Full Idea
What is most puzzling about the rationalist tradition is the steadfast certainty with which the Principle of Sufficient Reason was often accepted, since it in effect denies that there are fundamental facts.
Gist of Idea
Why do rationalists accept Sufficient Reason, when it denies the existence of fundamental facts?
Source
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 2.2)
Book Reference
'Metaphysical Grounding', ed/tr. Correia,F/Schnieder,B [CUP 2012], p.5
A Reaction
A very simple and interesting observation. The principle implies either a circle of reasons, or an infinite regress of reasons. Nothing can be labelled as 'primitive' or 'foundational' or 'given'. The principle is irrational!