- #1

honestrosewater

Gold Member

- 2,105

- 5

The PSR is stated along the lines of "nothing is without a reason for its being". From Schopenhauer's

His complaint seems misdirected to me. Does the negation of this sound like the assertion that there exist unprovable truths? Could we rephrase the PSR, or a version of it, as

PSR1) Every true sentence is provable.

If (PSR1) is true, it must have a proof. It says so itself. And it is really just a statement of completeness. Is he suggesting that we must take it as proof of itself or else assume that our system is incomplete?

Just a quick thought.

(Wow, philosophy is in GD now? Haha.)

*http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_th...n#.C2.A7_14._On_the_Proofs_of_the_Principle."*:To seek a proof for the Principle of Sufficient Reason, is, moreover, an especially flagrant absurdity, which shows a want of reflection. Every proof is a demonstration of the reason for a judgment which has been pronounced, and which receives the predicate true in virtue precisely of that demonstration. This necessity for a reason is exactly what the Principle of Sufficient Reason expresses. Now if we require a proof of it, or, in other words, a demonstration of its reason, we thereby already assume it to be true, nay, we found our demand precisely upon that assumption, and thus we find ourselves involved in the circle of exacting a proof of our right to exact a proof.

His complaint seems misdirected to me. Does the negation of this sound like the assertion that there exist unprovable truths? Could we rephrase the PSR, or a version of it, as

PSR1) Every true sentence is provable.

If (PSR1) is true, it must have a proof. It says so itself. And it is really just a statement of completeness. Is he suggesting that we must take it as proof of itself or else assume that our system is incomplete?

Just a quick thought.

(Wow, philosophy is in GD now? Haha.)

Last edited by a moderator: