what is the principle of sufficient reason? course hero

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of philosophy.

Full Answer

What is the principle of sufficient reason?

The principle of sufficient reason is closely related to cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Its name is somewhat confusing. In this phrase, reason has been used to either mean “explanation” or “cause,” and these two definitions lead to drastically different conclusions.

Does every necessary truth have a sufficient reason?

Likewise, it is usually assumed that, for Leibniz, every necessary truth has a sufficient reason (see Broad 1975: 12 and 34 and Rodriguez-Pererya forthcoming ). For example, mathematical truths, might have sufficient reasons in the form of proofs that rest on statements of identity.

What is the principle of sufficient reason (PSR)?

If you accept an unrestricted form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (= PSR), you will require an explanation for any fact, or in other words, you will reject the possibility of any brute, or unexplainable, facts. A simple formulation of the principle is as follows:

What is the relation of providing a reason?

The relation of providing a reason can be conceived as an ontological relation (as in contemporary discussions of ground), or as a purely epistemological relation.

What is sufficient reasoning principle?

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of philosophy.

What is the principle of sufficient reason quizlet?

Principle of Sufficient Reasoning states that there must be a cause, reason, or explanation for everything that exists.

What is meant by sufficient reason?

sufficient reason in British English noun philosophy. 1. the principle that nothing happens by pure chance, but that an explanation must always be available. 2. the view that such an explanation is a reason for God to have chosen one alternative rather than another.

What is the principle of sufficient reason and how does it relate to a proof of God's existence?

The actual existence of the latter is explained by the principle of sufficient reason, which asserts that there is an adequate reason to account for the existence and nature of everything that could conceivably not exist. In each such case, the ultimate sufficient reason is the free choice of God.

Which of the following is a criticism the Physicalist makes of dualism?

Which of the following is a criticism the physicalist makes of dualism? The dualist cannot adequately explain where mind-body interaction takes place.

How is reason related to principle?

that if there is no sufficient reason for the occurrence of something, it will not occur - a principle he himself recognizes as equivalent to the principle of sufficient reason.

Why is Arthur Schopenhauer important?

Arthur Schopenhauer has been dubbed the artist's philosopher on account of the inspiration his aesthetics has provided to artists of all stripes. He is also known as the philosopher of pessimism, as he articulated a worldview that challenges the value of existence.

What is an example of principle of identity?

So, for example, any statement made about Paris will have the same meaning, and be equally true or false, as the same statement made about the capital of France. See also laws of thought. 2.

Is the principle of sufficient reason true?

That is, necessary truths depend upon the principle of contradiction." The sufficient reason for a necessary truth is that its negation is a contradiction. Leibniz admitted contingent truths, that is, facts in the world that are not necessarily true, but that are nonetheless true.

What is the principle that holds that any real possibility must occur?

According to the principle of sufficient reason, given infinity and the richness of the universe, any real possibility must occur at least once.

Who has propounded for the first time the law of sufficient reason?

1. Leibniz's PSR. Leibniz (1646 – 1716) is the Principle of Sufficient Reason's most famous proponent, but he's not the first to adopt it. The earliest recorded application of the PSR seems to be Anaximander c.

Why is the principle of sufficient reason important?

In general philosophy, the principle of sufficient reason generates vast resources for discussion. Debates continue over how to determine when an explanation is sufficient and whether certain facts must be accepted without supporting reasons. The principle is also used as a proverb to encourage rational thinking, by forbidding “just because” answers. As with many deep ideas, how one interprets the principle of sufficient reason depends on how the terms are defined and what other worldview principles are in play.

What does "sufficiency of reason" mean?

The principle of sufficient reason can be generally stated as “every fact, entity, or occurrence has an adequate explanation for why it is true, exists, or happens. ”.

What is God's reason for existence?

God’s reason for existence is in Himself; this is nothing like saying He is self-caused; rather, it is to say He is un-caused. This idea is reflected in God’s self-identification to Moses, when He calls Himself “ I Am ” ( Exodus 3:14 ). God’s existence simply “is” and must be. God is the one and only thing that must exist and has always existed. ...

Is the principle of sufficient reason intertwined with cosmological arguments?

So far as it relates to God, the principle of sufficient reason is intertwined with cosmological arguments. In that category, defining the term reason becomes especially crucial. If the axiom is stated as “everything has a cause,” it leads to a logical paradox. Phrasing it as “everything has an explanation” removes that problem.

Can a collection of effects combine into an un-caused cause?

A collection of effects cannot combine into an un-caused cause any more than a collection of black bricks can combine to become a white wall. If the principle of sufficient reason is upheld as “everything has a cause,” then it cannot be true. Stating the principle of sufficient reason as “everything has an explanation” does not suffer ...

Is there a causality paradox?

Tying the principle of sufficient reason to causality—saying “everything that exists has a cause”—leads to a logical paradox. That arrangement implies a never-ending chain of causality. At no point can there be a “beginning,” since every step in the process must have its own cause. This is not only physically impossible, but it is logically impossible: there cannot be a literally infinite past. If you can measure or traverse the time between points A and B, they are not “infinitely” far apart, which means there can be no point in past time “infinitely” before now.

What is the principle of sufficient reason?

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of philosophy. In this entry we begin by explaining the Principle and then turn to the history of the debates around it. We conclude with an examination of the emerging contemporary discussion of the Principle.

What happens if you accept the principle of sufficient reason?

If you accept an unrestricted form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (= PSR), you will require an explanation for any fact , or in other words, you will reject the possibility of any brute, or unexplainable, facts. A simple formulation of the principle is as follows:

How does Leibniz argue for the PSR?

Leibniz argues for the PSR in three distinct ways: (1) from the concept of a sufficient reason and the concept of a “requisite”; (2) from his theory of truth; and (3) inductively.

How to understand Leibniz's conception of a sufficient reason?

In order to fully understand Leibniz’s conception of a sufficient reason, we need to also understand his theory of truth and its relationship to his theory of modality. Let us begin with truth. To keep things simple, we will focus only on categorical propositions of subject-predicate form. A proposition is true, according to Leibniz, just in case the concept of the predicate is contained in the concept of the subject. Uncontroversially, the concept of the predicate is unmarried is contained in the concept bachelor and it is this conceptual containment which explains the truth of the statement bachelors are unmarried. But Leibniz makes the further highly controversial claim that all true statements are true for this reason, even statements like Caesar crossed the Rubicon. That is, this statement is true because the concept crossed the Rubicon is contained in the concept of Caesar. This theory of truth is sometimes called the conceptual containment theory of truth. It has as a consequence that all truths are analytic. But wouldn’t such a theory entail that all truths are necessary? After all, how could an analytic truth be contingent?

Why does Parmenides say the world cannot have come into existence?

If it did, Parmenides asks, why did it not come into existence at an earlier or a later time? Parmenides appears to reason as follows. If the world came into existence, the actual moment that it came into existence would be arbitrary. It would be a brute fact. There are no brute facts (the PSR). So, the world did not come into existence.

Why is it true that Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

The sufficient reason why it is true that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, for example, is that the concept crossing the Rubicon is contained in the concept Caesar. The truth of the proposition obtains in virtue of the concepts of the subject and the predicate.

Does Spinoza believe that the familiarity with a phenomenon is intelligible?

For Spinoza, our familiarity with a phenomenon does not render it intelligible, and the familiar, just like the extraordinary, demands a clear causal explanation. Indeed, it is precisely at this point that the thoroughness of one’s commitment to the Principle of Sufficient Reason is tested.