Leibniz and the Leaves: Beyond Identity

[Philosophy Now]

Angels, humans, the leaves on a tree; is each one unique or just an example of its kind? Peter Pesic explains why Leibniz thought even leaves are individuals.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/30/Leibniz_and_the_Leaves_Beyond_Identity

[-1-]

Angels, humans, the leaves on a tree; is each one unique or just an example of its kind? Peter Pesic explains why Leibniz thought even leaves are individuals.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/30/Lei ... d_Identity

Peter Pesic explains why Leibniz thought even leaves are individuals. I bet Pesic's point is not "because Leibniz was a moron." So Pesic gives credit to Leibniz, but we must not forget even for a moment, that the opposite to what Leibniz thought on this topic is equally as acceptable and valid (for all we know) as Leibniz's stand.

[Impenitent]

monad or not monad... that is the question...

-Imp

[jayjacobus]

I confess that I don't read all the words that a philosopher says. Rather I scan their papers for words I can use.

That brought me to Leibniz. What I thought intuitively and vaguely, Leibniz clarified for me.

Nature doesn't make leaps. What a wonderful, pertinent thought.

If you are at point n, you have a choice of which way to head but whichever way you head you must go to an adjoining space. You cannot leap spaces.

But in your thinking you can go to 1492, 1776, 1962 or 2011. If you are not careful, you will think you can leap in time.

No way. Leibniz (and I) will tell you, that you cannot make leaps in time.

If you don't see this, read leibniz. He will convince you of what I can't.