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
    Inter-substantial causation cannot be explained by influx... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Inter-substantial causation cannot be explained by influx theory, because Leibnizian substances lack the requisite parts through which something could pass from one substance to another.

    CausationPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibnizian monads are simple, indivisible, and windowless, possessing no parts through which any inflowing quality or force could enter or exit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Influx theory, as articulated by scholastic predecessors like Suárez, requires a real physical or metaphysical conduit between substances for causal transmission.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without such conduits, influx theory cannot distinguish genuine inter-substantial causation from mere correlational succession between monadic states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle that 'monads have no windows' entails that no accident or property can migrate from one substance to another, which is precisely what influx theory demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any apparent causal influence between substances must therefore be grounded in pre-established harmony rather than real transmission, rendering influx theory explanatorily idle for Leibnizian metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Influx theory can only explain causal relations between entities that have parts, since it is through parts that something passes from one thing into another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibnizian substances do not have parts in the requisite sense.
      ?

      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

    Personal IdentityCausation

    Key Terms

    Gottfried Leibniz(as a key figure in the debate)
    A 17th-18th century German philosopher and mathematician who argued that space doesn't exist independently but is just a way to describe how things relate to each other.
    Leibnizian substances(as used in metaphysics)
    According to philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, these are basic units of reality that are completely independent and can't actually interact with each other directly.
    influx theory(Leibniz's critique of inter-substantial causation)
    A theory of causation according to which causal relations between substances are explained by something literally passing from one substance into another, requiring that the substances have parts through which this transfer occurs.
    inter-substantial causation(Leibniz's denial of this doctrine)
    Causal interaction between distinct substances, whereby one substance directly produces changes in another.
    substances (in philosophy)(metaphysics/ontology)
    The fundamental things that exist on their own, like individual objects or beings. A substance is what accidents attach to—for example, a chair is a substance, and its redness is an accident of that substance.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Any apparent causal influence between substances must therefore be grounded in p...Influx theory can only explain causal relations between entities that have parts...Influx theory, as articulated by scholastic predecessors like Suárez, requires a...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: leibniz-mind
    View source passageHide passage
    Leibniz’s first reason for denying inter-substantial causation, that “one cannot explain how something can pass from one thing into the substance of another,” is a clear reference to the influx theory of causation. Leibniz found this theory inconsistent with his conception of substance. Influx theory could only explain causal relations between entities with parts, according to Leibniz. It is through these parts that “something can pass from one thing into … another.” But Leibnizian substances do
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Leibniz's principle that 'monads have no windows' entails that no accident or pr...
    +3 moreShow less
    Leibnizian monads are simple, indivisible, and windowless, possessing no parts t...Leibnizian substances do not have parts in the requisite sense.Without such conduits, influx theory cannot distinguish genuine inter-substantia...

    Similar

    Transeunt causation among substances is impossible82%Final causality is insufficient to explain the existence of substances...80%Leibniz's argument against inter-substantial causation would rule out ...79%Influx theory can only explain causal relations between entities that ...79%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit