Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A sufficient reason, as Leibniz uses the term, is a proof... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A sufficient reason, as Leibniz uses the term, is a proof that is both a demonstration and an explanation.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz holds that every truth or fact requires a sufficient reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz uses 'a priori' in its original pre-Kantian sense, meaning an argument from causes to effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An a priori proof reflects the causal order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz distinguishes demonstrations (logically necessary proofs) from causal explanations, treating them as complementary but not identical functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In the Monadology and Theodicy, Leibniz applies the PSR to contingent facts whose sufficient reasons are infinite causal chains, not finite demonstrations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proof that collapses demonstration and explanation conflates logical necessity with causal sufficiency, two relations Leibniz carefully separates across necessary and contingent truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Couturat and subsequent Leibniz scholars argue that sufficient reasons for contingent truths are asymptotically approximated, never fully demonstrated by finite minds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sufficient reasons were strictly demonstrations, the PSR would apply only to necessary truths, contradicting Leibniz's explicit extension of PSR to contingent facts and God's free choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation2 linked

    Related

    A proof that collapses demonstration and explanation conflates logical necessity...A sufficient reason is an a priori proof in this pre-Kantian sense.An a priori proof reflects the causal order.Couturat and subsequent Leibniz scholars argue that sufficient reasons for conti...
    +5 moreShow less
    If sufficient reasons were strictly demonstrations, the PSR would apply only to ...In the Monadology and Theodicy, Leibniz applies the PSR to contingent facts whos...Leibniz distinguishes demonstrations (logically necessary proofs) from causal ex...Leibniz holds that every truth or fact requires a sufficient reason.Leibniz uses 'a priori' in its original pre-Kantian sense, meaning an argument f...

    Similar

    A sufficient reason is a sufficient condition84%A sufficient reason is an a priori proof in this pre-Kantian sense.82%The principle of sufficient reason requires that there be a sufficient...81%A proposition's being evident to us is a sufficient reason for asserti...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: sufficient-reason
    View source passageHide passage
    When Leibniz insists that every truth or fact requires a sufficient reason, what does he mean by “sufficient reason?” In some texts he suggests that sufficient reason is an “a priori proof”. This should not be understood in Kantian terms as a proof that doesn’t require any input from sense experience. Rather, Leibniz uses the term “a priori” in its original pre-Kantian meaning, which means an argument from causes to effects. An a priori proof is a proof that reflects the causal order. Thus a suf
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit