The Modal Status of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21876549 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Owen Pikkert (University of Toronto, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 40-58 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of the American Philosophical Association (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2053-4477 • E-ISSN: 2053-4485 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/apa.2019.53 |
| OpenAlex | W3114036874 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 18 |
Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is the claim that everything has a sufficient reason. But is Leibniz committed to the necessity or to the contingency of his great principle? I argue that Leibniz is committed to its contingency, given that he allows for the absolute possibility of entities that he claims violate the PSR. These are all cases of qualitatively indiscernible entities, such as indiscernible atoms, vacua, and bodies. However, Leibniz's commitment to the contingency of the PSR seems to stand in tension with his inference of the PSR from his theory of truth. I argue that this apparent tension can be resolved satisfactorily. When it comes to his modal views on the PSR, Leibniz's position is entirely consistent
Contingency · Economics · Epistemology · Inference · Modal · Historical Philosophy and Science · Medieval and Classical Philosophy · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
| Citations per year | 0.75 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2025 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |