In order to develop a deep and detailed reflection on global norms, international law scholars need to pay more attention to insights supplied by the discussions on the philosophical problem of universals. Using the examples of the discussion on universals in Leibniz and Hobbes, the paper demonstrates the importance of the philosophical problem of universals to discussions on the possibility of global norms. In particular, the comparative study of Leibniz and Hobbes demonstrates that a world divided in states mostly presupposes (...) a denial of universals and thus an impossibility of truly global norms. Although in such a world cooperation and agreement between states is desirable and possible, the resulting agreement does not reach the threshold of normativity required under this view. On the other hand, truly global norms become possible if one accepts the existence of universals following Leibnizian tradition. However, in this case, the nature of normativity changes. Moreover, while states do not need to disappear, their role changes significantly and the main unit of consideration becomes the individual human being. Under this view, a wide variety of actors at the international arena are accorded equal importance. Based on lessons learned from this discussion, the article demonstrates how the questions raised by an explicit inclusion of the philosophical problem of universals into debates about global norms have continuing relevance today. It also suggests some possible avenues for future research. (shrink)

Leibniz claims that Berkeley “wrongly or at least pointlessly rejects abstract ideas”. What he fails to realize, however, is that some of his own core views commit him to essentially the same stance. His belief that this is the best (and thus most harmonious) possible world, which itself stems from his Principle of Sufficient Reason, leads him to infer that mind and body must perfectly represent or ‘express’ one another. In the case of abstract thoughts he admits that this can (...) happen only in virtue of thinking of some image that, being essentially a mental copy of a brain state, expresses (and is expressed by) that state. But here he faces a problem. In order for a thought to be genuinely abstract, its representational content must differ from that of any mental image, since the latter can represent only particular things. In that case, however, an exact correspondence between the accompanying mental image and the brain state would not suffice to establish a perfect harmony between mind and body. Even on Leibniz’s own principles, then, it appears that Berkeley was right to dismiss abstract ideas. (shrink)