Principle of sufficient reason

src: i.ytimg.com

The principle with sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or cause. The modern formulation of this principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, although the idea was understood and used by various philosophers who preceded it, including Anaximander, Parmenides, Archimedes, Plato and Aristotle, Cicero, Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza. Some philosophers have linked the principle of reason enough with " ex nihilo nil fit ". Hamilton identifies the laws of ponens mode inference with "the Law on Sufficient Reason, or Reason and Consequences" and the tollens mode with its contrapositive expression.

Video Principle of sufficient reason

Formulation

The principle has various expressions, all of which may be best summarized by the following:

• For every entity X , if X exists, then there is sufficient explanation for why X exists.
• For every event E , if E occurs, then there is sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
• For any proposition P , if P is true, then there is sufficient explanation for why P is correct.

Sufficient explanations are well understood in the reasons why, for many philosophers in that period, Leibniz did not carefully distinguish between the two. The resulting principle is very different, depending on the interpretation given.

It is an open question whether the principle of reason is reasonably applicable to axioms in the construction of logic such as mathematical or physical theory, since axioms are a accepted proposition as having no possible justification in the system. This principle states that all propositions considered true in a system must be subtracted from the axioms established at the base of construction (with some theoretical exceptions: see GÃÆ'¶del's theorem).

Maps Principle of sufficient reason

Leibniz View

Leibniz identifies two types of truth, necessary truth and contingent. He believed the mathematical truths necessary to derive from the laws of identity (and the principle of contradiction): "The truths required are those that can be demonstrated through term analysis, so that in the end they become identities, as in algebraic equations expressing identity ultimately resulting from a substitution of values [for variables], which means that the necessary truth depends on the principle of contradiction. "Leibniz stated that sufficient reason for the truth required is that their negation is a contradiction.

Leibniz recognizes contingent truths based on infinite reason, which God has access to but man does not:

In contingent truth, although the predicate is in the subject, it can never be proved, nor can the proposition ever be reduced to equality or identity, but the resolution proceeds to infinity, only God sees, not the end of resolution, of course, which is not there is, but the connection of the term or containment of the predicate in the subject, as he sees whatever is in the series.

Without this qualification, the principle can be seen as a description of a particular closed system idea, in which there is no 'outside' to provide events that can not be explained by causes. This is also in tension with Buridan's ass paradox. Leibniz denied that the paradox of Buridan's ass could occur, saying:

As a result, Buridan's burial case between the two meadows, pushed together against both, is a fiction that can not happen in the universe.... Because the universe can not be halved by planes drawn through the middle of the buttocks, which are cut off vertical through its length, so all are equal and equal on both sides..... Both parts of the universe and viscera of the same animal are also not placed evenly on either side of this vertical plane. Therefore there will always be a lot of things in the ass and beyond the butt, though they are not clear to us, which will determine him to go on one side than the other. And though man is free, and the donkey is not, yet for the same reason, it must be true that in men so is the case of a perfect tool between the two courses impossible. ( Theodicy , pg. 150)

src: c8.alamy.com

As the law of thought

The principle is one of four recognized laws of thought, which holds a place in European pedagogy of logic and reasoning (and, to some extent, philosophy in general) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is influential in Leo Tolstoy's thinking, among other things, in the higher form that history is unacceptable at random.

Sufficient reason is sometimes described as accidental every thing required for the occurrence of an effect (ie the so-called necessary condition ). Such a view may also be applied to the indeterministic system, as long as randomness in the manner incorporated in the preconditions.

Hamilton's fourth law: "Not to conclude what no basis or reason "

Here is how Hamilton, about 1837-1838, declared his "fourth law" in his LECT. V. LOGIKA. 60-61:

"I now go to the fourth law.

" Parent XVII. Law of Fair Reason, or Reason and Consequence :

"XVII The thinking of an object, which is actually characterized by positive attributes or negative attributes, is not left to the caprice of Understanding - the faculty of thought, but the faculty must be prosecuted for this or who determines the act of thinking by knowledge of something different from, and not dependent on the process of thinking itself The condition of our understanding is expressed by law, as it is called, from the Sufficient Reason ( Principium Rationis Sufficientis ), but it is more precisely denominational The law of reason and consequence ( principium Rationis et Consecutionis ). Knowledge where the mind is required to assert or assume something else, is called the logical reason, or the former that something else that the mind needs to assert or assume is called the logical consequence and the relationship between reason and consequence is called a logical relationship or a consequence i . This law is expressed in the formula - Summing up nothing for no reason or reason. ¹

" The Relationship between Reasons and Consequences : The Relationship between Reasons and Consequences, when understood in pure thought, is as follows:

1. When a reason is explicitly or implicitly given, there must be consequences; and, otherwise , when consequently given, there must be a reason.

¹ View Schulze, Logic , Ã,§19, and Krug, Logic , Ã,§20, - ED.

"2. Where no reason is inconsistent; and, otherwise , where there are no consequences (either implicitly or explicitly) there can be no reason , ie the concept of reason and consequence, as a relative reciprocity, involves and considers each other.

" The logical significance of this law : The logical significance of the law of Intellect and Consequence lies in this, - That in virtue, the mind is grounded by a series of actions all connected without hesitation; each must conclude the other.So it is that the possible, actual and necessary material differences and contradictions, which have been introduced to Logic, are entirely foreign doctrines for this science. "

src: c8.alamy.com

Four Forms Schopenhauer

According to Schopenhauer At the Fourfold Root of the Fair Reason Principle , there are four different forms of the principle.

First Form: The Principle of Reason to Be (rationis principium sufficientis fiendi); appears as a law of causality in understanding.

Second Form: Principium rationis sufficientis cognoscendi; affirms that if the judgment is to reveal a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient grounding or reason, in which case it receives a true predicate.

Third Forms: The Principle of Fair Reason (principium rationis sufficientis essendi); laws in which parts of space and time determine each other in connection with that relationship. Example in arithmetic: Each number presupposes the previous numbers as the basis or reason for its existence; "I can reach ten just by going through all the previous numbers, and only on the basis of this insight becomes the basis of existence, do I know that where there are ten, so are there eight, six, four."

"Now as subjective correlative to the first class representation is the understanding, that for both the faculty of reason, and that with the third pure sensibility, so also the subjective correlation for this fourth class is found to be the inner feeling, or generally self-awareness."

Fourth Form: Basic Principle of Act (principium rationis sufficientis agendi); briefly known as the law of motivation. "Any judgment which does not follow the grounds or reasons that existed previously" or the unexplainable state as falling under the previous three titles "should be generated by the action of the motives of the will." As his proposition in 43 states, "Motivation is causality seen from within."

src: slideplayer.com

Evidence submitted for universal validity

Some evidence has been prepared to show that the universe is under cause and effect, working in accordance with the principle in question; may not be in every case (randomness may still play a role here and there), but the causality must be how it works at least in general, in most of what we see; and that our mind is conscious of the principle even before any experience. Two notable arguments or proofs are proposed by Immanuel Kant (from the Time form, the temporal sequence of events and the "directionality" of time) and by Arthur Schopenhauer (by showing how all perceptions depend on causality and intellect).

Once agreed upon (eg from a kind of "time arrow") that the causal relationship, as a form of principle of sufficient reason, must indeed be universally ubiquitous in the universe (at least on a large scale), > cause-effect in general may then be blocked using the free-willed paradoxical form (ie events that have a future source may cause us to erase the source fast enough and thus causality will not work).

src: c8.alamy.com

See also

• Causality
• The deterministic system (philosophy)
• Law of thoughts
• The incompleteness theorem GÃÆ'¶del
• Nothing comes from nothing
• Principle is not enough reason
• Dependent on the origin
• MÃÆ'¼nchhausen trilemma
• Rough facts

src: slideplayer.com

References

src: s2-ssl.dmcdn.net

External links

• Melamed, Yitzhak; Lin, Martin. "The Principles of Enough Reasons". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Ã,
• Sir William Hamilton, 9 Baronet, (Henry L. Mansel and John Veitch, ed.), 1860 Lecture on Metaphysics and Logic, in Two Volumes. Vol. II. Logic , Boston: Gould and Lincoln.
• Principles of Reasonable Reason: Reassessment by Alexander R. Pruss

Source of the article : Wikipedia