anus928
发表于 2025-3-25 04:05:17
Intelligenz, Lernen und LernstörungenLocke, Newton, and Leibniz. Specifically, the paper argues that Kant’s views are closer to Leibniz’s than they are to those of Descartes, Locke, and Newton, insofar as Kant and Leibniz both reject the view that extension is a fundamental property, holding instead that it is explicable (at least in p
locus-ceruleus
发表于 2025-3-25 08:47:04
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1849/184862/184862_22.png
Gerontology
发表于 2025-3-25 13:13:12
Intelligenzprüfungen an Menschenaffenteenth centuries: (1) The question of how to conceptualize matter that was capable of sensing, feeling, and thinking. Examining the positions of La Mettrie, Diderot and Maupertuis in France and of Priestley in Britain, the chapter shows the main alternatives that were considered. (2) The question of
offense
发表于 2025-3-25 18:20:42
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1849/184862/184862_24.png
AMOR
发表于 2025-3-25 20:27:12
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1849/184862/184862_25.png
僵硬
发表于 2025-3-26 03:11:05
Intelligenzprüfungen an Menschenaffenntury – was a two-faced and latently contradictory enterprise: It was, on the one hand, an empirical naturalistic science and, on the other hand, aligned with metaphysical principles concerning the order of natural things which form, according to these principles, a continuous . and a ., arranged ac
条约
发表于 2025-3-26 06:02:05
Home Automation and Dynamic Web,ely by Newton, Leibniz, and Kant. I argue that they fall short of their foundational task, viz. to represent enough kinematic behavior; or at least to explain it. In effect, for the true foundations of classical mechanics we must look beyond Newton, Leibniz, and Kant.
gout109
发表于 2025-3-26 09:31:44
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34340-7Early Modern Metaphysics; Newtonianism; Analytical Mechanics; Early Modern Atomism; Early Modern Materia
大雨
发表于 2025-3-26 16:14:36
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1849/184862/184862_29.png
accordance
发表于 2025-3-26 17:00:37
Beyond Newton, Leibniz and Kant: Insufficient Foundations, 1687–1786ely by Newton, Leibniz, and Kant. I argue that they fall short of their foundational task, viz. to represent enough kinematic behavior; or at least to explain it. In effect, for the true foundations of classical mechanics we must look beyond Newton, Leibniz, and Kant.