Pure Intellect, Brain Traces, and Language: Leibniz and the Foucher-Malebranche Debate

In Daniel Garber & Steven Nadler (eds.), Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy Volume V. Oxford University Press UK (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,953

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Intellect and illumination in Malebranche.Nicholas Jolley - 1994 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (2):209-224.
Leibniz and Malebranche on innate ideas.Nicholas Jolley - 1988 - Philosophical Review 97 (1):71-91.
Les enjeux de la publication en France des papiers de Leibniz sur Spinoza.P. -F. Moreau - 1988 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 93 (2):215 - 222.
The light of the soul: theories of ideas in Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes.Nicholas Jolley - 1990 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Nicolas Malebranche: Freedom in an Occasionalist World.Susan Peppers-Bates - 2009 - Continuum.
Foucher de Careil, Klopp, die Akademie-Ausgabe und ein bislang unentdecktes Leibniz-Buch.Sabine Sellschopp - 2001 - Studia Leibnitiana 33 (2):194 - 205.
Malebranche and Leibniz on the best of all possible worlds.Tad M. Schmaltz - 2010 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 48 (1):28-48.
Malebranche, the Quietists, and Freedom.Julie Walsh & Thomas M. Lennon - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (1):69 - 108.
Equivocations of “Metaphysics”.William Franke - 2008 - Philosophy and Theology 20 (1-2):29-52.
Entre réhabilitation du scepticisme et critique du cartésianisme : Foucher lecteur du scepticisme académique.Sébastien Charles - 2013 - Astérion 11.
Letter to Foucher (March 1693).Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - unknown
Malebranche and Chinese Philosophy.David E. Mungello - 1980 - Journal of the History of Ideas 41 (4):551.
Why Shouldn’t Leibniz Have Studied Spinoza?Ursula Goldenbaum - 2007 - The Leibniz Review 17:107-138.
The Malebranche–Arnauld Debate.Denis Moreau - 2000 - In Steven Nadler (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Malebranche. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 87--111.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-04-03

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references