Q&A: The Sufficient Reason
The Sufficient Reason
Question
What do you think about a proof of this kind? Is this what you mean when you use Leibniz’s sufficient reason?
The concept is founded on a logical law called the sufficient ground, according to which every concept is the ground of cognition for some thing, and that which is recognized through it is its consequent. Just as in the concept “plant life” I recognize through it the concepts tree and grass, so it is the ground of cognition for them; and likewise tree and grass are the ground of cognition for the concept of plant life. And this is known without any need for examination or experiment [a priori]. This is the difference between “ground” and “cause” in Hebrew [and many people err in formulating Leibniz’s law in the phrase “Principle of sufficient reason,” thinking that he meant that every effect must necessarily have a cause in reality. But in truth he is speaking about a logical law: that every ground has a consequent, except that in their language there is no adequate term to distinguish between them].
So too, when one reflects on a particular concept such as a fat cell, for example [which includes other concepts under it], and how it composes a higher concept called “adipose tissue” — not in the sense that the cell is the cause that generates the tissue, but in the sense that the cell is the logical ground of cognition for the concept of tissue; and likewise the concept of adipose tissue is the ground of cognition for a still higher concept called an earlobe, and so on. In this one sees wisdom beyond all measure. And the more one reflects on concepts, the greater the wonder at the magnitude of the wisdom.
Answer
You seem to be trying to ask something, so ask it. This vague wording is not helpful for anything.
Discussion on Answer
Chinese.
Sorry, I’ll try one last time.
First, do you agree with the distinction being made here between a ground (a logical factor) and a cause (a physical factor)?
Second, the physico-theological argument explains — or more precisely derives — the existence of God from the creation He created, as planner, etc.
Can His existence also be derived through our mode of thinking?
I’ll respond only to this message, which also isn’t clear.
1. Without “here.” There is no such thing as a logical factor. A factor is physical. There is a logical condition. Logically, rain is a sufficient condition for clouds. And clouds are a necessary condition for rain. I’ve explained several times that the causal relation contains a logical component within it.
2. What does “our mode of thinking” mean? As opposed to the thinking of elephants? The physico-theological argument is formulated in our thinking. I didn’t understand the connection to question 1.
See the column series from 459 onward.
Sorry for going on and on, so would you define the principle of sufficient reason in a way that distinguishes it from causality?
By “our mode of thinking” I mean that we are built to think in a certain way — for example, all the logical principles such as the law of non-contradiction, sufficient ground (sufficient reason). After all, even someone who was never taught them can understand them easily, that there cannot be “a shell that blows up every wall, and a wall that stands against every shell.”
And I’ll check the column series; apparently I’ll find my answer there.
Can the logical connection between every particular in reality and something more general, and vice versa, prove the existence of God?
Is this proof equivalent to the argument from intelligent design?