Leibniz on force, cause and subject of motion: From de corporum concursu (1678) to the brevis demonstratio

Manuscrito 44 (1):98-130 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the present paper we study the relationship between the notions of force, cause and subject of motion in Leibniz’s early dynamics. First, we specify the role that the problem of the subject and cause of motion played in the development of his dynamics. Second, we analyze the distinction between force and quantity of motion and the validity and limits of his proof. Third, we study and evaluate the limits of the arguments for establishing that forces are inherent to bodies. Our main goal is to show that between 1678 and 1686 Leibniz dissociates the problem of the subject from the problem of the cause of motion and, furthermore, that even though the problem of establishing that force is inherent to particular bodies played a major role in the discovery of his dynamics, it has no place in its justification.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

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

Cause and Effect in Leibniz’s Brevis demonstratio.Laurynas Adomaitis - 2019 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 9 (1):120-134.
News from Canada.François Duchesneau - 1994 - The Leibniz Review 4:15-15.
Leibniz on force and absolute motion.John T. Roberts - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (3):553-573.
Motion in Leibniz's Middle Years: A Compatibilist Approach.Stephen Puryear - 2012 - Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 6:135-170.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-01-14

Downloads
10 (#1,129,009)

6 months
2 (#1,157,335)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Leibniz on force and absolute motion.John T. Roberts - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (3):553-573.

Add more references