Leibniz and Borges

In the SD
Leibniz stated that it is impossible for two things to be completely identical. And against the rabbi, he argued that he was confusing attributes with the substance that is.
A different object that exists in itself and only has identical properties (and even though location in space is only a physical and not logical constraint).
Therefore, I have several objections: 1- The Rabbi assumes that objects have a separate essence that exists even when separated from their properties. And that is why I ask:
All of this is true for a person who has an experienced soul, and therefore his qualities define the subject that he is, but who said that objects also have
Is there an abstract essence that exists without its properties? Perhaps the entire existence of an object is only through its properties?
And to explain my words further – I do not intend to make an idealistic claim that reality has no self-existence and that its entire existence is only in what is perceived.
In my consciousness. Rather, my intention is to argue that although there is an external existence, in reality all existence is only the attributes (i.e., matter changes and transforms).
according to its active properties, but is not an existing entity in itself). And more profoundly – matter in itself is a uniform 'Juli' which has no
separate at all, and only through the 'form', i.e. the attributes, do we perceive it as separate parts (i.e. even the 'seconds' is an attribute and nothing more,
And in any case, the location of space is fundamental to the definition of the existence of matter)? 2- The Rabbi brought Borges, who described a world in which reality is perceived only by its occurrences, and thus I will show the absurdity
In idealism. And so I ask, is there perhaps indeed idealism and we only call 'object' what is perceived in our consciousness as Noah? 3- Incidentally, Borges gives in MKA (The Garden of Forking Paths) a description of a person who perceives every detail in reality as separate from its context (such as
That each moment appears to our eyes to be fundamentally different from the next moment because it exists at a different time, or that each object, such as a dog, appears to be something different
Completely the moment after because a hair moved or a different face showed or the dog was seen with the sun next to it and another moment without
etc.), and thus he shows that one must grasp an ideological essence. And so I ask whether perhaps there is no ideal essence at all, and everything that man
It perceives this as meaning because it organizes the image according to its use, but there is really no connection at all between one thing and another (in fact it is
Aristotle's argument against Plato)? 4- And so it seems that the Rabbi assumes a Platonic worldview that there are essences (i.e. 'ideas') even for inanimate objects. And so I argue that perhaps everything
That there are only separate properties, and only our consciousness organizes them? 5- Incidentally, according to the analysis of these seemingly obvious questions, it can be said that the concept of 'idealism' does not assume that there is no external world at all (as Borges and the Rabbis did),
But the world exists only because it is completely formless, and therefore has no self-properties at all, and even no separateness (but is entirely
uniform and unreal) and only our consciousness organizes it as separate and gives it a private form? Thank you very much!