Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Principle of Sufficient Reason

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Please identify 2-3 examples that seem to disprove the Principle of Sufficient Reason (specifically pertaining to the well-known expressions of: entity, x, event, e, and proposition, p). If examples cannot be made, why not? If so, does it really violate the Principle or not?

    A clear explanation of all issues is greatly appreciated!

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 2:09 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Dear Student,
    Hi. I hope this gets to you in time as your deadline is pretty fast approaching. If you still have the time and you think I can help, just renew your other postings and I will try to put together a solution to get you started. If you have any questions about the information provided below, just let me know via the feedback section and I will try to clarify them further. Alternatively, you can use the listed references. Good luck on your studies and happy holidays!

    OTA 105878/Xenia Jones

    The Principle of Sufficient Reason

    The Principle of Sufficient Reason, it is widely believed originated from the ideas of pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximander of Miletus, the teacher of Pythagoras and Anaxemenes. Subsequently picked up by Gottfried Leibniz, the principle proposes that everything happens for a reason. Nothing can be true, nothing can be in the state that it is in unless there is no sufficient reason for them to be so. The principle verges on determinism, where reasons and causes appear to lead to and determine why things happen and why everything is the way they are. The most common expression of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is as follows (Wiki, 2010) -

    For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
    For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
    For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.

    So for every x, e and p, there is a sufficient explanation. Leibniz rooted his philosophical views on his Christian beliefs and thus, echoing Cartesian thought proposes that God has access and capacity for understanding why e,x & p are true because he is God and human beings are unable because they are limited by their nature and capacities. For example, in the Middle Ages, people believed what they believe is true about themselves and their world because of the Divine circuit of knowledge where all truth rests on the confirmation and establishment/acceptance of the church. So, if the church declares a particular person to be a Saint, then that is sufficient reason. If bad things happen to a town or city, there are also reasons that would be revealed 'in God's own time'. Prolific mathematician & logician Kurt Gödel ...

    Solution Summary

    The solution explains the Principle of Sufficient Reason in a 1,376-word tutorial and then presents the varied ways in which it's critics have sought to disprove it. References are listed for expansion. A word version of the solution is attached for easy printing.