Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Pre-established harmony smuggles in a covert relational dependence on God that undermines the very definition of substance Leibniz requires.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Leibniz explicitly accounts for God's role; relying on God is not covert but openly stated as the metaphysical foundation of his system.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
God's initial programming of harmony differs from moment-by-moment dependence; monads retain independence once created with complete concepts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Substance independence needn't exclude God-dependence; Leibniz distinguishes between intrinsic perfection and existential grounding in God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Leibniz defines substance as self-sufficient and independent; God's constant action maintaining harmony violates this independence criterion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If monads require divine coordination to avoid contradiction, their complete concepts cannot be truly self-contained as Leibniz claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The theory relies on God's causal role to explain inter-monadic consistency, making substances ontologically dependent despite Leibniz's denials.
?
How convincing is this?
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.