Response to Arthur, Mercer, Smith, and Wilson

The Leibniz Review 7:65-84 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In my introduction to Kontinuität und Mechanismus, I expressed surprise at the lack of work which was being done at the time on the young Leibniz in spite of the fact that conditions for investigating the period up to 1676 are almost ideal—certainly in Leibnizian terms. Most of the letters and papers from this period of immediate philosophical significance have now been published in the Akademie-Ausgabe so that there is here an incomparably better starting point for detailed studies than in the case of his later work.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Arthur O. Lovejoy and the Quest for Intelligibility.Daniel J. Wilson - 1981 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 17 (3):284-289.
A Response To J. Philip Wogaman.Kenneth Wilson - 1989 - Studies in Christian Ethics 2 (1):79-81.
Promiscuous Realism: Reply to Wilson.John Dupré - 1996 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (3):441-444.
Diderot.Arthur M. Wilson - 1974 - Political Theory 2 (4):447-448.
Adam Smith and the Educative Critique: A response to my commentators.Jack Russell Weinstein - 2015 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 34 (5):541-550.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
15 (#944,758)

6 months
2 (#1,192,898)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Philip Beeley
Oxford University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references