@article {12662,
	title = {Mon{\'a}da ako princ{\'\i}p zlo{\v z}enia organick{\'e}ho tela},
	journal = {Filozofia},
	volume = {73},
	number = {7},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {509-519},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {Let us refer to sections 70 and 71 of <em>Monadology</em>: In them Leibniz explains his conception of the organic body as a totality made up of many organs, which are the constituent parts of all organic bodies of the other living creatures. 1) This conception, although postulated, is not justified. Can it be justified by the corpus of Leibniz{\textasciiacute}s works itself? 2) Here we find the <em>dominant entelechy</em>, attributed to a living body as such, but also to living creatures by which it is constituted. How should this interconnection of dominant entelechies be interpreted, if this interconnection is to offer a sufficient argument for the organic composition of a living creature? Due to some misinterpretations of this interconnection Leibniz wants to alter the latter to some extent. Who were these interpreters and what were their arguments? And what does this correction of his thesis embody?},
	keywords = {Entelechy, Living creature, Monad, Natural machine, Soul},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/filozofia/2018/7/509-519.pdf},
	author = {Duchesneau, Fran{\c c}ois}
}
