Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Leibniz, Spinoza and an Alleged Dilemma for Rationalists

2015; Michigan Publishing; Volume: 2; Issue: 20201214 Linguagem: Inglês

10.3998/ergo.12405314.0002.015

2330-4014

Jeffrey K. McDonough,

Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

in a stimulating recent paper, "violations of the principle of Sufficient Reason (in leibniz and Spinoza)," Michael Della Rocca argues that rationalists face a daunting dilemma: either abandon the principle of Sufficient Reason or embrace a radical, parmenidian-style monism.The present paper argues that neither historical nor contemporary rationalists need be afraid of Della Rocca's dilemma.The second section reconstructs Della Rocca's argument in five steps.The third section argues that leibniz's treatment of relations undermines one of those steps in particular and thus provides him-as well as contemporary rationalists-with a way out.The fourth section argues that a similar way out is available to Spinoza, and that it's a better way out than either of the two options Della Rocca offers on Spinoza's behalf.The essay concludes with an historically-minded suggestion for those eager to revitalize the once-again popular notion of grounding.(1) implies that any fact about the world must have a ground, where, as a first pass, one thing may be thought to ground another when the latter holds in virtue of the former.So, for example, it has been maintained that the fact that a ball is redand-round might be grounded in the fact that it is red and the fact that it is round.The fact that a particle is accelerated might be grounded in the fact that it is acted upon by some net positive force.and the fact that an action is wrong might be grounded in the fact that it was performed with malicious intent. 3it is sometimes suggested that the grounding relation is, by definition, transitive and irreflexive so that no fact could ground itself. 4But if (1) is to be taken as a version of the pSR, 1.The grounding relation has, of course, been the focus of much recent research.For a route into the current debate, see Kit Fine (2012), Gideon Rosen (2010), and Jonathan Schaffer (2009).2. i have indented each of the five steps in my reconstruction of Della Rocca's argument.in those five steps, direct quotation is indicated by the use of quotation marks.3. all three, now classic, examples are due to Fine (2012: 38). 4. For commitment to the transitivity and/or irreflexivity of the grounding relation, see