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 uses 'a priori' in its original pre-Kantian sense... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

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

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A sufficient reason is an a priori proof in this pre-Kantian sense.A sufficient reason, as Leibniz uses the term, is a proof that is both a demonst...An a priori proof reflects the causal order.Leibniz holds that every truth or fact requires a sufficient reason.

    Similar

    The Bayes-Laplace argument may constitute a priori reasoning84%For synthesis to be a priori is, at least in part, for it to employ a ...82%A priori justification is similar to, but significantly different from...78%A sufficient reason is an a priori proof in this pre-Kantian sense.77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective