt of funding the political powers in such heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Como Paul Livingston mostró en su artículo "Derrida and Formal Logical Formalizing the Undecible" es posible trazar algunos paralelos fundamentales entre lo que Derrida llama de "indecidible" y la "rica posibilidad de proposiciones indecidibles" descubierta por Gödel en 1931. Lo que pretendemos en nuestro artículo es formular los términos con los cuales podríamos hacer un retroceso aún mayor a aquel propuesto por Livingston, i. e., no empezaríamos más con la "La doble sesión" de Derrida (1970), sino con Introducción a "El origen de la Geometría" de Husserl (1962). Nos gustaría, además, de presentar algunos de los posibles motivos que llevaron a Derrida a la literatura y no a la lógica o las matemáticas, o sea, discutir su opinión con respecto a la "capacidad superior de formalización de la literatura", sobre todo si nos volvemos ante su análisis "Mímica", poema en prosa de Mallarmé. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) mentions many times the stoic philosophy, especially that of Epictetus (55-135?) and even that defended in the Enchiridion, or Manual, and perhaps the best example of the importance that the Manual takes to the German is the many references made to the Theodicy; however, among many others, there is a letter to the Lutheran theologian the abbot Gerhard Wolter Molanus (1633-1722), dated from about 1679, in which not only the "incomparable Epictetus Manual" is mentioned as are set the terms in which it is preferable with respect to what Leibniz called the art of patience, supposedly defended by the French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), art harshly criticized by the German in favor of a platonic Christianity or a truly Christian morality. Having said so, our intention is to discuss some of the reasons of the many references to the Stoic Epictetus and hence especially his Manual, and the terms in which Leibniz criticized Descartes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We intend to discuss Leibniz's critic to Newton regarding the concepts of space, place and motion and to put in question what Leibniz called affection individuelle; we will research the influence of his substance and monad's doctrine on the argumentation developed in the §47 of the last letter to Samuel Clarke and Leibniz and Newton's critics to 25th article, part two, of Descartes' Principles of Philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]