DOCSLIB.ORG

Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bibliography Bibliography I. Texts by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1. Texts Cited by Abbreviation A: Leibniz, G.W. 1923. In Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, ed. Academy of Sciences of Berlin. Darmstadt/Leipzig/Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Cited by Series, Volume, and Page AG: Leibniz, G.W. 1989. Philosophical Essays. Trans. and ed. R. Ariew and D. Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. C: Leibniz, G.W. 1903. Opuscules et fragments inédits. ed. Louis Couturat. Paris: F. Alcan. Reprinted 1988. Hildesheim: Olms. GM: Leibniz, G.W. 1849–1863. Mathematische Schriften. 7 vols., ed. C.I. Gerhardt. Berlin/Halle: A. Asher and H. W. Schmidt. © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 139 T. Tho, Vis Vim Vi: Declinations of Force in Leibniz’s Dynamics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 46, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59055-4 140 Bibliography Cited by Volume and Page GP: Leibniz, G.W. 1875–1890. Die Philosophischen Schriften. 7 vols., ed. C.I. Gerhardt. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Reprinted 1960–1961. Hildesheim: Olms. Cited by Volume and Page L: Leibniz, G.W. 1969. Philosophical Papers and Letters. 2nd Ed.(trans. Leroy E. Loemker). Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel. LC: Leibniz, G.W. 2001. The Labyrinth of the Continuum: Writings on the Continuum Problem, 1672– 1686. Trans., ed., and intro. R.T.W. Arthur. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. LdB: Leibniz, G.W. 2007a. The Leibniz-Des Bosses correspondence. Trans., ed., and intro. Brandon C. Look and Donald Rutherford. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. LdV: Leibniz, G.W. 2013a. The Leibniz-De Volder Correspondence. With Selections from the Correspondence Between Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli. Trans. ed., and intro. Paul Lodge. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. 2. Other Texts of G.W. Leibniz (Not Cited by Abbreviation) Leibniz, G.W. 1991. Phoranomus seu de potentia et legibus naturae, ed. and annotation by André Robinet. Physis 28(2): 429–541 and Physis 28(3): 797–885. Leibniz, G.W. 1994. Leibniz: La réforme de la dynamique, ed. Michel Fichant. Paris: Vrin. Leibniz, G.W. 2004. Discours de Métaphysique et Monadologie, ed. and intro. Michel Fichant. Paris: Editions Gallimard. Leibniz, G.W. 2007b. Phoranomus seu de potentia et legibus naturae, ed. Gianfranco Mormino. In Dialoghi filosofici e scientifici, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ed. Francesco Piro, Gianfranco Mormino, and Enrico Pasini. 680–885. Milan: Bompiani. Bibliography 141 Leibniz, G.W. 2013b. Principia mechanica. ed. and trans. Richard T.W. Arthur. The Leibniz Review 23: 101–105. Leibniz, G.W., and Samuel Clarke. 2000. Correspondence, ed. and intro. Roger Ariew. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. II. Texts by Other Authors Aiton, E.J. 1965. An Imaginary Error in the Celestial Mechanics of Leibniz. Annals of Science 21 (3): 169–173. Aristotle. 2001. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Modern Library. Arthur, Richard T.W. 1994. Space and Relativity in Newton and Leibniz. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 219–240. Arthur, Richard T.W. 2013. Leibniz’s Theory of Space. Foundations of Science 18 (3): 499–528. Barrow, Issac. 1860. The Mathematical Works of Issac Barrow. Ed. W. Whewell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beeley, Philip. 1996. Kontinuität und Mechanismus. Zur Philosophie des jungen Leibniz in ihrem ideengeschichtlichen Kontext. Studia Leibnitiana Suppementa 30: 228–260. Bernstein, Howard. 1980. Conatus, Hobbes, and the Young Leibniz. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 25–37. Bernstein, Howard. 1981. Passivity and Inertia in Leibniz’s “Dynamics”. Studia Leibnitiana 13: 97–113. Bernstein, Howard. 1984. Leibniz and Huygens on the “Relativity” of Motion. Studia Leibnitiana Sonderhelft 13: 85–102. Bertoloni Meli, Domenico. 1990. The Relativization of Centrifugal Force. Isis 81 (1): 23–43. Bertoloni Meli, Domenico. 1993. Equivalence and Priority: Newton Versus Leibniz. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Boudri, J. Christian. 2002. What was Mechanical About Mechanics: The Concept of Force Between Metaphysics and Mechanics from Newton to Lagrange. Dordrecht: Springer. Brown, Gregory. 1984. ‘Quod ostendendum susceperamus’. What did Leibniz undertake to show in Brevis Demonstratio? Studia Leibnitiana Sonderhelft 13: 122–137. Bussotti, Paolo. 2015. The Complex Itinerary of Leibniz’s Planetary Theory. Basel: Birkhäuser. Clavius, Christophorus. 1611–1612. Opera Mathematica Vol. I. Moguntiae/Mainz. Reprinted in 1999. Hildesheim/New York: Olms-Weidmann. Costabel, Pierre. 1960. Leibniz et la dynamique: Les textes de 1692. Paris: Hermann. English edition: Costabel, Pierre. 1973. Leibniz and Dynamics: the texts of 1692 (trans: R. E. W. Maddison). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. D’Alembert, Jean. 1785. Encyclopédie méthodique. Darrigol, Olivier. 2014. Physics and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Risi, Vincenzo. 2007. Geometry and Monadology. Basel: Birkhäuser. De Risi, Vincenzo. 2012. Leibniz on Relativity: The Debate Between Hans Reichenbach and Dietrich Mahnke on Leibniz’s Theory of Motion and Time. In New Essays in Leibniz Reception, ed. Ralf Krömer and Yannik Chin-Drian, 143–185. Basel: Springer. De Risi, Vincenzo. 2015. Leibniz’s Theory of Parallel Lines. In Mathematizing Space, ed. Vincenzo de Risi, 1–13. Birkhäuser: Basel. Duchesneau, François. 1994. La Dynamique de Leibniz. Paris: Vrin. Duchesneau, François. 1998. Leibniz’s Theoretical Shift in the Phoranomus and Dynamica de Potentia. Perspectives on Science 6 (1–2): 77–109. Duchesneau, François. 2010. Leibniz, le Vivant Et L’Organisme. Paris: Vrin. Dugas, René. 1988. A History of Mechanics. Trans. J.R. Maddox. New York: Dover. 142 Bibliography Duhem, Pierre. 1991. The Origins of Statics. Trans. Grant F. Leneaux, Victor N. Vagliente, Guy H. Wagener. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 123. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Earman, John S. 1989. World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute versus Relational Theories of Space and Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Erlichson, Herman. 1997. The Young Huygens Solves the Problem of Elastic Collisions. American Journal of Physics 65 (2): 149–154. Eustachio a Sancto Paolo. 1614. Summa philosophiae quadripartita. Pars III. Paris: Carolum Chastelain. Fichant, Michel. 1994. Introduction. In Leibniz: La réforme de la dynamique, ed. Michel Fichant, 9–65. Paris: Vrin. Fichant, Michel. 1995. De la puissance à l’action: la singularité de la Dynamique. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 100 (1): 49–81. Fichant, Michel. 2004. Introduction. In G.W. Leibniz: Discours de Métaphysique et Monadologie, ed. Michel Fichant, 7–140. Paris: Editions Gallimard. Fichant, Michel. 2016. Les dualités de la dynamique leibnizienne. Lexicon Philosophicum 4: 11–41. Gabbey, Alan. 1971. Force and Inertia in Seventeenth-Century Dynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2 (1): 1–67. Gale, George. 1984. Leibniz’ Force: Where Physics and Metaphysics Collide. In Leibniz’ Dynamica, ed. A. Heinekamp, 62–70. Stuttgart: Steiner. Gale, George. 1988. The Concept of ‘force’ and Its Role in the Genesis of Leibniz’ Dynamical Viewpoint. Journal of the History of Philosophy 26 (1): 45–67. Galilei, Galileo. 1898. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei Vol. VIII. Firenze: G. Barbera. Galilei, Galileo. 1960. On Motion and On Mechanics. Trans., intro. and notes I.E. Drabkin and Stillman Drake. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Galilei, Galileo. 1974. Two New Sciences. Trans. and ed. Stillman Drake. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Garber, Daniel. 1985. Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years. In The Natural Philosophy of Leibniz, ed. K. Okruhlik and J.R. Brown, 27–130. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Garber, Daniel. 2009. Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Gueroult, Martial. 1934. Dynamique et métaphysique Leibniziennes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Hankins, Thomas. 1990. Jean D’Alembert: Science and the Enlightenment. New York: Gordon and Breach. Hermann, Jakob. 1716. Phoronomia, sive de viribus et motibus corporum. Amstelaedami (Amsterdam): R. & G. Wetstenios H.FF. Hobbes, Thomas. 1999. In De Corpore: Elementorum philosophiae sectio prima, ed. Karl Schuhmann. Paris: J. Vrin. Huygens, Christiaan. 1669. Extrait d’une lettre de M. Huygens. Journal des sçavans 1672: 22–24. Huygens, Christiaan. 1929. Oeuvres Completes, Vol. 16. La Haye: Martinus Hijhof. Huygens, Christiaan. 1977. The motion of colliding bodies (trans. Richard J. Blackwell). Isis 68 (4): 574–597. Huygens, Christiaan. 1993. ‘Penetralia motus’: la fondazione relativistica della meccanica in Christiaan Huygens, con l’edizione del Codex Hugeniorum 7A. Ed. Gianfranco Mormino. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Iltis, Carolyn. 1971. Leibniz and the Vis Viva Controversy. Isis 62 (1): 21–35. Itokazu, Anastasia Guidi. 2009. On the Equivalence of Hypotheses in Part I of Johannes Kepler’s New Astronomy. Journal for the History of Astronomy 40 (2): 173–190. Jauernig, Anja. 2008. Leibniz on Motion and the Equivalence of Hypotheses. The Leibniz Review 18: 1–40. Jauernig, Anja. 2009. Leibniz on Motion- Reply to Edward Slowik. The Leibniz Review 19: 139–147. Bibliography 143 Jungius, Joachim. 1627. Geometria empirica. Rostock: Haeredum Richelianorum. Jungius, Joachim. 1638. Logica hamburgensis. Hamburg: Bartholdi Offerman. Jungius, Joachim. 1699. Phoronomica. In Opuscula Mathematica, ed. Johannis Aldolfi Tassi, Henricum Siverum, and Balthasar Mentzer, 1–46. Hamburg: Gottfried Liebezeit. Kepler, Johannis. 1984. The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler’s a Defence of Tycho Against Ursus with Essays on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HNRS 2030 — Humanities Colloquium: Aristotle and Aquinas on Nature and Justice
    “It has been well said of Aristotle, ‘Solet Aristoteles quaerere pugnam’; ‘Aristotle has a habit of seeking a fight.’ He is seeking a fight not because he loves fight and enmity but because he loves peace and friendship; but true peace and friendship can only be found in the truth.” Leo Strauss1 “It will not be possible to conceal much longer from anybody the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the great liberators of the human intellect…. Thomas was a very great man who reconciled religion with reason, who expanded it towards experimental science, who insisted that the senses were the windows of the soul and that the reason had a divine right to feed upon facts, and that it was the business of the Faith to digest the strong meat of the toughest and most practical of pagan philosophies” G.K. Chesterton2 HONORS 2030: Humanities Colloquium Aristotle and Aquinas: On Nature and Justice Spring 2019 Through study of the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas, we will seek to understand what nature is and how it can be known, and then to consider the implications for understanding human nature and the question of how to live a good life, individually and in community with others. Attending to the influence of modern science as well as to the rise of modern society, we will ask what is living and true in the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas, respectively, and what has been superseded by modern discoveries. Instructor: James Stoner Stubbs 214 (tel: 578-2538); e-mail: [email protected] Office Hours: M, 2:00-3:00, W, 1:30–3:30, and by appointment Books available for purchase: • Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science (Institute for Advanced Physics/AuthorHouse) [ISbN 9781418465049] • Richard McKeon, ed., Basic Works of Aristotle (Modern Library) [ISbN 9780375757990] • Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (tr, Robert Bartlett & Susan Collins) (Chicago) [ISbN 9780226026756] • Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa [ed.
    [Show full text]
  • University at Buffalo Department of Philosophy Nousletter Interview with Jorge Gracia
    University at Buffalo Department of Philosophy Nousletter Interview with Jorge Gracia Jorge Gracia is a polymath. He works in metaphysics/ontology, philosophical historiography, philosophy of language/hermeneutics, ethnicity/race/nationality issues, Hispanic/Latino issues, medieval/scholastic philosophy, Cuban and Argentinian art, and Borges. Gracia’s earliest work was in medieval philosophy. His more than three decades of contributions to medieval philosophy were recently recognized by his being named the winner of the most prestigious award in the field in 2011, the American Catholic Philosophical Association’s Aquinas Medal. That put him in the ranks of Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Bernard Lonergan, Joseph Owens, G. E. M. Anscombe, Peter Geach, Michael Dummett, John Finnis, Brian Davies, Anthony Kenny, Alisdair McIntyre and one Pope, Karol Wojtyla, and now one saint. Even after Gracia redirected some of his intellectual energies into other branches of philosophy, UB was still being ranked by the Philosophical Gourmet Report (PGR) as one of the best schools in medieval philosophy: 13th in 2006 and in the 15-20 range in 2008. If there were PGR rankings for Latin American philosophy or the philosophy of race and ethnicity, Jorge Gracia’s work would have enabled us to be highly ranked in those fields, higher, I suspect, than UB is in any other philosophical specialization. In the 2010 Blackwell Companion to Latin American Philosophy, Gracia was listed as one of the 40 most important figures in Latin American philosophy since the year 1500! Gracia is also one of the leaders in the emerging field of the philosophy of race and ethnicity.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz : Unity, Thought, and Being
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1981 Leibniz : unity, thought, and being. Thomas Anthony Steinbuch University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Steinbuch, Thomas Anthony, "Leibniz : unity, thought, and being." (1981). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1846. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1846 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. mm ''fRSt UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY 'ZS'O Vr> ARCHIVES N LD 3234 J M267 a 1981 a S8197 - : LEIBNIZ UNITY, THOUGHT, AND BEING A Dissertation Presented By THOMAS ANTHONY STEINBUCH Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 1981 Philosophy ii © Copyright by Thomas Anthony Steinbuch 1981 All Rights Reserved iii To rry friends, with love IV LEIBNIZ: UNITY, THOUGHT, AND BEING A Dissertation By Thomas A. Steinbuch Apprpved as to style and content by: Leonard H. Ehrlich, Chairman of Committee )//'/ // Robert C. Sleigh, Jr., Member llriX Robert Paul Wolff,^ Member Richard,/ Haven, Member Edmund L. Gettier, III, Department Head Department of Philosophy May 1980 V Leibniz: Unity, Thought, and Being (May 1981) Thomas A. Steinbuch, B.A., Brooklyn College of CUNY M.A. , University of Massachusetts at Amherst Directed by: Leonard H. Ehrlich This work is an investigation of Leibniz's concern with the problems of unity.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Summer 2006.Qxd
    Memoir by Stanley Rosen Leo Strauss in Chicago Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/135/3/104/1829109/daed.2006.135.3.104.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 I ½rst met Leo Strauss when I was nine- the graduate of a Swiss private lycée teen years old and a student in the Col- accomplished this some years after my lege of the University of Chicago. It was departure. In 1949, though, the record the spring of 1949–this was during the was one year, which was matched by epoch of the presidency of Robert May- eighteen members of my class, including nard Hutchins, when the University was myself and my classmate and friend Seth at the height of its glory. At that time, Benardete. the College was famous for the eccen- Another peculiarity of the College was tricity and precociousness of many of that one could enter it at any age, and its students, and also for its highly un- among my classmates were a number of usual custom of allowing entering stu- virtual children. I still remember a par- dents to take examinations on the basis ty given by some of the older students. of which they were assigned course re- There, I entered into conversation with quirements. The intention of this pro- a man who seemed to be in his mid-thir- gram was to extend the time we spent ties, a guess that his thick glasses and ad- in graduate school, provided that we al- vanced baldness only strengthened. He ready possessed the necessary founda- informed me that he had broken with tion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rhetoric(S) of St. Augustine's Confessions
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Communication Scholarship Communication 2008 The Rhetoric(s) of St. Augustine's Confessions James M. Farrell University of New Hampshire, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/comm_facpub Part of the Christianity Commons, Classical Literature and Philology Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Christianity Commons, Medieval History Commons, Medieval Studies Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Recommended Citation James M. Farrell, "The Rhetoric(s) of St. Augustine's Confessions," Augustinian Studies 39:2 (2008), 265-291. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Rhetoric(s) of St. Augustine’s Confessions. James M. Farrell University of New Hampshire Much of the scholarship on Augustine’s Confessions has consigned the discipline of rhetoric to the margins. Rhetoric was Augustine’s “major” in school, and his bread and bacon as a young adult. But in turning to God in the garden at Milan, Augustine also turned away from his profession. Rightly so, the accomplishment of Augustine’s conversion is viewed as a positive development. But the conversion story also structures the whole narrative of the Confessions and thus rhetoric is implicated in that narrative. It is the story of “Latin rhetorician turned Christian bishop.”1 Augustine’s intellectual and disciplinary evolution is mapped over a story of spiritual ascent.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Philosophy?
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research York College 2017 What Is Philosophy? Howard S. Ruttenberg CUNY York College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/yc_pubs/208 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] PROVOST’S LECTURE / Spring 2017 / 2nd version/ March 6, 2017 “What is Philosophy?” / H. Ruttenberg I. Breadth and Depth: Ancient and Modern Examples Philosophy has been defined by Richard McKeon as the activity of “pushing any question to an extreme.” This definition indicates the breadth of philosophy, because it is concerned with any question, and the depth of philosophy, because it pushes question to an extreme. Knowledge of what is broadest and deepest has been called “wisdom”. Socrates’ distinction between human and divine wisdom made it love of wisdom, philosophia. Almost any university catalogue lists courses in the philosophy of just about every subject matter as well as courses that are about every or nearly every subject matter: since they all have subjects, seek knowledge, such as metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of language. But the list of arts and sciences and their organization are not hard, unchanging facts. Since any question leads to philosophy, every subject can be the source of first philosophy, the architectonic art by which other arts are defined. The history of philosophy is a history inspired by new developments in arts and sciences from mathematics to rhetoric that give rise to new philosophical reflection and new answers to fundamental questions.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Philosophy Conceived As a Struggle Between Nominalism and Realism*
    The history of philosophy conceived as a struggle between nominalism and realism* CORNELIS DE WAAL Abstract In this article I trace some of the main tenets of the struggle between nom- inalism and realism as identified by John Deely in his Four ages of under- standing. The aim is to assess Deely’s claim that the Age of Modernity was nominalist and that the coming age, the Age of Postmodernism — which he portrays as a renaissance of the late middle ages and as starting with Peirce — is realist. After a general overview of how Peirce interpreted the nominalist-realist controversy, Deely gives special attention to Thomas Aquinas’s On being and essence and the realism it entails. A subsequent discussion of the Modern Period shows that the issue of nominalism and re- alism is very much tied up with di¤erent conceptions of the intellect. Deely credits the theory of evolution with bringing us a conception of the intellect that is closer to that of the Middle Ages and that opens the way for a truly realistic ‘‘fourth age’’ of the understanding. Keywords: Aquinas; Deely; nominalism; Peirce; postmodernism; realism. Santayana certainly was on to something when he wrote that those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it, but something else is true too. Those who know history tend to repeat it as well. Whereas the former risk unknowingly rehearsing history’s well-documented mistakes, the latter risk uncritically embracing its self-proclaimed suc- cesses. One of these successes is the triumph of the moderns over the schoolmen, a feat still celebrated in books on the history of philosophy by banishing medieval thought toward the dimly lit outskirts of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Medieval Theories of Natural Law: William of Ockham and the Significance of the Voluntarist Tradition Francis Oakley
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Natural Law Forum 1-1-1961 Medieval Theories of Natural Law: William of Ockham and the Significance of the Voluntarist Tradition Francis Oakley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Oakley, Francis, "Medieval Theories of Natural Law: William of Ockham and the Significance of the Voluntarist Tradition" (1961). Natural Law Forum. Paper 60. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum/60 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Law Forum by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEDIEVAL THEORIES OF NATURAL LAW: WILLIAM OF OCKHAM AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VOLUNTARIST TRADITION Francis Oakley THE BELIEF in a natural law superior to mere positive enactment and the practice of appealing to it were common to the vast majority of medieval political thinkers'-whether civil lawyers or philosophers, canon lawyers or theologians; and, all too often, it has been assumed that when they invoked the natural law, they meant much the same thing by it. It takes, indeed, little more than a superficial glance to discover that the civil or canon lawyers often meant by natural law something rather different than did the philoso- phers or theologians, but it takes perhaps a closer look to detect that not even the theologians themselves were in full agreement in their theories of natural
    [Show full text]
  • Shorris, E. (2004, June). Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and The
    Shorris, E. (2004, June). Ignoble liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception. Harper’s Magazine. 65-71. President Bush's advocacy of "regime change"—which avoids the pitfalls of a wishful global universalism on the one hand, and a fatalistic cultural determinism on the other—is a not altogether unworthy product of Strauss's rehabilitation of the notion of regime. —William Kristol and Steven Lenzner In the 1950s, inside the University of Chicago, then the most left-wing university in the United States, hidden somewhere among the graduate divisions, the accidental father of the worst in American politics taught Plato and Montesquieu, Spinoza, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Leo Strauss arrived at Chicago when the hard sciences were in their ascendance there, not many years after the first nuclear chain reaction was created under the old West Stands of the abandoned football field. The newcomer was outgunned by the big-time Aristotelians, such as Richard McKeon, and despised by the doyenne of citizenship, Hannah Arendt. If Strauss and the logician Albert Wohlstetter, who was responsible for the Cold War theory of mutually assured destruction, knew each other at all, it was to nod in passing. Strauss and the social scientists found each other unbearable, for he disagreed with Max Weber, and the sociologists hated him for it. In worldly things Strauss suffered from arrogance and timidity, partly the result of the Platonist's anxiety: the fear that, like Socrates, he would be put to death for being a philosopher. Yet Strauss, with his endowed chair, more than stood his ground on a campus where Aristotle held sway.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intrigue of Paradigmatic Similarity: Leibniz and China Comparative Civilizations Review 19
    Comparative Civilizations Review Volume 77 Article 5 Number 77 Fall 2017 11-8-2017 The nI trigue of Paradigmatic Similarity: Leibniz and China Yu Liu [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr Part of the Comparative Literature Commons, History Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Liu, Yu (2017) "The nI trigue of Paradigmatic Similarity: Leibniz and China," Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 77 : No. 77 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol77/iss77/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Comparative Civilizations Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Liu: The Intrigue of Paradigmatic Similarity: Leibniz and China Comparative Civilizations Review 19 The Intrigue of Paradigmatic Similarity: Leibniz and China Yu Liu In a long letter written in the last year of his life, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646- 1716) notably defended the philosophical and religious conviction of China from some Catholic missionaries. “[Far] from being blameworthy,” he proclaimed, the Chinese “merit praise for their idea of things being created by their natural propensity and by a pre-established harmony.”1 Because of his apparent endorsement of Chinese belief in terms of his well-known credo, Leibniz
    [Show full text]
  • The One Beside the Many: Aristotle's Early Theory of Universals
    Aporia, Vol. I, No. 1 (Fall 1991) The One Beside the Many: Aristotle's Early Theory of Universals Howard Nielsen, Jr. In his work the Categories, Aristotle presents an ontological system that turns Plato's notion of reality upside down. While Plato had identified universals with self-existent forms—the things that, within Plato's ontology, were most real—Aristotle presents primary substance (comprising the individual objects ofsense-experience) as that which is most real. Universals, according to Aristotle, exist only as the species and genera predicated of either (1)individual substances (the species 'man'and the genus 'animal' predicated of the individual Socrates),or (2)those qualities present in individual substances (the color or white ness predicated of Socrates' paleness). Although Aristotle's ontology equates those things most real with those things most immediately accessible to human experience,thereby making genuine knowledge both more available and more pertinent to the ttogs ofthis world, his notion of scientific knowledge still depends heavily on the existence of universals. In several of his works,Aristotle discusses the nature of universals and the process or processes through wluch they can be known. Although in some ways Aristotle's theory of universals is easier to grasp than is Plato's, it presents several unique difficulties. In this paper I will (1) discuss briefly the role universals play in Aristotle's theory of knowledge;(2) attempt to reconstruct the method(s)through which these universals can be known;and (3) discuss some of the problems with Aristotle's theory of universals. According to Aristotle, scientific knowledge is deduced from first principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Leave? a Preface on the State of Nature Theory
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Liberty University Digital Commons Running head: THE STATE OF NATURE X 1 The State of Nature X: Why Leave? A Preface on the State of Nature Theory Zachary Steven Stirparo A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2013 The State of Nature X: Why Leave? Stirparo 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Dr. Corey Martin, J.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Dr. Edward Martin, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Professor Stephen Witham, M.A. Committee Member ______________________________ Marilyn Gadomski, Ph.D. Assistant Honors Director ______________________________ Date The State of Nature X: Why Leave? Stirparo 3 Abstract Great minds have addressed the issue of forming a polity, dating back to Plato. Yet, most of these great minds, such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argue for the need to escape the state of nature into a civil form of government. However, after taking the three essential elements of man that these philosophers all comment on, self-preservation, reason, and will, a new state of nature model is created that is stronger. It is stronger because of its definition of man and the analytic inferences that flow from that definition. Therefore, the state of nature theory does not preclude man from living outside the bounds of government. The State of Nature X: Why Leave? Stirparo 4 Preface: Strengthening an Old Theory The ideas behind the state of nature theory can guide beliefs about man, political society, and law.
    [Show full text]