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
    Leibniz could not have accepted sufficient reason as a fi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Leibniz could not have accepted sufficient reason as a finite a priori proof in his mature philosophy

    Natural Theology
    ?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.If sufficient reason were a finite a priori proof, it would reveal that the predicate concept is contained in the subject concept in a finite number of steps
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If every proposition were demonstrable in a finite number of steps, every proposition would be necessary
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Leibniz is not a necessitarian in his mature philosophy
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz distinguishes between demonstrations that are finite in steps and those requiring infinite analysis, without collapsing both into necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proof can be a priori—grounded in concepts alone—without being finite; God performs infinite a priori analysis that contingent truths require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, sufficient reason can function as an a priori principle for God without entailing that every proposition is finitely demonstrable by finite minds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Couturat and Rescher argue that Leibniz's containment theory of truth is compatible with contingency via the infinite/finite analysis distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If contingency is secured by the infinitude of the analysis rather than by rejecting a priori grounding, necessitarianism does not follow from PSR.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's P2 conflates finite demonstrability with a priori provability, undermining the inference from PSR to necessitarianism.
      ?

      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

    Natural TheologyTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility3 linkedFree Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    A proof can be a priori—grounded in concepts alone—without being finite; God per...Couturat and Rescher argue that Leibniz's containment theory of truth is compati...If contingency is secured by the infinitude of the analysis rather than by rejec...If every proposition were demonstrable in a finite number of steps, every propos...
    +5 moreShow less
    If sufficient reason were a finite a priori proof, it would reveal that the pred...Leibniz distinguishes between demonstrations that are finite in steps and those ...Leibniz is not a necessitarian in his mature philosophy

    Similar

    A sufficient reason is an a priori proof in this pre-Kantian sense.82%What cannot be comprehended a priori from concepts cannot have been ge...78%Therefore, Descartes cannot use reason to establish God's existence wi...76%A sufficient reason is a sufficient condition75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: sufficient-reason
    View source passageHide passage
    This has led some commenters to think that Leibniz gave up the account of sufficient reason as an a priori proof. If there were a proof or demonstration, it would reveal that the concept of the predicate was contained in the concept of the subject in a finite number of steps and hence every proposition would be necessary. Leibniz is not a necessitarian in his mature philosophy and thus he could not have accepted this consequence. Instead, he must have shifted from the conception of a sufficient
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The supporting argument's P2 conflates finite demonstrability with a priori prov...
    Therefore, sufficient reason can function as an a priori principle for God witho...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit