The paper discusses Leibniz's theory of denominations, expression, and individual notions, the central claim being that the key to many of Leibniz's fundamental theses is to consider his argument, starting from his predicate-in-subject account of truth (that in a true statement the notion of the predicate is contained in that of the subject), against purely extrinsic denominations: this argument shows why there is an internal foundation for all denominations, why everything in the world is interconnected, why each substance expresses all (...) the others, and why every change in the world is reflected as a real, internal change in every substance. (shrink)

In this paper, I will not discuss the wider philosophical issues concerning the nature and status of relations in Leibniz’s thought. This will be done another time. I will instead confine myself to reflect upon Leibnizian strategies of rewriting/reducing relational sentences, especially those that include relational predicates that express relations of connection or concurrence rather than of comparison. More precisely, I will deal with Leibniz’s analysis of the sentence “Paris est amator Helenae” as reducible to “Paris amat et eo ipso (...) Helena amatur”. I intend to show, against Massimo Mugnai’s interpretative proposal, that the phrase “et eo ipso” does not perform a reduplicative function here. (shrink)

Can Bradley's Regress be solved by positing relational tropes as truth-makers? No, no more than Russell's paradox can be solved by positing Fregean extensions. To call a trope relational is to pack into its essence the relating function it is supposed to perform but without explaining what Bradley's Regress calls into question, viz. the capacity of relations to relate. This problem has been masked from view by the (questionable) assumption that the only genuine ontological problems that can be intelligibly raised (...) are those that can be answered by providing a schedule of truthmakers. (shrink)