phil162 review

phil162 review - 1. Argument from composition a. How can...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. Argument from composition a. How can non-extended simples compose extended bodies? i) Addition of zeros, no mater their quantity, sums to zero. Non- extended bodies, no matter their quantity, would ever be able to compose a composite body. Problem : Leibniz here makes the jump from metaphysical to the physical without explanation. 1. Leibniz explains away this objection by first allowing the above, and instead stating that it is our perception of these simples (monads) that lead to composite bodies. Monads aren’t the pieces of bodies but rather bodies are what results from them (monads). There then would seem to be also a simple, yet extended body one could define… b. Are all bodies composite beings? i) …If composite beings aren’t actually the aggregate of monads, a extended, independent could also exist (Newton’s atom). Problem : This would here seem to hurt Leibniz’s claim that the infinite regress bottoms out at non-extended simples. 1. This here only assumes the possibility of physical division and ignores the logical possibility of another force (i.e. God) that could still further divide these extended bodies in
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course PHIL 162 taught by Professor Holden during the Winter '08 term at UCSB.

Page1 / 2

phil162 review - 1. Argument from composition a. How can...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online