Movatterモバイル変換

Annotated Bibliography on Analysis
§4: Early Modern Conceptions of Analysis

This bibliography is intended as a reference guide to the key worksthat deal, in whole or in part, with analysis and related topics suchas analyticity and definition. Cross-references are by name(s) ofauthor(s) or editor(s) and either year of publication or abbreviationas indicated immediately after their name(s). Notes in square bracketsat the end of an entry indicate the relevant part(s) of the workand/or its significance to the topic of analysis. Key passages can befound quoted in the supplementary document onDefinitions and Descriptions of Analysis, linked from the relevant entry and note by means of ‘{Quotation(s)}’. In some cases where there is material available online, an internetaddress is also given after the entry.

This section of the bibliography corresponds to Section 4 of the mainentry, and is divided into subsections which correspond to thesubsections of the supplementary document onEarly Modern Conceptions of Analysis, with the exception of the introduction and conclusion. Where worksinclude important material under more than one heading, they are citedunder each heading; but duplication has been kept to a minimum.Cross-references to other (sub)sections are provided in curlybrackets.

• 4.1 General
• 4.2 Descartes and Analytic Geometry
• 4.3 British Empiricism
• 4.4 Leibniz and Wolff
• 4.5 Kant and his Contemporaries
• 4.6 Indian Analytic Philosophy
• 4.7 Chinese Philosophy

Annotated Bibliography on Analysis: Full List of Sections

4.1 General

• Arnauld, Antoine and Nicole, Pierre,LAT,La Logiqueou l’Art de penser, Paris: Savreux, 1st ed. 1662, ed. andtr. asLogic or the Art of Thinking, based on the 5th ed. of1683, by Jill Vance Buroker, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996; also tr. asThe Art of Thinking, based on the 6th ed.of 1685, by J. Dickoff and P. James, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964[known as thePort-Royal Logic; I, chs. 13–14, II, ch.16: defs.; IV: ‘On Method’, esp. chs. 2–3 onanalysis and synthesis {Quotations}]
• Beaney, Michael, 2002, ‘Decompositions and Transformations:Conceptions of Analysis in the Early Analytic and PhenomenologicalTraditions’,Southern Journal of Philosophy 40, Supp.Vol., 53–99 [§1.2: early modern conceptions ofanalysis]
• Brandt, Reinhard, 2006, ‘Philosophical Methods’, inHaakonssen 2006, 137–59
• Butts, Robert E. and Davis, John W., (eds.), 1970,TheMethodological Heritage of Newton, Oxford: Blackwell [includesHanson 1970]
• Clarke, Desmond, 2011, ‘Hypotheses’, in Clarke andWilson 2011, 249–71 [§5: Newton on analysis andsynthesis]
• Clarke, Desmond M. and Catherine Wilson, (eds.), 2011,TheOxford Handbook of Philosophy in Early Modern Europe, Oxford:Oxford University Press [includes Tiles 2011]
• Cohen, I. Bernard and Smith, George E., (eds.), 2002,TheCambridge Companion to Newton, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress [includes Guicciardini 2002, Hall 2002]
• Cohen, L. Jonathan, 1954, ‘On the Project of a UniversalCharacter’,Mind 63, 49–63
• Condillac, É. Bonnot de, 1780,La logique [I, 2:analysis as unique method of acquiring knowledge]
• Cottingham, John, 1988,The Rationalists, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press [ch. 2: method]
• Curley, Edwin M., 1986, ‘Spinoza’s GeometricMethod’,Studia Spinozana 2, 151–169
• Dear, Peter, 1998, ‘Method and the Study of Nature’,in Garber and Ayers 1998, 147–77 [Zabarella and Hobbes onresolution and composition, Bacon, Descartes, Huygens and Locke,Newton]
• Engfer, Hans-Jürgen, 1982,Philosophie als Analysis,Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog [ch. 1: analysis andsynthesis in the German Enlightenment and Kant; ch. 2: forms ofanalysis and synthesis; ch. 3: Descartes; ch. 4: Leibniz; ch. 5:Wolff] {§1.2}
• Fung, Yu-Lan, 1953,A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 2:The Period of Classical Learning (From the Second Century BC to theTwentieth Century AD), tr. Derk Bodde. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press {4.7}
• Ganeri, Jonardon, 2011,The Lost Age of Reason: Philosophy inEarly Modern India 1450–1700, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress {§4.6}
• Garber, Daniel and Ayers, Michael, (eds.), 1998,The CambridgeHistory of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, 2 vols., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press [includes Dear 1998, Mahoney 1998 {§4.2}]
• Gaukroger, Stephen, 2011, ‘Picturability and MathematicalIdeals of Knowledge’, in Clarke and Wilson 2011, 338–60[geometry and analysis]
• Guerlac, Henry, 1973, ‘Newton and the Method ofAnalysis’, in P.P. Wiener, (ed.),Dictionary of the Historyof Ideas, 5 vols., New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
• Guicciardini, Niccolò, 1999,Reading the Principia: TheDebate on Newton’s Mathematical Methods for Natural Philosophyfrom 1687 to 1736, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• –––, 2002, ‘Analysis and synthesis inNewton’s mathematical work’, in Cohen and Smith 2002,308–28
• Haakonssen, Knud, (ed.), 2006,The Cambridge History ofEighteenth-Century Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress [includes Brandt 2006]
• Hall, A. Rupert, 2002, ‘Newton versus Leibniz: from geometryto metaphysics’, in Cohen and Smith 2002, 431–54 {§4.4}
• Hankins, Thomas L., 1985,Science and the Enlightenment,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [scientific method]
• Hanson, N.R., 1970, ‘Hypotheses Fingo’, in Butts andDavis 1970, 14–33 [Newton on hypotheses]
• Jardine, Lisa, 1974,Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art ofDiscourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [chs. 1–4:Bacon and the dialectical tradition]
• Jardine, Nicholas, 1976, ‘Galileo’s road to truth andthe demonstrative regress’,Studies in the History andPhilosophy of Science 7, 277–318
• Kisner, Matthew J., 2005, ‘Rationalism and Method’, inAlan Nelson, (ed.),A Companion to Rationalism, Oxford:Blackwell, 137–55
• Knowlson, James, 1975,Universal Language Schemes in Englandand France, 1600–1800, Toronto: University of TorontoPress
• Koertge, Noretta, 1980, ‘Analysis as a Method of Discoveryduring the Scientific Revolution’, in Nickles 1980, 139–57[Newton in optics, Stahl and Lavoisier in chemistry]
• Maat, Jaap, 2011, ‘Language and Semiotics’, in Clarkeand Wilson 2011, 272–94 [developments in attitudes tolanguage]
• Mancosu, Paolo, 1996,Philosophy of Mathematics andMathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press {§4.2}
• Mou, Bo, (ed.), 2009,History of Chinese Philosophy,London: Routledge, Parts III and IV {§4.7}
• Newton, Isaac,Opticks, 4th ed., New York: Dover, 1952;4th ed. orig. publ. London, 1730 [404–5: method of analysis {Quotation}]
• Nickles, Thomas, (ed.), 1980,Scientific Discovery, Logic, andRationality, Dordrecht: D. Reidel [includes Koertge 1980] {§2.2}
• Oeing-Hanhoff, L., 1971, ‘Analyse/Synthese’, in Ritter1971, columns 232–48 {§1.1}
• Olby, R.C., Cantor, G.N., Christie, J.R.R. and Hodge, M.J.S.,(eds.), 1990,Companion to the History of Modern Science,London: Routledge, 1990 [includes Perrin 1990]
• Perrin, Carleton E., 1990, ‘The Chemical Revolution’,in Olbyet al. 1990, 264–77
• Rolf, B., 1983, ‘The Port-Royal Theory of Definition’Studia Leibnitiana 15, 94–107
• Schouls, Peter A., 1980,The Imposition of Method,Oxford: Oxford University Press [Descartes and Locke]
• Slaughter, M.M., 1982,Universal Languages and ScientificTaxonomy in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press
• Smith, Kurt, 2010,Matter Matters: Metaphysics and Methodologyin the Early Modern Period, Oxford: Oxford University Press, PartII
• Spinoza,Ethics, 1677, ed. with a rev. tr. G.H.R.Parkinson, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1989 [III, Defs. of theEmotions, XX, Exp.]
• –––,CWS,The Collected Works ofSpinoza, ed. and tr. E. Curley, Vol. 1, Princeton Univ. Press,1985 [39–40, 194: defs.]
• Tiles, Mary, 2011, ‘Form, Reason, and Method’, inClarke and Wilson 2011, 295–314 [analytic geometry]
• Tiwald, Justin and Bryan Van Norden, (eds.), 2014,Readings inLater Chinese Philosophy: Han Dynasty to the 20th Century,Cambridge: Hackett {§4.7}
• Tonelli, Giorgio, 1959, ‘Der Streit über diemathematische Methode in der Philosophie in der ersten Hälfte des18. Jahrhunderts’,Archiv für Philosophie 9,37–66
• –––, 1976, ‘Analysis and Synthesis in theXVIIIth Century Prior to Kant’,Archiv fürBegriffsgeschichte 20, 178–213
• Wallace, William A., 1992a,Galileo’s Logic of Discoveryand Proof: The Background, Content, and Use of His AppropriatedTreatises on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, Dordrecht:Kluwer
• –––, 1992b,Galileo’s LogicalTreatises: A Translation, with Notes and Commentary, of HisAppropriated Latin Questions on Aristotle’s PosteriorAnalytics, Dordrecht: Kluwer [‘Treatise on Foreknowledgesand Foreknowns’ and ‘Treatise onDemonstration’]
• Wilkins, John, 1668,Essay Towards a Real Character and aPhilosophical Language, London
• Wilson, Fred, 1999,The Logic and Methodology of Science inEarly Modern Thought, Toronto: University of Toronto Press
• Yolton, John W., 1984,Perceptual Acquaintance from Descartesto Reid, Oxford: Blackwell [ch. VI: ‘Ideas in Logic andPsychology’]
• Yolton, John W.,et al., (eds.), 1991,The BlackwellCompanion to the Enlightenment, Oxford: Blackwell [entry under‘scientific method’]

4.2 Descartes and Analytic Geometry

• Beck, L.J., 1952,The Method of Descartes: A Study of theRegulae, Oxford: Oxford University Press [ch. 11: ‘TheRules of Analysis and Synthesis’; ch. 18: ‘The Method inPhilosophy’, §2 on ‘The Method of Analysis andSynthesis’]
• Bos, Henk J.M., 2001,Redefining Geometrical Exactness:Descartes’ Transformation of the Early Modern Concept ofConstruction, New York: Springer [ch. 5: ‘Early modernmethods of analysis’ {Quotation}]
• Buchdahl, Gerd, 1969,Metaphysics and the Philosophy ofScience, Oxford: Blackwell [Part III, ch. 2: Descartes onanalysis]
• Clarke, Desmond M., ‘Descartes’s use of“demonstration” and “deduction”’, inMoyal 1991, Vol. 1, 237–47
• Cottingham, John, 1992,The Cambridge Companion toDescartes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [includesGaukroger 1992]
• –––, 1993,A Descartes Dictionary,Oxford: Blackwell [entries on analysis, assumption, clarity anddistinctness, common notion, deduction, geometry, intuition, method,simple natures]
• Curley, E.M., 1986, ‘Analysis in theMeditations:The Quest for Clear and Distinct Ideas’, in Tweyman 1993,159–84; orig. publ. 1986
• Descartes, René,RDM,Rules for the Directionof the Mind, c. 1628; first publ. 1684, inPW, I,9–78 {Quotation}
• –––,DM,Discourse on theMethod, 1637, inPW, I, 111–51
• –––,G,The Geometry, 1637,tr. D.E. Smith and M.L. Latham, New York: Dover, 1954
• –––,M,Meditations on FirstPhilosophy, 1641, inPW, II, 3–62
• –––,OR,Objections andReplies, 1641, inPW, II, 63–397 {Quotation}
• –––,PP,Principles ofPhilosophy, 1644, inPW, I, 179–291
• –––,PW,The Philosophical Writingsof Descartes, 3 vols., ed. & tr. J. Cottinghametal., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1 1985, Vol. 21984, Vol. 3 1991
• Doney, Willis, (ed.), 1967,Descartes: A Collection ofCritical Essays, London: Macmillan, 1968; first publ. USA, 1967[includes Gewirth 1943]
• Engfer, Hans-Jürgen, 1982,Philosophie als Analysis,Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog [ch. 3: Descartes] {§1.2}
• Flage, Daniel E. and Bonnen, Clarence A., 1999,Descartes andMethod, London: Routledge [ch. 1: ‘Analysis: the search forlaws’; ch. 2: ‘Analysis: the clarification ofideas’]
• Florka, Roger, 2001,Descartes’s MetaphysicalReasoning, London: Routledge [ch. 4: ‘Analysis andSynthesis’]
• Garber, Daniel and Cohen, Lesley, 1982, ‘A Point of Order:Analysis, Synthesis, and Descartes’Principles’,Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 64, 136–47;repr. in Moyal 1991, Vol. 1, 248–58; and in Tweyman 1993,135–47
• Gaukroger, Stephen, (ed.), 1980,Descartes: Philosophy,Mathematics and Physics, Sussex [includes Gaukroger 1980a,Hacking 1973 {§4.4}, Schuster 1980]
• –––, 1980a, ‘Descartes’ Project fora Mathematical Physics’, in Gaukroger 1980, 97–140
• –––, 1989,Cartesian Logic, Oxford:Oxford University Press [esp. ch. 3: ‘Discovery andProof’] {§1.2}
• –––, 1992, ‘The nature of abstractreasoning: philosophical aspects of Descartes’ work inalgebra’, in Cottingham 1992, 91–114
• –––, 1995,Descartes: An IntellectualBiography, Oxford: Oxford University Press [124–6:‘The Doctrine of Analysis’]
• Gerten, Michael, 2001,Wahrheit und Methode bei Descartes:Eine systematische Einführung in die cartesischePhilosophie, Hamburg
• Gewirth, Alan, 1943, ‘Clearness and Distinctness inDescartes’, in Doney 1967, 250–77; orig. inPhilosophy 18, 17–36 [§6: reduction of compositeideas to ‘simple natures’]
• Grosholz, Emily R., 1991,Cartesian Method and the Problem ofReduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press [Introd.: method; ch.1: ‘Descartes’sGeometry and Pappus’Problem’]
• Hintikka, Jaakko, 1978, ‘A Discourse on Descartes’Method’, in Tweyman 1993, 118–34; orig. publ. 1978
• Israel, Giorgio, 1997, ‘The Analytical Method inDescartes’Géométrie’, in Otte andPanza 1997, 3–34 {§1.2}
• Klein, Jacob, 1968,Greek Mathematical Thought and the Originof Algebra, tr. Eva Brann, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; repr. NewYork: Dover, 1981; orig. publ. in German 1934, 1936 [154–71,179–85: Vieta and ancient analysis] {§2.2}
• Kraus, Pamela M., 1983, ‘From Universal Mathematics toUniversal Method: Descartes’s “turn” in Rule IV oftheRegulae’,Journal of the History ofPhilosophy 21, 159–74
• Lachterman, David Rapport, 1989,The Ethics of Geometry,London: Routledge [ch. 3: ‘Descartes’ RevolutionaryPaternity’]
• Lakatos, Imre, 1978,Mathematics, Science andEpistemology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• –––, 1978a, ‘The Method ofAnalysis-Synthesis’, in Lakatos 1978, 70–103 [Descartesand Pappus] {§2.2}
• Lenoir, Timothy, 1979, ‘Descartes and the Geometrization ofThought: The Methodological Background of Descartes’Géométrie’,Historia Mathematica6, 355–79
• Macbeth, Danielle, 2004, ‘Viète, Descartes, and theEmergence of Modern Mathematics’,Graduate FacultyPhilosophy Journal 25, No. 2, 87–117
• Mahoney, Michael, 1998, ‘The Mathematical Realm ofNature’, in Garber and Ayers 1998, 702–55 [Part IV:‘Algebra and the Art of Analysis’] {§4.1}
• Mancosu, Paolo, 1996,Philosophy of Mathematics andMathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press [ch. 3: Descartes’ geometry]
• Mittelstrass, Jürgen, 1979, ‘The Philosopher’sConception of “Mathesis Universalis” from Descartes toLeibniz’,Annals of Science 36, 593–610 {§4.4}
• Moyal, Georges J.D., (ed.), 1991,René Descartes:Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers, 4 vols., London:Routledge
• Risse, Wilhelm, 1963, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte der cartesischenMethodenlehre’,Archiv für Geschichte derPhilosophie 45, 269–91
• Robert, André, 1939, ‘Descartes et l’analysedes anciens’,Archives de Philosophie 13,221–42
• Schouls, Peter A., 1989,Descartes and the Enlightenment,Edinburgh University Press [chs. 1, 3, ch. 8, §2: method,analysis as decomp.]
• –––, 2000,Descartes and the Possibility ofScience, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press [ch. 3:‘A “Logic of Discovery”’]
• Schuster, John A., 1980, ‘Descartes’MathesisUniversalis, 1619–28’, in Gaukroger 1980,41–96
• Sepper, Dennis L., 1996,Descartes’s Imagination,Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press [ch. 4:‘Intuitus, Deductio, and Method’]
• Timmermans, B., 1999, ‘The Originality of Descartes’sConception of Analysis as Discovery’,Journal of the Historyof Ideas 60, no. 3, 433–47
• Tweyman, Stanley, (ed.), 1993,René Descartes:Meditations on First Philosophyin Focus, London: Routledge[includes Hintikka 1978, Garber and Cohen 1982, Tweyman 1993a, Curley1986]
• –––, 1993a, ‘Professor Cottingham andDescartes’ Methods of Analysis and Synthesis’, in Tweyman1993, 148–58
• Viète (Vieta), Francois, 1591,Introduction to theAnalytical Art, tr. (by J. Winfree Smith) in Klein 1968,313–53

4.3 British Empiricism

• Ayers, Michael, 1991,Locke, 2 vols., Vol. I:Epistemology, Vol. II: Ontology, London: Routledge; publ. together inpaperback, 1993 [I, chs. 11 and 14: Locke on method]
• Berkeley, George,NTV,An Essay towards a New Theoryof Vision, 4th ed., 1732; 1st ed. 1709, inBPW
• –––,PHK,A Treatise Concerning thePrinciples of Human Knowledge, 2nd ed. 1734; 1st ed. 1710, inBPW
• –––,The Analyst, Dublin and London,1734 [critique of mathematical analysis]
• –––,BPW,Philosophical Works,ed. M.R. Ayers, London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1975
• Hobbes, Thomas,ST,Short Tract on FirstPrinciples, 163?, inEW, Vol. 1
• –––,L,Logica, Part I ofDe Corpore 1655, tr. with a commentary by Aloysius Martinich,ed. with an introd. by Isabel C. Hungerland and George R. Vick, NewYork: Abaris Books [ch. 6: ‘On Method’ {Quotations}]
• –––,DC,De Corpore, 1655, inEW, Vol. 1
• –––,EW,The English Works ofThomas Hobbes, 11 vols., ed. William Molesworth, London: JohnBohn, 1839–45; repr. Aalen, 1962
• Jesseph, Douglas M., 1999,Squaring the Circle: The Warbetween Hobbes and Wallis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press[§5.2: ‘Analysis, Synthesis, and MathematicalMethod’]
• Laudan, Laurens, 1967, ‘The Nature and Sources ofLocke’s Views on Hypotheses’, in Tipton 1977,149–62; orig. inJ. Hist. Ideas 28, 211–23 [vs.‘Baconian’ reading of Locke]
• Locke, John,EHU,An Essay concerning HumanUnderstanding, 4th ed., ed. P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1975
• Noxon, James, 1973,Hume’s Philosophical Development: AStudy of his Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press [PartsII–III: Newton’s and Hume’s methods]
• Passmore, John, 1980,Hume’s Intentions, 3rd ed.,London: Duckworth; 1st ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1952 [ch. II: ‘The Critic of Formal Logic’; ch. III:‘The Methodologist’]
• Reid, Thomas, 1785,Essays on the Intellectual Powers ofMan, Edinburgh: J. Bell [Essay 5, ch. 3: ‘Of GeneralConceptions formed by Analyzing Objects’]
• Rogers, G.A.J., 2005, ‘Locke, Therapy, and Analysis’,in T. Sorell and G.A.J. Rogers, (eds.),Analytic Philosophy andHistory of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press,161–77
• Stroud, Barry, 1977,Hume, London: Routledge [ch. X: Humenot an ‘analytic’ philosopher]
• Talaska, Richard A., 1988, ‘Analytic and Synthetic Methodaccording to Hobbes’,Journal of the History ofPhilosophy 26, 207–37
• Tipton, I.C., (ed.), 1977,Locke on Human Understanding,Oxford: Oxford University Press [includes Laudan 1967]
• Woolhouse, R.S., 1983,Locke, Sussex: Harvester [§8:‘Aristotelian Demonstration rejected’]
• –––, 1988,The Empiricists, Oxford:Oxford University Press [31–8: Hobbes on method; ch. 4: Gassendivs. Aristotle on method]
• Yolton, John W., 1993,A Locke Dictionary, Oxford:Blackwell [entries on deduction, definition, demonstration,hypotheses, language, logic, proof, propositions, reason; alsoincludes bib.]

4.4 Leibniz and Wolff

• Blumenfeld, David, 1985, ‘Leibniz on Contingency andInfinite Analysis’,Phil. Phen. Res. 45,483–514
• Brown, Stuart, 1984,Leibniz, Sussex: Harvester [chs.5–6: method]
• Engfer, Hans-Jürgen, 1982,Philosophie als Analysis,Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog [ch. 4: Leibniz, ch. 5:Wolff] {§1.2}
• Fitsch, G., 1979, ‘Analyticity and Necessity inLeibniz’,J. Hist. Phil. 17, 29–42 [cf. Jager1969 {§6.4}]
• Frängsmyr, Tore, 1975, ‘Christian Wolff’sMathematical Method and its Impact on the Eighteenth Century’,Journal of the History of Ideas 36, 653–68
• Hacking, Ian, 1973, ‘Leibniz and Descartes: Proof andEternal Truths’, in Kenny 1986, 47–60; also in Gaukroger1980, 169–80 {§4.2}; orig. publ. inProc. Brit. Acad. 59 (1973), 1–16
• –––, 1974, ‘Infinite Analysis’,Studia Leibnitiana 6, 126–30
• Hall, A. Rupert, 2002, ‘Newton versus Leibniz: from geometryto metaphysics’, in Cohen and Smith 2002, 431–54 {§4.1}
• Heinekamp, A., 1975, ‘Natürliche Sprache und AllgemeineCharakteristik bei Leibniz’,Studia LeibnitianaSupplementa 15, 257–86
• Hooker, Michael, (ed.), 1982,Leibniz: Critical andInterpretive Essays, Manchester: Manchester University Press[includes Parkinson 1982, bib.]
• Ishiguro, Hidé, 1990,Leibniz’s Philosophy ofLogic and Language, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress; 1st ed. London: Duckworth, 1972 [ch. 1: substitutivity; ch. 2:‘Ars Combinatoria’]
• Jolley, Nicholas, 1984,Leibniz and Locke: A Study of the NewEssays on Human Understanding, Oxford: Oxford University Press[ch. IX: ‘Knowledge and Ideas’]
• –––, (ed.), 1995,The Cambridge Companion toLeibniz, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [includesRutherford 1995, bib.]
• Kenny, Anthony, (ed.), 1986,Rationalism, Empiricism, andIdealism, Oxford: Oxford University Press [includes Hacking1973]
• Kulstad, M., (ed.), 1977,Essays on the Philosophy ofLeibniz, Houston: Rice Univ. Studies [includes Wilson 1977]
• Lambert, Johann Heinrich, 1761,Criterium Veritatis, inKant-Studien,Ergänzungsheft 36, ed. K. Bopp,Berlin: Reuther and Reichard, 1915, 1–63 [Wolffian method]
• Leibniz,USA, ‘Of Universal Synthesis andAnalysis’, c. 1683, inPW, 10–17 {Quotation}
• –––,MKTI, ‘Meditations onKnowledge, Truth, and Ideas’, 1684, inPE,23–7
• –––,PT, ‘Primary Truths’,c. 1686, inPW, 87–92,PE, 30–34 {Quotation}
• –––,DM, ‘Discourse onMetaphysics’, 1686, inPE, 35–68; selections inPW, 18–47
• –––,ENS, ‘Explanation of the NewSystem’, 1695–6, inPW, 125–32
• –––,NE,New Essays on HumanUnderstanding, 1703–5, first publ. 1765, tr. and ed. P.Remnant and J. Bennett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981[Notes, pp. xxiv–xxv: ‘Analysis’]
• –––,PNG, ‘Principles of Natureand of Grace’, 1714, inPW, 195–204;PE,206–13
• –––,M, ‘Monadology’, inPW,PE; also tr. Robert Latta, rev. DonaldRutherford, at http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rutherford/Leibniz/monad.htm {Quotation}
• –––,LP,Logical Papers, tr.and ed. G.H.R. Parkinson, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966
• –––,LAC,The Leibniz-ArnauldCorrespondence, ed. and tr. H.T. Mason, Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press, 1967
• –––,PW,PhilosophicalWritings, ed. and tr. Mary Morris and G.H.R. Parkinson, London:J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd, 1973
• –––,PE,Philosophical Essays,ed. and tr. Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber, Indianapolis: Hackett,1989
• –––,NA, ‘Notes on Analysis’, tr. George MacDonald Ross, 1999
• Loemker, Leroy E., 1966, ‘Leibniz’s conception ofphilosophical method’,Zeitschrift für PhilosophischeForschung 20, 497–524
• MacDonald Ross, George, 1984,Leibniz, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press [60–6: discovery and proof]
• McRae, Robert, 1976,Leibniz: Perception, Apperception, andThought, Toronto: University of Toronto Press
• Mancosu, Paolo, 1996,Philosophy of Mathematics andMathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press [ch. 6: Leibniz and the calculus]
• Mates, Benson, 1986,The Philosophy of Leibniz, Oxford:Oxford University Press [ch. III: props. and concepts; ch. X:lingua philosophica]
• Mittelstrass, Jürgen, 1979, ‘The Philosopher’sConception of “Mathesis Universalis” from Descartes toLeibniz’,Annals of Science, 36, 593–610 {§4.2}
• Parkinson, G.H.R., 1966, ‘Introduction’ to Leibniz,LP, ix–lxv
• –––, 1982, ‘The “Intellectualizationof Appearances”: Aspects of Leibniz’s Theory of Sensationand Thought’, in Hooker 1982, 3–20
• Pasini, Enrico, 1997, ‘Arcanum Artis Inveniendi:Leibniz and Analysis’, in Otte and Panza 1997, 35–46 {§1.2}
• Peckhaus, Volker, 1997,Logik, Mathesis universalis undallgemeine Wissenschaft, Berlin: Akademie Verlag [Leibniz’slogic and its influence]
• Pombo, O., 1987,Leibniz and the Problem of a UniversalLanguage, Münster: Nodus Publikationen
• Rutherford, Donald, 1995, ‘Philosophy and language inLeibniz’, in Jolley 1995, 224–69 [§1: universalcharacteristic]
• Schneider, Martin, 1995, ‘Weltkonstitution durch logischeAnalyse: Kritische Überlegungen zu Leibniz und Carnap’,Studia Leibnitiana 27, 67–84
• Wiener, P., 1939, ‘Notes on Leibniz’ Conception ofLogic and its Historical Context’,Phil. Rev. 48,567–86
• Wiggins, David, 2006, ‘Three moments in the theory ofdefinition or analysis: its possibility, its aim or aims, and itslimit or terminus’,Proc. Aris. Soc. 106 [Leibniz andFrege] {§6.2}
• Wilson, Margaret D., 1967, ‘Leibniz and Locke on“First Truths”’,J. Hist. Ideas 28,347–66
• –––, 1977, ‘Confused Ideas’, inKulstad 1977, 123–37
• Wolff, Christian,PRL,Philosophia Rationalis siveLogica, inGW, I.2 [Part I, §139, 69–71:method]
• –––,GW,Gesammelte Werke, ed.Jean Ecole, Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1983
• Yost, R., 1954,Leibniz and Philosophical Analysis,Berkeley: University of California Press

4.5 Kant and his Contemporaries

• Allison, Henry E., 1983,Kant’s TranscendentalIdealism, Yale University Press [73–8: analytic/synthetic]
• Altmann, Alexander, 1969,Moses MendelssohnsFrühschriften zur Metaphysik, Tübingen: Mohr[271–6: ambiguities in M’s account of analysis]
• Anderson, R. Lanier, 2005, ‘The Wolffian Paradigm and itsDiscontents: Kant’s Containment Definition of Analyticity inHistorical Context’,Archiv für Geschichte derPhilosophie 87, 22–74
• –––, 2015,The Poverty of Conceptual Truth:Kant’ Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits ofMetaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Beaney, Michael, 2002, ‘Kant and AnalyticMethodology’,British Journal for the History ofPhilosophy 10, 455–66 [review of Falkenburg 2000 and Hanna2001]
• Beck, Lewis W., 1956a, ‘Can Kant’s Synthetic JudgmentsBe Made Analytic?’, in Wolff 1967, 3–22; orig. publ. inKant-Studien 47 (1955-6), 168–81
• –––, 1956b, ‘Kant’s Theory ofDefinition’, in Wolff 1967, 23–36; orig. inPhil.Rev. 65 (1956), 179–91
• Bennett, Jonathan, 1966,Kant’s Analytic,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [4–8:analytic/synthetic]
• Bird, Graham, (ed.), 2006,A Companion to Kant, Oxford:Blackwell [includes Bird 2006a, Brittan 2006, O’Shea 2006 {§6.1}]
• –––, 2006a, ‘Kant’s AnalyticApparatus’, in Bird 2006, 125–39 [§1:analytic/synthetic distinction; §4: analytic and syntheticmethod]
• Brittan, Gordon G., 1992, ‘Algebra and Intuition’, inPosy 1992, 315–39
• –––, 2006, ‘Kant’s Philosophy ofMathematics’, in Bird 2006, 222–35
• Cassirer, Ernst, 1918,Kant’s Life and Thought, tr.James Haden, Yale University Press, 1981
• Caygill, Howard, 1995,A Kant Dictionary, Oxford:Blackwell [entries under analysis {Quotation}, analytic, analytical judgement, clarity, definition, dialectic,logic, mathematics, synthesis]
• Coffa, J. Alberto, 1991,The Semantic Tradition from Kant toCarnap, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ch. 1:‘Kant, analysis, and pure intuition’] {§1.2}
• Crusius, Christian August, 1745,Entwurf der notwendigenVernunft-Wahrheiten, Leipzig [critique of Wolff’smethod]
• –––, 1747,Wege zur Gewißheit undZuverläßigkeit der menschlichen Erkenntnis, Leipzig;repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964 [critique of Wolff’s method]
• Dahlstrom, Daniel O., 1997, ‘Introduction’ toMendelssohnPW, ix–xxx [xxv-xxviii: analysis in theprize essay]
• Dicker, George, 2004,Kant’s Theory of Knowledge: AnAnalytical Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press[10–14: analytic vs. synthetic propositions; 24–5:analytic vs. synthetic method in Kant’sCPR]
• Engfer, Hans-Jürgen, 1982,Philosophie als Analysis,Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog [ch. 1: analysis andsynthesis in the German Enlightenment and Kant] {§1.2}
• Falkenburg, Brigitte, 2000,Kants Kosmologie, Frankfurtam Main: Klostermann [ch. 2: Kant’s analytic method; ch. 4:Kant’s critical turn]
• Ferrarin, A., 1995, ‘Construction and MathematicalSchematism: Kant on the Exhibition of a Concept in Intuition’,Kant-Studien 86, 131–74
• Friedman, Michael, 1985, ‘Kant’s Theory ofGeometry’,Phil. Rev. 94, 455–506; repr. in Posy1992, 177–219; rev. as ch. 1 of Friedman 1992
• –––, 1990, ‘Kant on Concepts andIntuitions in the Mathematical Sciences’,Synthese 84,213–57; rev. as ch. 2 of Friedman 1992
• –––, 1992,Kant and the Exact Sciences,Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
• –––, 1992a, ‘Causal laws and thefoundations of natural science’, in Guyer 1992, 161–99[§4: Kant on the transition from Kepler’s to Newton’slaws]
• –––, 2000, ‘Geometry, Construction, andIntuition in Kant and his Successors’, in G. Sher and R.Tieszen, eds.,Between Logic and Intuition, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
• Gava, Gabriele, (ed.), 2019,Kant’s PhilosophicalMethod: Receptions and Transformations, Special Issue of theBritish Journal for the History of Philosophy, 27.2
• Guyer, Paul, (ed.), 1992,The Cambridge Companion toKant, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [includes Friedman1992a, O’Neill 1992, Young 1992]
• –––, 2006,Kant, London: Routledge[45–9: analytic vs. synthetic method in Kant’sCPR andPFM]
• Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen, 1997, ‘Introduction to theCritique of Pure Reason’ and ‘EditorialNotes’, in KantCPR, 1–80, 705–56[32–4, 68–9, 717: analytic vs. synthetic method]
• Hanna, Robert, 2001,Kant and the Foundations of AnalyticPhilosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press [ch. 3:analyticity]
• –––, 2007, ‘Kant, Wittgenstein, and theFate of Analysis’, in Beaney 2007a {§6.1}
• Hatfield, Gary, 2004, ‘Introduction’ to KantPFM, ix–xxxiv [xx, xxiv: analytic method ofPFM]
• Hintikka, Jaakko, 1965, ‘Kant’s New Method of Thoughtand His Theory of Mathematics’, in Hintikka 1974, 126–34;orig. inAjatus
• –––, 1967, ‘Kant on the MathematicalMethod’, in Hintikka 1974, 160–83; Posy 1992, 21–42;orig. inMonist 51, 352–75 [mathematics as based on(synthetic) constructions]
• –––, 1973,Logic, Language-Games andInformation, Oxford: Oxford University Press
• –––, 1973a, ‘Kant Vindicated’, inHintikka 1973, 174–98
• –––, 1973b, ‘Kant and the Tradition ofAnalysis’, in Hintikka 1973, 199–221
• –––, 1974,Knowledge and the Known,Dordrecht: D. Reidel
• –––, 1982, ‘Kant’s Theory ofMathematics Revisited’, in Mohanty and Shelan 1982,201–15; orig. inPhil. Topics 12
• –––, 1984, ‘Kant’s TranscendentalMethod and His Theory of Mathematics’, in Posy 1992,341–59; orig. inTopoi 3
• Kant, Immanuel,IDP,Inquiry Concerning theDistinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality,‘Prize Essay’, 1764, inTP, 243–86[248–9, 276–7: analysis {Quotations}]
• –––,FP,On the Form and Principlesof the Sensible and the Intelligible World, ‘InauguralDissertation’, 1770, inTP, 373–416 [§1:analysis]
• –––,CPR,Critique of PureReason, 1st ed. 1781, 2nd ed. 1787, tr. Paul Guyer and Allen W.Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; also tr. NormanKemp Smith, London: Macmillan, 1929 {Quotations}
• –––,PFM,Prolegomena to Any FutureMetaphysics, 1783, tr. Gary Hatfield, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, rev. ed. 2004; also tr. Paul Carus, rev. James W.Ellington, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1977; also tr. P.G. Lucas,Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953 [4: 263–4,274–5: analytic vs. synthetic method {Quotations}; §2: analytic/synthetic]
• –––,TP,Theoretical Philosophy1755–1770, tr. and ed. David Walford in collaboration withRalf Meerbote, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, CambridgeEdition of the Works of Immanuel Kant
• –––,WE, ‘An Answer to theQuestion: “What is Enlightenment?”’, 1784, in Kant,PW, 54–60
• –––,WOT, ‘What is Orientation inThinking’, 1786, in Kant,PW, 237–49
• –––,PW,Political Writings,2nd ed., ed. Hans Reiss, tr. H.B. Nisbet, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991, 1st ed. 1970
• Kitcher, Philip, 1975, ‘Kant and the Foundations ofMathematics’,Phil. Rev. 84, 23–50; repr. in Posy1992, 109–31
• Kreis, Guido, 2019, ‘The Idea of Transcendental Analysis:Kant, Marburg Neo-Kantianism, and Strawson’,British Journalfor the History of Philosophy, 27.2: 293–314
• Lambert, Johann H., 1761, ‘Treatise on theCriterion ofTruth’, in Watkins 2009, 233–257
• Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph,A,Aphorisms, tr.R. J. Hollingdale, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990 {Quotations}
• Longuenesse, Béatrice, 1998,Kant and the Capacity toJudge, tr. C.T. Wolfe, New Jersey: Princeton University Press[11: analysis as involving “comparison, reflection, andabstraction”; 64–8: analysis as presupposingsynthesis]
• Mendelssohn, Moses, 1763,Abhandlung über die Evidenz inMetaphysischen Wissenschaften, 2nd ed., Berlin: Harde &Spener, 1786; 1st ed. 1764; repr. in MendelssohnSPA,267–330; tr. asOn Evidence in Metaphysical Sciences,in MendelssohnPW, 251–306 [§1: analysis as‘unpacking’ {Quotation}]
• –––,SPA,Schriften zur Philosophieund Ästhetik, II, ed. F. Bamberger and L. Strauss,Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1972; repr. from Berlin ed.1931
• –––,PW,PhilosophicalWritings, tr. and ed. Daniel O. Dahlstrom, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997 [includes Dahlstrom 1997, Mendelssohn1763]
• Mohanty, J. N. and Shehan, R.W., (eds.), 1982,Essays onKant’s Critique of Pure Reason, University of OklahomaPress [includes Hintikka 1982]
• O’Neill, Onora 1992, ‘Vindicating Reason’, inGuyer 1992, 280–308 [Kant’s conception of reason]
• Parsons, Charles 1969, ‘Kant’s Philosophy ofArithmetic’, in Walker 1982, 13–40; also in Parsons 1983,with a ‘Postscript’ {§6.2}; repr. in Posy 1992, 43–79; orig. publ. in 1969
• Posy, Carl J., (ed.), 1992,Kant’s Philosophy ofMathematics, Dordrecht: Kluwer [includes Brittan 1992, Friedman1985, Hintikka 1967, 1984, Kitcher 1975, Parsons 1969, Young1984]
• Priest, Graham, 2002,Beyond the Limits of Thought,Oxford: Oxford University Press [ch. 6: Kant’s antinomies] {§5.8,§6.5}
• Proust, Joelle, 1986,Questions de forme, Paris: Fayard,tr. asQuestions of Form: Logic and the Analytic Proposition fromKant to Carnap by A.A. Brenner, Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1989 [I: Kant] {§1.2}
• Raysmith, Thomas, ‘Kant's Original Space and Time as MereGrounds for Possibilities’,Kantian Review27.1:23–42,https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415421000182
• Shabel, Lisa, 1998, ‘Kant on the “SymbolicConstruction” of Mathematical Concepts’,Studies inHistory and Philosophy of Science 29: 589–621
• –––, 2003,Mathematics in Kant’sCritical Philosophy, New York: Routledge
• Walker, Ralph C.S., (ed.), 1982,Kant on Pure Reason,Oxford: Oxford University Press [includes Parsons 1969]
• Watkins, Eric, (ed. and tr.), 2009,Kant's Critique of PureReason: Background Source Materials, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press
• Wolff, R.P., (ed.), 1967,Kant: A Collection of CriticalEssays, London: Macmillan [includes Beck 1956a and 1956b]
• Young, J. Michael, 1984, ‘Construction, Schematism andImagination’, in Posy 1992, 159–75; orig. inTopoi 3 [mathematics as grounded in (synthetic)construction]
• –––, 1992, ‘Functions of thought and thesynthesis of intuitions’, in Guyer 1992, 101–22 [§3:analysis and synthesis of concepts]

4.6 Indian Analytic Philosophy

• Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar, 2001, ‘A Note on Formalism inIndian Logic’,Journal of Indian Philosophy, 29:17–23
• ––– 2006, ‘On the Language ofNavya-Nyāya: An Experiment With Precision Through a NaturalLanguage’,Journal of Indian Philosophy, 34:5–13
• Bhattacharyya, Sibajiban, 1987a,Doubt, Belief andKnowledge, New Delhi: Indian Council of PhilosophicalResearch
• ––– 1987b, ‘Some Aspects of theNavya-Nyāya Theory of Inference’, ch. 17 of Bhattacharyya1987a; repr. in Ganeri 2001a, 162–82
• ––– 1998,Language, Testimony andMeaning, New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research
• Cardona, George, 1975, ‘Paraphrase and Sentence Analysis:Some Indian Views’,Journal of Indian Philosophy, 3:259–81
• Carpenter, Amber and Jonardon Ganeri, 2010, ‘Can You Seekthe Answer to This Question? Meno in India’,AustralasianJournal of Philosophy, 88.4: 571–94
• Coward, Harold G. and K. Kunjunni Raja, (eds.), 1990,ThePhilosophy of the Grammarians, Encyclopedia of IndianPhilosophies, Vol. 5, Princeton: Princeton University Press
• Dasti, Matthew R., ‘Nyāya’, inInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:https://iep.utm.edu/nyaya/
• Deshpande, Madhav, 2022, ‘Language and Testimony inClassical Indian Philosophy’, inStanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & UriNodelman (eds.), URL =<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/language-india/>.
• Ganeri, Jonardon, (ed.), 2001a,Indian Logic: A Reader,London: Routledge
• ––– 2001b,Philosophy in Classical India:The Proper Work of Reason, London: Routledge
• ––– 2004, ‘Indian Logic’, in Dov M.Gabbay and John Woods, (eds.),Handbook of the History ofLogic, Vol. 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier
• ––– 2006,Artha: Meaning, Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press
• ––– 2011,The Lost Age of Reason: Philosophyin Early Modern India 1450–1700, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress [Part III: ‘The Possibility of Inquiry’; Part V:‘A New Language for Philosophy’]
• ––– (ed.), 2017,The Oxford Handbook ofIndian Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press
• ––– 2023, ‘Analytic Philosophy in EarlyModern India’, inStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/early-modern-india/>.
• Gaṅgeśa, 2004,Epistemology Of Perception:Gaṅgeśa’s Tattvacintāmaṇi, JewelOf Reflection On The Truth (About Epistemology): The PerceptionChapter (Pratyakṣa-khaṇḍa), TransliteratedText, Translation, and Philosophical Commentary, ed. Stephen H.Phillips and N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya, New York: American Instituteof Buddhist Studies
• Gillon, B. S. and Love, M. L. 1980, ‘Indian Logic Revisited:Nyāyapraveśa Reviewed’,Journal of IndianPhilosophy, 8: 349–84
• Keating, Malcolm, 2019,Language, Meaning, and Use in IndianPhilosophy: An Introduction to Mukula’s “Fundamentals ofthe Communicative Function”, London: Bloomsbury
• ––– (ed.), 2020,Controversial Reasoning inIndian Philosophy: Major Texts and Arguments on Arthāpatti,London: Bloomsbury
• Krishna, Daya, 1997a,Indian Philosophy: A New Approach,Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications)
• ––– 1997b, ‘The Modes of Analysis and theSearch for Precision: Developments in Navya Nyāya afterGaṅgeśa’, in Krishna 1997a, 155–62
• ––– 2001,Developments in Indian Philosophyfrom Eighteenth Century Onwards, New Delhi: Centre for Studies inCivilizations
• Matilal, Bimal Krishna, 1990,Logic, Language and Reality:Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, 2nd edn., Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass; 1st edn. 1985
• ––– 1998a,The Character of Logic inIndia, ed. Jonardon Ganeri and Heeraman Tiwari, Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press
• ––– 1998b, ‘Introducing IndianLogic’, in Matilal 1998a, pp. 1–30; repr. in Ganeri 2001a,pp. 183–215
• ––– 2001,The Word and the World:India’s Contribution to the Study of Language, NewDelhi: Oxford University Press; 1st edn. 1990
• ––– 2005,Epistemology, Logic, and Grammarin Indian Philosophical Analysis, 2nd edn., ed. J. Ganeri,Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1st edn. 1971
• Matilal, Bimal Krishna and Arindam Chakrabarti, (eds.), 1994,Knowing from Words, Dordrecht: Kluwer
• Mohanty, J. N., 1966,Gaṅgeśa’sTheory of Truth, Santiniketan: Visva-Bharati
• Pāṇini, 1954,Aṣṭādhyāyī-sūtrapatha,Bombay: Nirnayasagar
• Perrett, Roy W., 2016,An Introduction to IndianPhilosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ch. 2:‘Knowledge’; ch. 3: ‘Reasoning’; ch. 4:‘Word’]
• Phillips, Stephen H., 2012,Epistemology in Classical India:The Knowledge Sources of the Nyāya School, London:Routledge
• Potter, Karl H., (ed.), 1978,Indian Metaphysics andEpistemology: The Tradition of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika up toGaṅgeśa, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. 2,Princeton: Princeton University Press
• Potter, Karl H. and Sibajiban Bhattacharya, (eds.), 1992,Indian Philosophical Analysis: Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikafrom Gaṅgeśa to RaghunāthaSiromaṇi, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies,Vol. 6, Princeton: Princeton University Press
• Siderits, Mark, 1991,Indian Philosophy of Language,Dordrecht: Kluwer [ch. 3: sense/reference distinction; ch. 4: emptyterms]
• Staal, Frits, 1973,‘The Concept ofPakṣa inIndian Logic’,Journal of Indian Philosophy,2:156–66
• Vaidya, Anand, 2020, ‘Arthāpatti: AnAnglo-Indo-Analytic Attempt at Cross-Cultural ConceptualEngineering’, in Keating 2020, pp. 311–32
• Wada, Toshihiro, 2001, ‘The Analytical Method ofNavya-Nyāya’,Journal of Indian Philosophy 29.5/6:519–30
• ––– 2007,The Analytical Method ofNavya-Nyāya, Groningen: Egbert Forsten

4.7 Chinese Philosophy

• Angle, Stephen C. and Justin Tiwald, 2017,Neo-Confucianism: APhilosophical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press
• Chan, Wing-tsit, (ed.), 1987,A Sourcebook in ChinesePhilosophy, Princeton: Princeton University Press
• De Bary, Wm Theodore, (ed.), 1975,The Unfolding ofNeo-Confucianism,New York: Columbia University Press
• ––– 1991,The Trouble withConfucianism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
• De Bary, Wm Theodore and Irene Bloom, (eds.), 1979,Principleand Practicality: Essays in Neo-Confucianism and PracticalLearning, New York: Columbia University Press
• Elman, Benjamin A., 2001,From Philosophy to Philology:Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China,2nd edn., Los Angeles: UCLA Asian Pacific Monograph series; 1st edn.1984
• Fung, Yiu-ming, (ed.), 2020,Dao Companion to ChinesePhilosophy of Logic, Switzerland: Springer [contains Yuan2020]
• Fung, Yu-Lan, 1948,A Short History of ChinesePhilosophy, ed. Derk Bodde, New York: The Free Press [chs.19–26: Neo-Daoism and Neo-Confucianism]
• –––, 1953,A History of Chinese Philosophy,Vol. 2: The Period of Classical Learning (From the Second Century BCto the Twentieth Century AD), tr. Derk Bodde. Princeton:Princeton University Press
• Huang, Chin-Shing, 1995,Philosophy, Philology, and Politicsin Eighteenth-Century China: Li Fu and the Lu-Wang School under theCh’ing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Kroll, Paul W., 2022,A Student’s Dictionary ofClassical and Medieval Chinese, 3rd edn., Leiden: Brill
• Makeham, John, (ed.), 2010,The Dao Companion toNeo-Confucianism, Springer
• Mou, Bo, (ed.), 2009,History of Chinese Philosophy,London: Routledge, Parts III and IV
• Ng, On-Cho, 2024, ‘Qing Philosophy’,StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy,(Summer 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/qing-philosophy/>.
• Sela, Ori, 2018,China’s Philological Turn: Scholars,Textualism, and the Dao in the Eighteenth Century, New York:Columbia University Press
• Tiwald, Justin and Bryan Van Norden, (eds.), 2014,Readings inLater Chinese Philosophy: Han Dynasty to the 20th Century,Cambridge: Hackett [§51: Dai Zhen]
• Yuan, Jinmei, 2020, ‘Proper Relations of Association(Zheng 正) vs. Logical Validity of Syllogism: A CaseStudy of Shared Practices of Matteo Ricci, S. J and ChineseMathematicians in Seventeenth Century’, in Fung 2020,437–63
• Zhang, Dainian, 2002,Key Concepts in Chinese Philosophy,tr. and ed. Edmund Ryden, New Haven: Yale University Press, orig.publ. in Chinese in 1989