找回密码
 To register

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

Titlebook: Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant; Philosophy and Scien Wolfgang Lefèvre Book 2023Latest edition The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Auth

[复制链接]
楼主: 减轻
发表于 2025-3-25 04:05:17 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-25 08:47:04 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-25 13:13:12 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-25 18:20:42 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-25 20:27:12 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-26 03:11:05 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-26 06:02:05 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-26 09:31:44 | 显示全部楼层
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34340-7Early Modern Metaphysics; Newtonianism; Analytical Mechanics; Early Modern Atomism; Early Modern Materia
发表于 2025-3-26 16:14:36 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-26 17:00:37 | 显示全部楼层
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.
 关于派博传思  派博传思旗下网站  友情链接
派博传思介绍 公司地理位置 论文服务流程 影响因子官网 SITEMAP 大讲堂 北京大学 Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
发展历史沿革 期刊点评 投稿经验总结 SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系数 清华大学 Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
|Archiver|手机版|小黑屋| 派博传思国际 ( 京公网安备110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-5-29 10:31
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博传思   京公网安备110108008328 版权所有 All rights reserved
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表