Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2017
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Kant on Reality, Cause, and ForceFrom the Early Modern Tradition to the Critical Philosophy, pp. 215 - 222Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Primary Sources
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by A. C. Pegis, James F. Anderson, Vernon J. Bourke, and Charles J. O’Neil. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. 61 vols. Various translators. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1964–80.Google Scholar
Ariew, Roger, Cottingham, John, and Sorell, Tom, eds. Descartes’ Meditations: Background Source Materials. Cambridge Philosophical Texts in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Cusa, Nicholas. Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance: A Translation and an Appraisal of de Docta Ignorantia. Translated by Jasper Hopkins. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Banning Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Beauchamp, Tom L.. Oxford Philosophical Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition. Edited by Norton, David F. and Norton, Mary J.. 2 vols. The Clarendon Edition of the Works of David Hume. Oxford: Oxford University Press: Clarendon Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Correspondence. Translated by Arnulf Zweig. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. London: Macmillan, 1929.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Kant’s Latin Writings: Translations, Commentaries, and Notes. Translated by Beck, Lewis White. New York: Peter Lang, 1985.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Logic. Translated by J. Michael Young. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Metaphysics. Translated by Karl Ameriks and Steve Naragon. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Notes and Fragments: Logic, Metaphysics, Moral Philosophy, Aesthetics. Translated by Paul Guyer. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770. Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes. Opera Omnia. Edited by Frisch, Christian. 8 vols. Frankfurt: Heyden & Zimmer, 1858.Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes. Optics: Paralipomena to Witelo & Optical Part of Astronomy. Translated by William H. Donahue. Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Logical Papers: a Selection. Translated and edited by Parkinson, G. H. R.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz. Edited by Couturat, Louis. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1903. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Philosophical Texts. Translated by Richard Francks and R. S. Woolhouse. Oxford Philosophical Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Schriften zur Logik und zur philosophischen Grundlegung von Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft. Edited by Herbert Herring. 1. Aufl., Philosophische Schriften, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Edited by Hans Heinz Holz, Bd. 4. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1996.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Selections. Edited by Wiener, Philip P.. New York: Scribner, 1951.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. The Leibniz-De Volder Correspondence: With Selections from the Correspondence between Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli. Translated by Paul Lodge. The Yale Leibniz. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Porphyry, . Introduction. Translated with a Commentary by Barnes, Jonathan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Suárez, Francisco. On Efficient Causality: Metaphysical Disputations 17, 18, and 19. Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. Yale Library of Medieval Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Suárez, Francisco. On the Formal Cause of Substance: Metaphysical Disputation XV. Translated by John Kronen. Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation, no. 36. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. Philosophia Prima Sive Ontologia, Methodo Scientifica Pertractata, qua Omnis Cognitionis Humanae Principia Continentur. Edited by École, Jean. Vol. Abteilung II, Band 3. Gesammelte Werke. Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1736. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2011.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Adams, Robert M. Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. “Causality and Causal Laws in Kant: A Critique of Michael Friedman.” In Kant and Contemporary Epistemology, edited by Parrini, Paolo, 291–307. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1994.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Rev. and enlarged ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. Lanier. The Poverty of Conceptual Truth: Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antognazza, Maria Rosa. Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis W. “A Prussian Hume and a Scottish Kant.” In Essays on Kant and Hume, 111–29. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis W. Early German Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Bos, H. J. M. “Differentials, Higher-Order Differentials and the Derivative in the Leibnizian Calculus.” Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 14 (1): 1–90, 1974.Google Scholar
Brittan, Gordon G. “Kant’s Two Grand Hypotheses.” In Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe Der Naturwissenschaft 1786–1986, edited by Butts, Robert E., 61–94. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1986.Google Scholar
Brown, Gregory. “‘Quod Ostendendum Susceperamus’: What did Leibniz undertake to show in the Brevis Demonstratio?” In Leibniz’ Dynamica: Symposion der Leibniz-Gesellschaft in der Evanglischen Akademie Loccum, 2. bis 4. Juli 1982, edited by Heinekamp, Albert, 122–37. Studia Leibnitiana Sonderheft 13. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd. Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science: The Classical Origins, Descartes to Kant. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd. “The Conception of Lawlikeness in Kant’s Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 23 (1): 24–46, 1971.Google Scholar
Bussotti, Paolo. Complex Itinerary of Leibniz’s Planetary Theory: Physical Convictions, Metaphysical Principles and Keplerian Inspiration. Science Networks, volume 52. Heidelberg: Birkhäuser, 2015.Google Scholar
Carraud, Vincent. Causa Sive Ratio: La Raison de La Cause, de Suarez à Leibniz. 1re éd. Epiméthée, . Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2002.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. The Problem of Knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and History since Hegel. Translated by William H. Woglom and Charles W. Hendel. New Haven, CT: Yale University press, 1950.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard. The Newtonian Revolution: With Illustrations of the Transformation of Scientific Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Costabel, Pierre. Leibniz and Dynamics: The Texts of 1692. Translated by R. E. W. Maddison. Paris: Hermann, 1973.Google Scholar
Damschen, Gregor, Schnepf, Robert, and Stüber, Karsten, eds. Debating Dispositions: Issues in Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.Google Scholar
Dear, Peter. “Method and the Study of Nature.” In The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, edited by Garber, Daniel and Ayers, Michael, 147–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, Michael. “If a Body Meet a Body.” In New Essays on the Rationalists, edited by Gennaro, Rocco J. and Huenemann, Charles, 48–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, Willem R. “Kant’s Analytic Judgments and the Traditional Theory of Concepts.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 33 (4): 613–41, 1995.Google Scholar
De Pierris, Graciela, and Friedman, Michael. “Kant and Hume on Causality.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2013. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-hume-causality/.Google Scholar
De Risi, Vincenzo. Geometry and Monadology: Leibniz’s Analysis Situs and Philosophy of Space. Heidelberg: Birkhäuser, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Risi, Vincenzo. Leibniz on the Parallel Postulate and the Foundations of Geometry: The Unpublished Manuscripts. Heidelberg: Birkhäuser, 2016.Google Scholar
Florka, Roger. “Problems with the Garber-Dear Theory of the Disappearance of Descartes’s Method.” Philosophical Studies 117 (1): 131–41, 2004.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. “Causal Laws and Natural Science.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Guyer, Paul, 161–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. “Regulative and Constitutive.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 30 (1): 73–102, 1992.Google Scholar
Gale, George. “The Concept of ‘Force’ and Its Role in the Genesis of Leibniz’ Dynamical Viewpoint.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 26 (1): 45–67, 1988.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. “Dead Force, Infinitesimals, and the Mathematicization of Nature.” In Infinitesimal Differences, edited by Goldenbaum, Ursula and Jesseph, Douglas. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. “Descartes and Method in 1637.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988: 225–36, 1988.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. “Descartes and Occasionalism.” In Causation in Early Modern Philosophy: Cartesianism, Occasionalism, and Preestablished Harmony, edited by Nadler, Steven M., 9–26. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy through Cartesian Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. “Leibnizian Hylomorphism.” In Matter and Form in Early Modern Science and Philosophy, edited by Manning, Gideon, 225–43. Leiden: Brill, 2012.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. “Leibniz, Newton and Force.” In Interpreting Newton, edited by Janiak, Andrew and Schliesser, Eric, 33–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. “Leibniz on Form and Matter.” Early Science and Medicine 2 (3): 326–52, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennaro, Rocco J., and Huenemann, Charles, eds. New Essays on the Rationalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Grosholz, Emily. Representation and Productive Ambiguity in Mathematics and the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary C. “Force (God) in Descartes’ Physics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 10 (2): 113–40, 1979.Google Scholar
Hattab, Helen. Descartes on Forms and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Heinekamp, Albert. Leibniz et La Renaissance. Studia Leibnitiana: Supplementa. Weisbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar
Horváth, Miklos. “On the Attempts Made by Leibniz to Justify His Calculus.” Studia Leibnitiana 18 (1): 60–71, 1986.Google Scholar
Laywine, Alison. Kant’s Early Metaphysics and the Origins of the Critical Philosophy. Atascadero: Ridgeview, 1993.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Wolfgang. “Leibniz und die Boolesche Algebra.” Studia Leibnitiana 16: 187–203, 1984.Google Scholar
Lloyd, A. C. “The Principle That the Cause Is Greater than Its Effect.” Phronesis 21 (2): 146–56, 1976.Google Scholar
Lodge, Paul. “Force and the Nature of Body in Discourse on Metaphysics §§17–18,” Edited by Hartz, Glenn A.. Leibniz Society Review 7: 116–24, 1997.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, Béatrice. “Kant on Causality: What Was He Trying to Prove?” In Early Modern Philosophy: Mind, Matter, and Metaphysics, edited by Mercer, Christia and O’Neill, Eileen, 232–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
MacDonald Ross, George. “Leibniz and Renaissance Neoplatonism.” In Leibniz et La Renaissance, edited by Heinekamp, A., 125–34. Studia Leibnitiana: Supplementa. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar
Mahnke, Dietrich. Unendliche Sphäre Und Allmittelpunkt, Beiträge Zur Genealogie Der Mathematischen Mystik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1937.Google Scholar
Maier, Anneliese. Kants Qualitätskategorien. Kantstudien-Ergänzungshefte 65. Berlin: Metzner, 1930.Google Scholar
Malzkorn, Wolfgang. “Kants Kritik an der traditionellen Syllogistik.” History and Philosophy of Logic 16 (1): 75–88, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Fritz. “Nieuwentijt, Leibniz, and Jacob Hermann on Infinitesimals.” In Infinitesimal Differences, edited by Goldenbaum, Ursula and Jesseph, Douglas, 199–214. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.Google Scholar
Neiman, Susan. The Unity of Reason: Rereading Kant. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Olivo, Gilles. “L’efficience En Cause: Suárez, Descartes et La Question de La Causalité.” In Descartes et Le Moyen Age: Actes Du Colloque Organisé à La Sorbonne Du 4 Au 7 Juin 1996, edited by Biard, J. and Rāshid, Rushdī. Etudes de Philosophie Médiévale 75. Paris: J. Vrin, 1997.Google Scholar
O’Shea, James R. “The Needs of Understanding: Kant on Empirical Laws and Regulative Ideals.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (2): 216–54, 1997.Google Scholar
Pasnau, Robert. “Form, Substance, and Mechanism.” The Philosophical Review 113 (1): 31–88, 2004.Google Scholar
Prendergast, Thomas L. “Motion, Action, and Tendency in Descartes’ Physics.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 13 (4): 453–62, 1975.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo. “The Principles of Contradiction, Sufficient Reason, and Identity of Indiscernibles.” In The Oxford Handbook of Leibniz, edited by Antognazza, Maria Rosa. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Rutherford, Donald. “Leibniz on Infinitesimals and the Reality of Force.” In Infinitesimal Differences, edited by Goldenbaum, Ursula and Jesseph, Douglas, 255–80. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Donald. “Leibniz’s Principle of Intelligibility.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 9 (1): 35–49, 1992.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Chikara. Descartes’s Mathematical Thought. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2003.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, Tad M. “Deflating Descartes’s Causal Axiom.” In Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Vol. III, edited by Garber, Daniel and Nadler, Steven, 1–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press: Clarendon Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, Tad M. “Substantial Forms as Causes: From Suárez to Descartes.” In Matter and Form in Early Modern Science and Philosophy, edited by Manning, Gideon, 125–50. Leiden: Brill, 2012.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, Martin. The Philosophy of the Young Kant: The Precritical Project. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Sleigh, Robert C. Leibniz & Arnauld: A Commentary on Their Correspondence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. “Closing the Loop: Testing Newtonian Gravity, Then and Now.” In Newton and Empiricism, edited by Biener, Zvi and Schliesser, Eric, 262–352. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. “From the Phenomenon of the Ellipse to an Inverse-Square Force: Why Not?” In Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics, edited by Malament, David B., 31–70. Chicago: Open Court, 2002.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. “The Methodology of the Principia.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton, edited by Bernard Cohen, I. and Smith, George E., 138–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. “The Newtonian Style in Book II of the Principia.” In Isaac Newton’s Natural Philosophy, edited by Buchwald, Jed Z. and Bernard Cohen, I., 249–313. Dibner Institute Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. “Turning Data into Evidence: Three Lectures on the Role of Theory in Science.” presented at The Isaac Newton Lectures, Suppes Center, Stanford CA, March 22, 2007.Google Scholar
Spector, Marshall. “Leibniz vs. the Cartesians on Motion and Force.” Studia Leibnitiana 7 (1): 135–44, 1975.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Gordon. “Miracles, Force, and Leibnizean Laws of Nature.” Studia Leibnitiana 29 (2): 167–88, 1997.Google Scholar
Vailati, Ezio. Leibniz and Clarke: A Study of Their Correspondence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Vanzo, Alberto. “Kant’s False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures in Its Intellectual Context.” In The Aftermath of Syllogism, edited by Sgarbi, Marco Luca Gili. London: Bloomsbury Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Vuillemin, Jules. Physique et Métaphysique Kantiennes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1955.Google Scholar
Walker, Ralph C. S. “The Status of Kant’s Theory of Matter.” Synthese 23 (1): 121–6, 1971.Google Scholar
Warren, Daniel. Reality and Impenetrability in Kant’s Philosophy of Nature. New York: Routledge, 2001.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. “Kant on Rational Cosmology.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 70–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Westfall, Richard S. Force in Newton’s Physics: The Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century. History of Science Library. London: Macdonald and American Elsevier, 1971.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Wolff, Robert P. Kant’s Theory of Mental Activity: A Commentary on the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Robert. “Der Cardinal Nicolaus Cusanus Als Vorläufer Leibnitzens.” Sitzungsberichte Der Kaiserlichen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Classe 8: 306–28, 1852.Google Scholar