Talk:Leibniz–Clarke correspondence

Philosophy: Literature / Metaphysics / Science / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of science
	Philosophy of religion

clever

"...at length cut short..." Ha ha. Trying to be clever? 97.127.130.149 (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Editions"—Clarifications Needed

"The Leibniz-Clarke letters were first published under Clarke's name in the year following Leibniz' death. He wrote a preface" - "He" who? Newton? Clarke? Someone else? The implication would seem to be Clarke, but it's not really clear (who actually did publish it?): the passive voice in the first sentence makes the antecedent of the pronoun indefinite in the second.

"contained a reply to Clarke's last letter which Leibniz had not been able to answer." Wouldn't a reply to Clarke have been from Leibniz? But then why would the latter reply to himself?

JKeck (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just a matter of awkward wording, but is that last letter by Leibniz, whohad only been unable to answer at the time, the proverbial l'esprit de l'escalier? Or was his reply simply not permitted in the collection of Clarke? JKeck (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared these up for you. Leibniz was prevented from answering Clarke's last letter by his (Leibniz's) death, so the German translator wrote his own reply. Clarke indeed wrote the preface of his book (really, "he" in that context could be no-one else), and translated Leibniz's letters into English. PaddyLeahy (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links and copies of the correspondence

Removed 3 external links to copies of the correspondence all of which no longer exist. When I have some time I will look for suitable replacements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpwhitmore (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leibniz–Clarke correspondence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721021001/http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/catalogue/viewcat.php?id=THEM00224 to http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/catalogue/viewcat.php?id=THEM00224

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed

I came here looking for the number of letters on each side, but the article could use a more complete description of other aspects of the letters. JKeck (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]