Cover not available
Part of
Historical Pragmatics of Controversies: Case studies from 1600 to 1800
Gerd Fritz, Thomas Gloning and Juliane Glüer
[Controversies 14] 2018
► pp. 209–252

Chapter 6
Leibniz vs. Locke

A virtual controversy

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The NE – what kind of text?
  • 3.The NE as a refutation pamphlet based on the disputation model
  • 4.Topic management
    • 4.1Aspects of topic management
    • 4.2Elements of topic management
      • 4.2.1Global topic structure
      • 4.2.2Dealing with repetitions
      • 4.2.3Indicating thematic connections and topic change
    • 4.3Introducing Leibniz’s own topics
    • 4.4Introducing and indicating digressions
    • 4.5Making topic structures explicit
  • 5.Philalethes’ first move – rendering Locke’s material
    • 5.1Leibniz’s task
    • 5.2Selecting and condensing
    • 5.3Rendering Locke’s wording
  • 6.The second move: Theophilus’ comments
    • 6.1Aspects of the second move
    • 6.2Direct confrontation
    • 6.3Critical moves
    • 6.4Refutation
    • 6.5Voicing agreement
    • 6.6Agreeing and adding objections or modifications
    • 6.7Giving extra information and explanations
  • 7.Making the third move: Philalethes
    • 7.1Producing natural dialogue
    • 7.2Connecting to the following point by the use of but
    • 7.3Signaling agreement
    • 7.4Conceding a point made by Theophilus
  • 8.Forms of intertextuality
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.14.06fri
References (30)
References
Aarsleff, H. 1982. “Leibniz on Locke on language”. In H. Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure. Essays on the study of language and intellectual history. London: Athlone, 42–83.Google Scholar
Bolton, M. B. 2007. “Leibniz’s Nouveaux Essais: a contest by dialogue”. In P. Phemister and S. Brown (eds), Leibniz and the English-Speaking World. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 111–132.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bramhall, J. 1658. Castigations of Mr. Hobbes his last animadversions in the case concerning liberty and universal necessity; wherein all his exceptions about the controversy are fully satisfied. By John Bramhall, DD. and Bishop of Derry. London 1658. In The works of The Most Reverend Father in God, John Bramhall, D.D. Sometime Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland. Vol. IV. Oxford: Parker 1844, 197–505.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1979. “Conversational relevance”. In A. Margalit (ed), Meaning and use. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Reidel, 153–174.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. “Controversies as quasi-dialogues”. In E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds), Dialoganalyse II. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 147–159.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. “The controversy about ideas and the ideas about controversy”. In F. Gil (ed), Controvérsias Científicas e Filosóficas. Lissabon: Editorial Fragmentos, 61– 100.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. and Firt, E. 2010. “Leibniz’s conciliatory approaches in scientific controversies”. In M. Dascal (ed), The practice of reason. Leibniz and his controversies. Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins, 137–167.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fritz, G. 2003. “Dialogical structures in 17th century controversies”. In M. Bondi and S. Stati (eds), Dialogue Analysis 2000. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 199–208.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. “First person singular in 17th century controversies”. In P. Barrotta and M. Dascal (eds), Controversies and subjectivity. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, 235–250.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Controversies”. In A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), Handbook of Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 451–481.Google Scholar
2013. Dynamische Texttheorie. Linguistische Untersuchungen Bd. 5. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. [URL].Google Scholar
Gindhart, M. and Kundert, U. (eds). 2010. Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E. and Reidy, M. S. 2002. Communicating science. The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1988. “Locke, Leibniz, language and Hans Aarsleff”. Synthese 75, 135–153.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamou, Ph. 2011. “Leibniz lecteur de Locke sur la matière pensente”. In M. de Gaudemar and Ph. Hamou (eds), Locke et Leibniz. Deux stiles de rationalité. Hildesheim (etc.): Georg Olms Verlag, 131–154.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1654. Of liberty and necessity: A treatise wherein all controversy concerning predestination, election, free-will, grace, merits, reprobation, etc. is fully decided and cleared. In answer to a treatise written by the Bishop of Londonderry, on the same subject. London 1654. In The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; now first collected and edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. IV. London 1841. Reprint Aalen: Scientia 1962a,229–278.Google Scholar
1656. The questions concerning liberty, necessity, and chance, clearly stated and debated between Dr. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry, and Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. London 1656. In The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; now first collected and edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. V. London 1841. Reprint Aalen: Scientia 1962b, 1–455.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, E. -M. 1999. Textvernetzung in den Wissenschaften. Zitat und Verweis als Ergebnis rezeptiven, reproduktiven und produktiven Handelns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janich, N. 2008. “Intertextualität und Text(sorten)vernetzung”. In N. Janich (ed), Textlinguistik. 15 Einführungen., Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 177–196.Google Scholar
Jolley, N. 1984. Leibniz and Locke: A study of the New Essays on Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 1962. Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Sechste Reihe: Philosophische Schriften. Sechster Band: Nouveaux Essais. Hg von André Robinet und Heinrich Schepers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
1971. Neue Abhandlungen über den menschlichen Verstand. Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erläutert von Ernst Cassirer. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. (Nachdruck der dritten Auflage von 1915.)Google Scholar
1996. New essays on human understanding. Translated and edited by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. The Art of controversies. Translated and edited, with an introductory essay and notes by Marcelo Dascal with Quintin Racionero and Adelino Cardoso. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1700. Essai Philosophique Concernant l’Entendement Humain […] par M. Locke. Traduit de l’Anglois par M. Coste. […]. Amsterdam chez Henri Schelte.Google Scholar
1975. An essay concerning human understanding. Edited with an introduction by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parmentier, M. 2006. “Leibniz lecteur de Locke”. In F. Duchesneau and J. Griard (eds), Leibniz selon les Nouveaux Essais sur L’entendement humain Montréal/Paris: Collection Analytiques – 16, 11–18.Google Scholar
Raymond, J. 2003. Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomasius, J. 1670. Erotemata Logica pro incipientibus. Acceßit pro adultis Processus disputandi. Lipsiae: Frommanni.Google Scholar