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's account can only ground possibilities that are ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Leibniz's account of the grounding of possibilities is inadequate for grounding real (non-logical) possibilities.

    Leibniz's account can only ground possibilities that are distinguished by the principle of non-contradiction.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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

    Modality & Possibility

    Connections

    2 topics

    Divine Attributes2 linkedNatural Theology1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    Leibniz held that all possibilities are grounded in God's thinking them rather t...Leibniz's account of the grounding of possibilities is inadequate for grounding ...Some real possibilities and impossibilities are not grounded in the principle of...Therefore, Leibniz's account cannot ground all real possibilities.

    Similar

    There are real possibilities that are not grounded in the principle of...86%Some real possibilities and impossibilities are not grounded in the pr...86%Damian's position does not require him to deny the universal validity ...84%If real possibilities are not grounded in the principle of non-contrad...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: natural-theology
    View source passageHide passage
    Kant’s version of the argument is based on the claim that there are real possibilities that are not grounded in the principle of non-contradiction, but that nevertheless must have a ground or explanation (Kant 1763 [AK 2: 63ff]). If they are not grounded in the principle of non-contradiction, then they are not grounded in God’s thinking them rather than their negations, which is how Leibniz had proposed that all such possibilities are grounded. Put the other way around, Kant thinks that some imp

    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