On 12/5/2012 5:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I don't recall ever finding a mistake in Leibniz's metaphysics,

Dear Roger,

I found his need to appeal to God to solve the PEH problem to be a big mistake, but at least he had a good excuse and did work out many of the needed ideas of computation theory...

there is a serious shortcoming in not completely defining what a
substance is.

Yes, "substance" is the universal solvent of the time. Nowadays we have Higgs bosons and Dark matter... same shit, different label.

 How far down the scale of maginification must or can
or should one go ?

As far down (and up!) as necessary to get to a level where one has structure that requires a different set of representations. Think of how at the molecular level one no longer has a physic of pressure and temperature, but one of van der Waals forces...

Leibniz seems to invite study, as he appearsd to have provided, not
a thoroughly worked out metaphysics, but a toolkit (the monadology)
for you to work it out yourself.

What impresses me the most about the monadology is that it presents a completely different mereological (relations between wholes and parts) system than the "atoms in a void" paradigm. Additionally, it gives an alternative to the usual "innate property" idea with its relationalism. I see in Leibniz' the first glimmerings of Non-Well Founded sets.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to