Recent philosophers assess differently the extent to which affinity is to be found between the idealist metaphysics of G. W. Leibniz and George Berkeley. I argue that these figures’ idealisms are indeed strongly aligned. They espouse related accounts of the nature of mental substance and state. They similarly restrict the domain of causality. They each reject the Lockean primary/secondary quality dichotomy. Over against the criticism that idealisms cannot allow for a distinction to be made out between real and illusory perceptual experience, the two philosophers offer comparable solutions. Nevertheless, their ontologies are not identical, and are primarily to be distinguished in terms of their disparate characterisations of ultimate reality as being either immanent or transcendent to percipient subjects like us. This continuum of transcendentism and immanentism has further application as a conceptual tool both for tracing the rise of modern philosophy and for developing new metaphysical and epistemological accounts of the nature of the world and our relation to it.

No se posee.

El propósito general de nuestro trabajo es ofrecer un análisis del lugar que ocupó la voluntad divina en el corpus leibniziano. Lo voluminoso de la obra de Leibniz, sus dificultades de datación, la virtud grafómana de nuestro filósofo y el modo apretado en que trabó un concepto con otro, han llevado a una gran dispersión interpretativa que, por lo general, no se ha detenido a analizar de manera lo suficientemente “autónoma” el rol preponderante que Leibniz fue otorgando a esa facultad. La prevalencia de las “interpretaciones intelectualistas” en la literatura secundaria tiende a desdibujar el protagonismo que sucesivamente adquiriría la voluntad divina en el plan de una fundamentación de la teodicea leibniziana. La conciliación de los atributos de Dios con la existencia del mal en el mundo surgió tempranamente de la necesidad de combatir el sofisma que responsabiliza a Dios por las faltas y sufrimientos humanos. La voluntad estuvo en el centro de la cuestión desde los primeros años de la década de 1670. No obstante, el fuerte intelectualismo de esta primera época parece haber sellado las claves de un cuasi monopolio interpretativo que arroja a la voluntad al lugar segundón que le deja el entendimiento.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographic references (p. [192]-199).

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1991. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-127).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 266-276).

Diss.--Philosophische Fakultät I--Zürich--Universität, 1989. / Résumés en anglais, en français et en italien. Bibliogr. p 173-201. Index.

Inaug.-Diss.--Universität zu Köln. / Bibliography: p. 220-228.

Proefschrift Groningen. / Datum laatste controle: 23-02-1998. Met lit. opg. - Met samenvatting in het Duits en Nederlands.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Mathematics / Virginia Naibo / Leibniz-type rules associated to bilinear pseudodifferential operators have received considerable attention due to their applications in obtaining fractional Leibniz rules and the study of various partial differential equations. Generally speaking, fractional Leibniz rules provide a way of estimating the size and smoothness of a product of functions in terms of the size and smoothness of the individual functions themselves. Such rules are helpful in determining well-posedness results for solutions of PDEs modeling a variety of real world phenomena, ranging from Euler and Navier-Stokes equations (which model incompressible fluid flow, such as airflow over a wing) to Korteweg-de Vries equations (which model waves on shallow water surfaces). Bilinear pseudodifferential operators act to combine two functions using their Fourier transforms and a symbol, which is a function that assigns different weights to the functions’ frequency components as they are combined. Thus, Leibniz-type rules associated to bilinear pseudodifferential operators serve as a generalization of fractional Leibniz rules by providing estimates on the size and smoothness of some combination of two functions, for which pointwise multiplication is recoverable by choosing a symbol identically equal to one. A variety of function spaces may be used to measure the size and smoothness of functions involved, including Lebesgue spaces, Sobolev spaces, and Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces. Further, bilinear pseudodifferential operators may be considered in association with different classes of symbols, which is to say that the symbol itself (and possibly its derivatives) will possess certain decay properties. New Leibniz-type rules in two different settings will be presented in this manuscript. In the first setting, Leibniz-type rules associated to bilinear pseudodifferential operators with homogeneous symbols in a certain class are proved, where the sizes of the functions involved are measured using a combination of Lebesgue space norms and norms corresponding to function spaces admitting appropriate molecular decompositions, specifically focusing on the case of homogeneous Besov-type and Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces. In the second setting, Leibniz-type rules and biparameter counterparts are proved in weighted Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces associated to Coifman-Meyer multiplier operators. All of the new Leibniz-type rules proved in the manuscript yield corresponding new fractional Leibniz rules, which are highlighted as appropriate. Various techniques from Fourier analysis serve as important tools in the proofs of these new results, such as obtaining paraproduct decompositions for bilinear pseudodifferential operators and utilizing Littlewood-Paley theory and square function-type estimates.