Source
r/askphilosophy•
Chronos_

Why would Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason lead to a rejection of material atomism?

Hi fellow Philosophers,

I've got to write part of a paper on the above and I'm really stumped. If any of you suddenly think of a great article of peice of Leibniz's writing that would support the above please let me know. Also feel free to throw in your ideas.

I'm not asking anyone to write my paper or even a paragraph or really throw anything major is as I won't be able to cite it and am not going to rip it off. But if some starting point comes to mind it should help me.

Thanks.

Posted Jan 16, 2012, 1:07 AM UTC

55
mleeeeeee•

Two things occur to me (I'm no Leibniz scholar):

  • You can probably argue from the PSR to the identity of indiscernibles. But material atomism would violate the identity of indiscernibles, which means it is incompatible with the PSR.
  • Perhaps you can argue from the PSR to a metaphysics of substance (as opposed to bundle theories). But Leibniz insists that true substances must be unities, as opposed to aggregates. And he thinks anything material is therefore divisible. So material atomism would be left with no substances.
3
blackstar9000generalist, phil. of religion•

This might be ranging a little far afield, but Schopenhauer used the principle of sufficient reason to show that extension (in the temporal and spatial sense) were mental categories, not necessarily corresponding to objective, material embodiment. Not sure if that helps at all, but it might serve as a starting point for further research.

2
[deleted]•

First, have you checked out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 's article on the PSR? I recommend reading that. The PSR seems like it leads to several conclusions, like necessitarianism.

Someone mentioned before that the PSR might lead to the Identity of Indiscernibles, which contradicts material atomism. I don't see how that is the case, so long as one accepts spatio-temporal location as a property of each particular, which would make the individual particulars discernible.

2
Chronos_OP•

Yea I've read a few related SEP articles including that one. The Identity of Indiscernibles is certainly a talking point for this I think. I was considering it but unsure if I could tie it in effectively.

Thanks everyone for the help. Now I've found this subreddit hopefully I'll be able to return the favour one day!

1
robersa3•

Mleeeee's second point is pretty close to the explanation that I've always heard. It might be a little bit late for you, but Jolley's book on Leibniz (not the Cambridge Companion, but the Routledge Great Philosophers one) explains the argument pretty well.

1