Q&A: The Principle of Sufficient Reason
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
Question
Hi Michi, I didn’t understand the principle of sufficient reason—not just what it says, but why everything needs to have a reason. After all, a reason is connected to purpose and will, so why does the world need a reason? Why isn’t a cause enough? (Of course, that’s assuming the world is eternal, which today we know is not true.)
Answer
A reason is a broader concept than a cause, but a cause is one kind of reason. For example, a person’s free choice has no causes (in the sense of something that brought about that choice), but it does have reasons. As for the laws of nature, if we assume they always existed, then they have no cause, but it is still possible to ask what the reason for them is—that is, what is responsible for their being the way they are.
Discussion on Answer
Does the Rabbi’s answer also explain the difference between the principle of sufficient reason and causality?
If indeed everything was always like this, why would the laws of nature need a reason? Why not say that they are their own cause, like the world itself? (To me it just sounds like a somewhat strange intuition—unless, and that’s also what I think, the world has a beginning.)