Identity of indiscernibles

Leibniz’s Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles A1: Leibniz’s Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) claims that in nature, there cannot be two individual things that differ in number alone (Primary Truths, p. 32). The symbolic notation of (PII)—∀P (Pa Pb) —> ( a = b)—indicates that if, for every property P, thing a has property P if and only if thing b has property P, then thing a is identical to thing b. Hence, if two things

Mind and Body The concept of mind and body interactions has been debated among many modern philosophers. Some believe that our minds and bodies are different things, thus existing separately, while others believe that they exist as a whole. In this paper, I will be introducing two rationalist philosophical views regarding this topic, one which is by Rene Descartes and the other by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Rationalists, in philosophical terms, are the ones who obtain their knowledge through

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was born in Leipzig, Saxony, and he was son of F. Leibniz and C. Schmuck. The times were he was born the thirty years war was at the end of itself. He grew up and he started to work but he didn’t have that much knowledge, afterwards he started to study and he went deeper into what is logic. Von Leibniz had a great impact in Polish and German politics were he affected a lot with his critics and opinions in the time of choosing the new Polish King of that time, and he made

1. To say that identity is “transitive” means that if X is numerically identical with Y, and Y is numerically identical with Z, then it follows that X = Z. For example, if Hesperus = Venus, and Phosphorus = Venus, then Hesperus = Phosphorus, which all express that Venus = Venus. 2. To say that identity is “reflexive” means that every X is identical with itself. For example, given X, then X = X follows. 3. To say that identity is “symmetric” means that, if X = Y, then Y = X follows. For example,

Out there, in our own world, there is a battle going on that most of us are completely unaware of, and it is all comes down to the mind-body problem. The mind-body problem is how the mind and the body interact with each other. The mind is the mental side of things; thoughts, imagination, and most importantly consciousness, whereas the body is the physical side; the make up of your brain neurons and your body. On one side of this argument we have the Materialists, and according to the Oxford Dictionary

reinforced through gendered actions and behaviors. This method is further exemplified through the case of Agnes, which further highlights the way in which gender is socially constructed. Garfinkel used Agnes’s case to “focus on the ways in which sexual identity is produced and managed as ‘seen but unnoticed’, but nonetheless institutionalized, feature of ordinary social interactions and institutional workings that result in an analysis of gender considered as a produced institutional fact” (Heritage 1984:

“Blackness”: An Invisible Disposition Explored Through Free Enterprise and Invisible Man As observed throughout history and various societies, the notion of a “racial hierarchy” proves to be a superficial design which ultimately assigns value to a group of people based solely upon their skin color. As a result, certain groups are promptly associated with influence and supremacy, while others are disregarded in their “inherent” inferiority. Michelle Cliff’s Free Enterprise and Ralph Ellison’s Invisible

curiosity in regards to the simple recollection of their existences (Cliff 42). From an analytical standpoint, the colony is a metaphor for the dehumanization and erasure of black identity as a means of societal marginalization and disposal. Akin to Cliff’s work, Ellison’s Invisible Man approaches the nature of black identity through the novel’s discounted main character. A scene which ties into the concept of invisible “blackness” in the face of “whiteness” is one wherein the unnamed protagonist accidentally

What is space and time? Throughout centuries it has been a hotly debated argument. While the argument is still going on and forever changing as scientist come up with new theories, there is the most famous debate between the spatial substantivalists and the relationalists about the nature of space and the implications of it. In this paper, we will look at the most famous argument between Leibniz and Clarke (Newton’s spokesperson), and how both Leibniz and Newton characterized space and their arguments

This essay will focus on Leibniz’ responses to Newton’s infamous Bucket and Globes argument, arguments towards any notions of being an absolutist, and assess the strengths of Leibniz’s arguments in comparison to Newton’s. To begin, we must focus on exactly what the meaning of the terms “Substantivalist” and “Relationist” means. The Substantivalist is derived from Newton’s physics which describes space as a real thing; an existing, infinite, but untouchable thing. The Substantivalist would rest all