Clarke’s vs. Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Explanation of the Interpretations
Clarke and Leibniz’s Version of the PSR
Principle of Sufficient Reasoning and Free Will
References

Explanation of the Interpretations

The Principle of Sufficient Reason or PSR is one of the promises and, at the same time, a controversial topic within the framework of philosophical teaching. Thus, this concept is based on the fact that everything must have a reason or a basis. Many philosophers have studied this principle, but Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clark have become one of the most significant. Their presentation of this idea differed significantly, and in their extensive correspondence, the philosophers discussed which of the PSR representations was the most reasonable and correct. The study of various versions and views on the principle of sufficient reason provides an opportunity to gain an understanding of the concepts behind the decision-making processes of individuals and attitudes to free will.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz had his own unique idea of what the principle of sufficient reason is. It is worth noting that he is the first who gave the name to this phenomenon and formulated its main postulates (Leibniz & Clarke, 1997). Thus, Leibniz interpreted it as a driver for reasoning people. The philosopher argued that it is based on two main aspects. The first of them is the principle of contradiction, which implies that what includes a contradiction is considered false. Therefore, within the framework of this worldview, everything that is opposite to false judgments is true (Leibniz & Clarke, 1997). The second aspect implies sufficient reasoning, which is based on the fact that anyone that people believe to be true needs to find a reason and justification. At the same time, many reasons cannot be true since some causes and reasons may be unknown to individuals.

Thus, the PRS considered by Leibniz implies that no phenomenon can be completely uncaused. Moreover, each of them must necessarily have a reason that confirms its truth. Another important aspect within the framework of the philosopher’s thought is that any judgment must necessarily have a subject and a predicate. Moreover, a true and reliable statement can only be provided that the predicate fully belongs to the subject. An interesting postulate that was developed by the philosopher is that if things or judgments have the same properties, then they are considered the same. Every judgment or thing must have either a self-contained or an external explanation. Thus, the first implies the presence of reasoning, which does not require an explanation of the reasons and justification. Hence, an external explanation implies bringing third-party reasoning.

Samuel Clark made his unique contribution to the principle of sufficient reason. Therefore, research stated that he believed that “it is very true, that nothing is, without a sufficient reason why it is, and why it is therefore rather than otherwise” (“Extracts from Leibniz-Clark correspondence,” n.d., para. 2). Therefore, if there is no explanation for the phenomenon or judgment, it can be considered as false. However, Clark based his view of the principle on the belief that the cause of this circumstance is God’s will. Thus, the philosopher defined the important role of predetermining cause, without which there would be no power of choice.

Furthermore, in Clark’s philosophy, God held a special place. Hence, the thinker argued that mere will and the choice of one aspect or another of the Almighty do not require justification, either self-contained or external (Leibniz & Clarke, 1997). In addition, this circumstance has the opportunity not to follow the judgments of reason, which distinguishes Clark’s vision from Leibniz’s. Therefore, he denies the existence of equal things, that is, those that are the same. In other words, this philosophy implied that such a statement about the identity of things should be considered false.

Clarke and Leibniz’s Version of the PSR

In the correspondence, Leibniz and Clark conduct quite lengthy and detailed discussions that underline the differences in understanding the principle of sufficient reasoning. Therefore, of particular importance in this correspondence is the thinkers’ vision of the concepts of freedom within the framework of the argued approach. Further, Clark proclaimed the essence of freedom and libertarianism, while Leibniz, in turn, argued that the philosopher had an incomplete awareness and understanding of the principle and actually considered it false. Based on that information, Clarke thinks Leibniz’s version of the PSR undermines freedom because everything has to be reasoned. Moreover, Clark’s criticism was that if people adhere to the concepts of Leibniz, then they can not have freedom and free will. Consequently, people will be dependent on the need to find justification and reasons for all phenomena and judgments.

Therefore, it is quite difficult to form an understanding of what freedom was in the framework of Leibniz’s concept. This concern arises because of the belief based on the opinion that any action and judgment must have a reason and justification, The philosopher responded to criticism with the thought that based his understanding of free will on the fact that its condition should be a contingency. However, this condition is possible if the action is based on past perceptions and intentions. In other words, individuals can make a decision based on those that were made by them earlier and were based on reasoning. In addition, research shows that freedom is based on “actions that are performed for the sake of what the agent’s intellect judges to be the greatest good” (Jorati, N.D., para. 3). The same can be applied to actions that do not have a free will, which is not based on understanding and intention for good. The concept of following good intentions, within the framework of Leibniz, can also be attributed to the divine aspects that Clark proclaims. However, its main difference is that the philosopher believed that God, considering all possible options, chooses the one that is most suitable.

Principle of Sufficient Reasoning and Free Will

The principle of sufficient reason provides a unique understanding of human freedom. Philosophers Leibniz and Clark each provided their own interpretation of this concept, each of which has its own characteristic features. Therefore, Leibniz argued that every human judgment must have a justification and reasons, while Clark, adhering to the same belief, added that the divine would have a special place. Thus, the philosopher emphasized that God is behind the decision-making processes or decision-making enterprises.

Leibniz’s theory can be the most suitable for justifying human freedom. Further, the understanding that human actions and beliefs always have a certain character is supported by some justifications. Moreover, every judgment can be true if it refutes the false with the help of evidence and causal relationships. Regarding freedom, most individuals act on the basis of past experience. This process can occur unconsciously and at the level of automatism, in other words, not be realized by the individual. However, it implies reliance on self-contained and external factors. Hence, for example, an individual may decide to go a specific way since, at some point in the past, he has already justified the decision by the fact that this road is less time-consuming.

Another argument in favor of the philosophy of the principle of sufficient reason is that it follows common sense. It is worth noting that this form of thinking denies the existence of unfounded judgments and facts that are not supported by any evidence. In this connection, the historical example of the Italian astronomer Giordano Bruno can be given. During the Inquisition, religious communities certainly accepted the belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth (Martinez, n.d.). This claim, however, had no substantiated and confirmed evidence except for the metaphysical statements of religious leaders. Scientist Giordano Bruno with the help of precise mathematical calculations and tools, was able to prove the opposite. Despite the fact that the scientist was burned for his heretical views, decades later, his teaching became fundamental for all astronomical sciences. Thus, this example can be linked to the principle of sufficient reasoning, which requires the presence of causes and evidence of phenomena and judgments. Therefore, human freedom does not depend in any way on the mere will of God, and it cannot become a driving force for decisions and actions that people take. The principle of sufficient reason does not deny human freedom. Thus, Leibniz argues that the actions and intentions of individuals rely on previous experience and conclusions that were made earlier. Internal and external factors are of particular importance. The self-contained concept considers the presence of reasons that do not require confirmation, and the external ones are based on certain justifications. Furthermore, it is based on logical principles that help determine the truth of judgments.

References

Extracts from Leibniz-Clark correspondence. (n.d.). Home Pages. Web.

Jorati, J. (n.d.). Julia Jorati interprets Leibniz on free will. Philosophy. Web.

Leibniz, G.W. & Clarke, S. (1997). Leibniz and Clarke: Correspondence. Hackett Publishing.

Martinez, A.A. (n.d.). Giordano Bruno and the spirit that moves the Earth. Not Even Past. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Clarke’s vs. Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)