This game consists in solving a real philosophical problem by erasing or denying some of its critical semantic and conceptual distinctions. 'Sir, I have been given to understand that a friend of mine one whom I shall never be ashamed to acknowledge as 18 such tho lowly his origine nay not only not ashamed but proud of doing so for I am one of those who esteem and respect a man according to his ability and probity, deeming with Dr. Stanley Fish often plays the equivocation game. In this article, I address two different kinds of equivocations in reading Leibnizs fictional infinite and infinitesimal. In particular, I demonstrate the ambiguity that results from sticking too closely with the idea that ideal mathematical terms merely “represent” concrete or actual things. Category Archives: Equivocation Equivocation, Stanley Fish. I analyze this equivocation by criticizing the logicist influence on 20th century Anglophone reception of the syncategorematical infinite and infinitesimal.
Centre International d’Etude de la Philosophie Franaise Contemporaine, Affiliated Researcher (temporary) 3. The first equivocation is the association of a foundation of infinitesimals with their ontological status.
Follow them to stay up to date with their professional activities in philosophy, and browse their publications such as 'Mechanical Philosophy: Reductionism and Foundationalism', 'The. They are interested in Social and Political Philosophy, 17th/18th Century Philosophy, Continental Philosophy, and European Philosophy. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Affiliated Researcher (temporary) 2. Tzuchien Tho is a lecturer at University of Bristol, Department of Philosophy. In this analysis I critique the interpretive strategy that uses the Leibnizian distinction, drawn from the often cited 1706 letter to De Volder, between actual and ideal for understanding the meaning of Leibniz’s infinitesimal fictionalism. Leibniz’s laboratory of concepts: The status and structure of infinitesimals as metaphysical laboratory (O. Rather than beginning with logical foundations or mathematical methodology, I analyze Leibniz’s use of an allegedly “instantiated” infinitesimal magnitude in his treatment of dead force in the Specimen Dynamicum. In turn, I suggest that these infinitesimal fictions pointed to a problematic within Leibniz’s work that was conceived and reconsidered in Leibniz’s work from a range of different contexts and methods. This article aims to treat the question of the reality of Leibniz’s infinitesimals from the perspective of their application in his account of corporeal motion. In treating these equivocations, I critique some assumptions that underlie the reductive reading of Leibniz’s fictionalism concerning infinite and infinitesimals.