structure for 'Reason'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     expand these ideas

2. Reason / B. Laws of Thought / 2. Sufficient Reason

[claim that there is a reason for everything]

22 ideas
The earth is stationary, because it is in the centre, and has no more reason to move one way than another [Anaximander, by Aristotle]
Everything happens necessarily, and for a reason [Democritus]
Nothing can come to be without a cause [Plato]
Chrysippus said the uncaused is non-existent [Chrysippus, by Plutarch]
There is necessarily for each existent thing a cause why it should exist [Spinoza]
No fact can be real and no proposition true unless there is a Sufficient Reason (even if we can't know it) [Leibniz]
For every event it is possible for an omniscient being to give a reason for its occurrence [Leibniz]
The principle of sufficient reason is needed if we are to proceed from maths to physics [Leibniz]
There is always a reason why things are thus rather than otherwise [Leibniz]
No reason could limit the quantity of matter, so there is no limit [Leibniz]
Leibniz said the principle of sufficient reason is synthetic a priori, since its denial is not illogical [Leibniz, by Benardete,JA]
Sufficient reason is implied by contradiction, of an insufficient possible which exists [Wolff, by Korsgaard]
Both nature and reason require that everything has a cause [Rousseau]
The principle of sufficient reason is the ground of possible experience in time [Kant]
Proof of the principle of sufficient reason cannot be found [Kant]
Making sufficient reason an absolute devalues the principle of non-contradiction [Hegel, by Meillassoux]
'There is nothing without a reason why it should be rather than not be' (a generalisation of 'Why?') [Schopenhauer]
Sufficient Reason can't be proved, because all proof presupposes it [Schopenhauer]
The Principle of Sufficient Reason does not presuppose that all explanations will be causal explanations [Baggini /Fosl]
If we insist on Sufficient Reason the world will always be a mystery to us [Meillassoux]
Is Sufficient Reason self-refuting (no reason to accept it!), or is it a legitimate explanatory tool? [Bourne]
Why do rationalists accept Sufficient Reason, when it denies the existence of fundamental facts? [Correia/Schnieder]