leibniz's sufficient reason

Question 1

Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason ( an argument n from contingency) in standard form

Answer 1

p1 no fact can ever be true or existence unless there is a sufficient reason why things are as they are and not otherwise (principle of sufficient reason)
p2 contingent facts exist
p3 contingent facts can only be partially explained by other conti8ngent facts
c1 the whole series of contingent facts cant be sufficiently explained by any contingent facts within that series (p1-3)
c2 the sufficient reason fort all contingent facts and for the series of facts must lie outside the series of contingent facts ( from p1-3)
the ultimate reason for facts/ things must be in a necessary substance which we call god.

Question 2

why can’t contingent facts are explained with other contingent facts.

Answer 2

he contents that all the contingent facts in the world can never be fully explained by reference to other contingent facts alone but only by reference to a necessary being god.

Question 3

necessary truths

Answer 3

Leibniz claims that for some truths the opposite is impossible/ inconceivable these are termed necessary truths. as the opposite is impossible such truth could not have been otherwise ao they are necessary.

Question 4

contingent truths

Answer 4

this means that it could have been otherwise and this the opposite is conceivable. also unlike necessary truths we cant show the truth of this event using the principle of contradiction.

Question 5

criticism- list

Answer 5

equating laws of thought should equate with laws of reality.
how detailed does a sufficient reason need to be ?
could the existence of matter be necessary?

Question 6

equating laws of thought with laws of the world.

Answer 6

whether laws of thought should be equated with laws of reality?
just because something is not conceivable does that automatically means that it is not possible? likewise with the principle of sufficient reason just because we mentally conceive that every fac5t has a sufficient reason just because we mentally conceive that every fact has a sufficient reason for being that way maybe it isn’t the case in reality.

Question 7

how detailed does sufficient reason need to be?

Answer 7

consider an experiment in a lab where chemical x and y are mixed to make chemical z. for the purposes of science if I can explain the initial starting conditions of the experiment and articulate the scientific laws in question then I have given a full reason for the creation of chemical z. surely a complete account of the chemical reaction would also require me to give a reason for why the laws of science are exactly as they are and also why matter exists.

Question 8

could the existence of matter be necessary?

Answer 8

the contingency of objects/ events can never fully explain the existence of other contingent objects/events. they can only be fully explained by reference to a necessary being. however, does this have to be a god? perhaps the necessary object(s) is matter/energy. this it is claimed can be neither created nor destroyed so in a sense necessarily exist.
events are explained in terms of movement/ arrangement of matter and the question of why there is matter is answered by the assertion that matter necessarily exists it just is and this needs no more explanation.