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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A sufficient reason, as Leibniz uses the term, is a proof that is both a demonstration and an explanation.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42