MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133082640

Leibniz's Modal Metaphysics

2021· dissertation· W7133082640 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Steven Laurence Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Philosophy and Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphysicsCausationContingencyIdentity (music)Counterfactual thinkingModalConnection (principal bundle)DoctrineCounterfactual conditionalModality (human–computer interaction)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modality plays an important role in Leibniz's philosophy. One of Leibniz's major philosophical concerns was with formulating a theory of contingency with which to resist the threat of necessitarianism. In this dissertation I argue that Leibniz developed a theory—the inclination theory of contingency—according to which a truth is contingent if it depends on reasons that incline without necessitating, while necessary truths depend on reasons that necessitate. The inclination theory has so far been overlooked by Leibniz scholars. I argue that it was Leibniz's preferred theory of contingency from the 1680s, when he developed it, until the end of his life. The inclination theory has much to recommend it. It provides a better defense against the threat of necessitarianism than Leibniz's other theories and, moreover, it is far more philosophically plausible. I argue that the inclination theory supersedes the earlier, well-known per se possible theory, which many interpreters consider unsatisfactory. The inclination theory also provides a way of making sense of the later infinite analysis theory of contingency, which otherwise faces serious technical and philosophical problems, and which has also been regarded as unsatisfactory. I argue that the infinite analysis theory is best understood not as an independent theory of contingency, but as an aspect of the inclination theory. Finally, I argue that the inclination theory enables Leibniz to deny counterfactual identity without relying on a necessary connection between an individual and its predicates. Another important piece of Leibniz's philosophy is his doctrine of possible worlds. I argue that Leibniz developed an account of possible worlds—the laws-first account—according to which possible worlds are structured by laws of the general order that determine everything in them. Like the inclination theory, the laws-first account has so far been overlooked by Leibniz scholars, but it has certain advantages over the received the compossibility interpretation of Leibnizian possible worlds.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicHistorical Philosophy and Science→French-language works237,207→