The principle of sufficient reason

[Psyduck]

The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a reason: no state of affairs can obtain, and no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise.

Some reading material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Fourfold_Root_of_the_Principle_of_Sufficient_Reason


Possible topic for discussion:

The possible reactions to PSR.
i) skepticism or nihilism.
ii) rationalism: science can determine everything, self-sufficiency of human reason; technology can solve (and fix) everything.
iii) religion ("rational"): the necessity for reaching out to a "higher power" as ultimate explanation.
iv) religion ("symbolic"): participating in symbolic rituals (prayer, cult, myth,...) as non-rational approach and comportment for that which (ultimately) cannot be explained. [*]


Discuss


[*] This doesn't necessary have to take the form of religion "per se." One might think more generally about human behaviour when confronted with tradgedies or the unexplainable (tsunami, mass murder, loss of friend,...) when people react symbolically (minute of silence, funeral, laying of flowers,...) to that which cannot be understood but must be embraced anyway.

 

[Pegasus]

"In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order” - Carl G. Jung

ii) rationalism: science can determine everything, self-sufficiency of human reason; technology can solve (and fix) everything.

The problem with this (IMO) is that it is too theoretical. Many things could be determined by science theoretically, but many likely will not be. Many things will be understood in terms of their application to us as humans, and their relativity to the world smaller or larger than us may not be understood well (or at all).

 

[freemind]

"In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order” - Carl G. Jung


The problem with this (IMO) is that it is too theoretical. Many things could be determined by science theoretically, but many likely will not be. Many things will be understood in terms of their application to us as humans, and their relativity to the world smaller or larger than us may not be understood well (or at all).

Good observation.
Science can't explain and prove everything. For example, science can't explain or prove math, or logics, because it pressuposes them. We can't prove one plus one equals two with biology, physics, geology... We can't use science to study historical facts too, or economy, or philosophy.
We have different tools to know different things, and one of these tools is what we call science. It is a pretty good tool but can't explain everything.

 

[ebola?]

What reasons account for the truth of these principles of sufficient reason?

 

[Psyduck]

It's an axiom, just as the axioms of logic have no "other" reasons. One can of course discard the self-evidence of this principle, which boils down to skepticism.

 

[ebola?]

Self-evidence never satisfies me. One can, however, take a guess that feels right, run with it, and see what happens.

ebola