No. 75 (2026): Mayo-agosto
Articles

Was Leibniz a Nominalist? A Critical Survey of the Nature and Scope of Leibnizian Nominalism

PDF (Spanish)
  • Camilo Silva
Camilo Silva
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6810-3802 (unauthenticated) Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez

Published 2026-01-31

How to Cite

Silva, C. (2026). Was Leibniz a Nominalist? A Critical Survey of the Nature and Scope of Leibnizian Nominalism. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, 75, 75-114. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v750.3324

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Copyright (c) 2026 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In this article, I discuss the problem concerning the nature and scope of Leibniz’s nominalism. Considering several manuscripts from Leibniz’s youth to his later years, I provide textual evidence refuting the interpretation according to which he could be considered a nominalist. In contrast, following certain Leibniz’s scholars, I suggest that Leibniz’s ontology can be better understood as conceptualist. Thus, the main claim of this article is that even if—against Scholastics—Leibniz calls for the elimination or avoidance of abstract or universal terms in philosophical language, given some specific requirements of his ontology, he was pushed to reestablish them.

Keywords

  • abstracts,
  • conceptualism,
  • concretes,
  • Scholastics,
  • Leibniz,
  • metaphysics,
  • nominalism,
  • realism,
  • universals,
  • truth
    • ...More
    Less
PDF (Spanish)

References

  1. Angelelli, I. (1965). Leibniz’s Misundertanding on Nizzolius notion of “Multitudo”. Notre Dame Journal of formal logic, 6(4), 319-322. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093958340
  2. Angelelli, I. (2004). Leibniz et Nizzolius : réponse à Jean-Baptiste Rauzy. Les Cahiers philosophiques de Strasbourg, 18(2), 215-219.
  3. Antognazza, M. R. (2009). Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139012805
  4. Beeley, P. (1999). Mathematics and Nature in Leibniz’s Early Philosophy. En S. Brown (ed.), The Young Leibniz and his Philosophy (1646-76) (pp. 123-145). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3507-0_7.
  5. Belaval, Y. (1976). Études leibniziennes. De Leibniz à Hegel. Gallimard.
  6. Berlioz, D. (1989). Tâche logique : le calcul des « coïncidents » et des inexistants. Les Études Philosophiques, 2(Leibniz), 187-200. Presses Universitaires de France.
  7. Berlioz, D. (2011). John Locke et la métaphysique. En M. de Gaudemar y P. Hamou (eds.), Locke et Leibniz : deux styles de rationalité (pp. 109-129). Georg Olms.
  8. Blank, A. (2007). Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz and the Descriptive Nature of Metaphysical Concepts. En P. Phemister y S. Brown (eds.), Leibniz and the English-Speaking World (pp. 51-61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5243-9_4.
  9. Broad, C. D. (1972). Leibniz’s Predicate-in-Notion Principle and Some of its Alleged Consequences. En H. Frankfurt (ed.), Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays (pp. 1-18). Anchor Books.
  10. Clatterbaugh, K. (1973). Leibniz’s Doctrine of Individual Accidents. Franz Steiner Verlag.
  11. Coombs, J. (2003). The Ontological Source of Logical Possibility in Catholic Second Scholasticism. En R. Friedman y L. Nielsen (eds.), The Medieval Heritage in Early Modern Metaphysics and Modal Theory (1400–1700) (pp. 191-229). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0179-2_10
  12. Dascal, M. (1987). Leibniz. Language, Signs and Thought: A Collection of Essays. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.10
  13. Di Bella, S. (1998). L’astratto et il concreto. Hobbes, Leibniz et la riforma dell’ontologia. Rivista di Storia della Filosofia, 53(2), 235-266. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44023325
  14. Di Bella, S. y Schmaltz, T. (2017). The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190608040.001.0001
  15. Drapeau-Contim, F. (2005). Des propositions aux termes : logique et réduction dans les recherches générales. En D. Berlioz y F. Nef (eds.), Leibniz et les puissances du langage (pp. 95-124). Vrin.
  16. Favaretti, M. (2017). Les formes de la pensée : logique et langage chez Leibniz. En M. Lærke, C. Leduc y D. Rabouin (dirs.), Leibniz: lectures et commentaires (pp. 233-253). Vrin.
  17. Fichant, M. (1993). Mécanisme et métaphysique : le rétablissement des formes substantielles (1679). Philosophie, 39, 27-59.
  18. Garber, D. (1995). Leibniz: Physics and Philosophy. En N. Jolley (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz (pp. 270-352). Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521365880.009
  19. Goodin, S. (1999). Locke and Leibniz and the Debate over Species. En R. Gennaro y C. Huenemann (eds.), New Essays on the Rationalists (pp. 163-176). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195165411.003.0007
  20. Jolley, N. (1984). Leibniz and Locke: A Study of the New Essays on Human Understanding. Clarendon Press.
  21. Jones, J.-E. (2006). Leibniz and Locke and the Debate over Species. En F. Duchesneau y J. Griard (dirs.), Leibniz selon les Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humain (pp. 141-152). Bellarmin-Vrin.
  22. Kneale, W. (1966). Leibniz and the picture theory of language. Revue internationale de philosophie, 76-77(2-3), pp. 204-215. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23940478
  23. Kulstad, M. (1977). Leibniz’s conception of expression. Studia Leibnitiana, 9 (1), pp. 55-76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40693818
  24. Leduc, C. (2006a). Définition et substance dans les Nouveaux Essais. En F. Duchesneau y J. Griard (dirs.), Leibniz selon les Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain (pp. 179-188). Bellarmin-Vrin.
  25. Leduc, C. (2006b). Le commentaire leibnizien du “De veris principiis” de Nizolius. Studia Leibnitiana, 38-39(1), 89-108.
  26. Leduc, C. (2017). L’objection leibnizienne au conventionnalisme de Hobbes. En E. Parmentier y P. Rateau (dirs.), Leibniz lecteur critique de Hobbes (pp. 35-51). Les Presses Universitaires de l’Université de Montréal-Vrin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9782760638280-004
  27. Leibniz, G. W. (1923-2024). [A]. Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, herausgegeben von der Berlin Branderburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Walter de Gruyter Verlag.
  28. Leibniz, G. W. (1960-1961). [GP]. Die philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. C. I. Gerhardt (ed.). G. Olms.
  29. Leibniz, G. W. (1961). [C]. Opuscules et fragments inédits. L. Couturat (ed.). G. Olms.
  30. Leibniz, G. W. (1998). [G]. Textes inédits. G. Grua (ed.). Presses Universitaires de France.
  31. Levey, S. (2011). Logical Theory in Leibniz. En B. Look (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to Leibniz (pp. 110-135). Bloomsbury.
  32. Lissy, A. (2016). Nature and Grace: On the Concept of Divine Economy in Leibniz’s Philosophy. Studia Leibnitiana, 48(2), 151-177. https://doi.org/10.25162/sl-2016-0008
  33. MacDonald Ross, G. (1988). The Demarcation between Metaphysics and Other Disciplines in the Thought of Leibniz. En R. Woolhouse (ed.), Metaphysics and Philosophy of Science in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (pp. 133-163). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2997-5_7
  34. Mates, B. (1979). The Lingua Philosophica. Studia Leibnitiana, Sonderheft 8 (Die intensionale Logik bei Leibniz und in der Gegenwart), 59-66.
  35. Mates, B. (1980). Nominalism and Evander’s Sword. Studia Leibnitiana, Supplementa, 21, 213-225.
  36. Mates, B. (1986). The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language. Oxford University Press.
  37. Mercer, C. (2004). Leibniz and his Master: The Correspondence with Jokob Thomasius. En P. Lodge (ed.), Leibniz and his correspondents (pp. 10-46). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498237.002
  38. Møller-Nielsen, T. (2015). Was Leibniz a Generalist? Studia Leibnitiana, 47(1), 8-43. https://doi.org/10.25162/sl-2015-0002
  39. Mugnai, M. (1990). A Systematical Approach to Leibniz’s Theory of Relations and Relational Sentences. Topoi, 9, 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00147628.
  40. Mugnai, M. (1992). Leibniz’ Theory of Relations. Franz Steiner Verlag.
  41. Mugnai, M. (2000). ‘Alia est rerum, alia terminorum divisio’: About an Unpublished Manuscript of Leibniz. En A. Lamarra y R. Palaia (eds.), Unità e molteplicità nel pensiero filosofico e scientifico di Leibniz (pp. 257-269). Leo S. Olschki Editore.
  42. Mugnai, M. (2005). Leibniz on Substance and Changing Properties. Dialectica, 59(4), 503-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.2005.01040.x
  43. Mugnai, M. (2012). Leibniz’s Ontology of Relations: A Last Word? En D. Garber y D. Rutherford (eds.), Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 171-208). Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659593.003.0006
  44. Nachtomy, O. (2006). Locke, Leibniz and Borges on Particulars and Universals in the Nouveaux Essais. En F. Duchesneau y J. Griard (dirs.), Leibniz selon les Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humain (pp. 167-178). Bellarmin-Vrin.
  45. Nef, F. (2000). Leibniz et le langage. Presses Universitaires de France. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.neffr.2000.01
  46. Parkinson, G. H. R (1965). Logic and Reality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics. Clarendon Press.
  47. Parmentier, M. (2008). Leibniz-Locke : une intrigue philosophique. Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne. https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782840506218
  48. Pelletier, A. (2013). Logica est scientia generalis : Leibniz et l’unité de la logique. Archives de Philosophie, 76(2), 271-294. https://doi.org/10.3917/aphi.762.0271
  49. Picon, M. (2003). Vers la doctrine de l’entendement en abrégé : éléments pour une généalogie des Meditationes de cognitione, veritate, et ideis. Studia Leibnitiana, 35(1), 102-132.
  50. Picon, M. (2005). L’expérience de la pensée : définitions, idées et caractères en 1675. En D. Berlioz y F. Nef (eds.), Leibniz et les puissances du langage (pp. 179-199). Vrin.
  51. Picon, M. (2009). On the Constitution of Leibnizian Formalism. En M. Kulstad, M. Lærke y D. Snyder (eds.), The Philosophy of the Young Leibniz (pp. 139-146). Franz Steiner Verlag.
  52. Picon, M. (2014). “The Summulists’ disputes de constantia subjecti”: The Young Leibniz and his Teachers on Eternal Truth and Existence. Intellectual History Review, 24(2), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2014.915471
  53. Picon, M. (2017). Théorie de la connaissance et méthode. En M. Lærke, C. Leduc y D. Rabouin (dirs.), Leibniz : lectures et commentaires (pp. 271-290). Vrin.
  54. Plaud, S. (2018). Expression et coordination : de Leibniz à Wittgenstein. Vrin.
  55. Rauzy, J.-B. (1993). Leibniz et les termes abstraits : un nominalisme par provision. Philosophie, 39, 108-128.
  56. Rauzy, J.-B. (2001). La doctrine leibnizienne de la vérité. Aspects logiques et ontologiques. Vrin.
  57. Rauzy, J.-B. (2004). An Attempt to Evaluate Leibniz’ Nominalism. Metaphysica, 5(1), 43-58.
  58. Rauzy, J.-B. (2005). L’inhérence conceptuelle, la raison suffisante et David Wiggins. En D. Berlioz y F. Nef (eds.), Leibniz et les puissances du langage (pp. 71-93). Vrin.
  59. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (2015). Nominalism in Metaphysics. En E. N. Zalta y U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/
  60. Rovira, R. (2000). Leibniz’s Twofold Distinction between Concrete and Abstract and Aristotle’s Fourfold Division of Entities. Studia Leibnitiana, 32(1), 68-85.
  61. Russell, B. (2005). A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Routledge.
  62. Rutherford, D. (1988). Truth, Predication and Complete Concept of an Individual Substance. Studia Leibnitiana, Sonderheft 15(Leibniz: questions de logique), 130-144.
  63. Rutherford, D. (1995a). Philosophy and Language in Leibniz. En N. Jolley (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz (pp. 224-269). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521365880.008
  64. Rutherford, D. (1995b). Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139172776
  65. Silva, C. (2020a). Leibniz y el laberinto de la nada: la ontología en manos de un escolástico furtivo. Aporía, 19, 51-74. https://doi.org/10.7764/aporia.19.12626
  66. Silva, C. (2020b). Substance, vérité et métaphysique dans les Nouveaux essais : un échantillon de la perennis quaedam philosophia. Scripta philosophiae naturalis, 18, 27-60. https://scriptaphilosophiaenaturalis.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/camilo-silva-substance-verite-et-metaphysique-dans-les-nouveaux-essais-de-leibniz/
  67. Silva, C. (2021a). Essence, néant et existence : une lecture critique du concept de création divine chez Leibniz [Tesis doctoral, Escuela Normal Superior de París]. Theses.fr.
  68. Silva, C. (2021b). Leibniz lector de Locke: génesis y elaboración de los Nuevos ensayos sobre el entendimiento humano. Culturas científicas, 2(2), 70-91. https://doi.org/10.35588/cc.v2i2.5261
  69. Silva, C. (2025). Más allá del isomorfismo: Nominalismo, necesidad de la lógica y posibilidad de la metafísica en los jóvenes Leibniz y Wittgenstein. Logos. Anales del Seminario de Metafísica, 58(1), 53-72. https://doi.org/10.5209/asem.100295
  70. Silva, C. (2026). Leibniz y la pregunta “¿por qué hay algo más bien que nada?”: alcance universal, sentido onto-antrópico y naturaleza ficcional de la pregunta. Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía [manuscrito aceptado para publicación, en prensa].
  71. Swoyer, C. (1994). Leibniz’s Calculus of Real Addition. Studia Leibnitiana, 26(1), 1-30.
  72. Swoyer, C. (1995). Leibnizian Expression. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33(1), 65-99. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1995.0009