Comment by Iammaybeasliceofpie on 02/02/2025 at 12:24 UTC

3 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)

View submission: The Principle of Sufficient Reason is Self-Evident and its Criticisms are Self-Defeating (a case for the PSR being the fourth law of logic)

I am not very well literate in philosophy but am interested in the topic. I do not really understand the point. As I interpret the post: the core argument to saying the psr should be a fundamental law is that refuting it requires an argument thereby adhering to the psr itself. But is that not the inherent result of the defenition of it? As to say: a fact that requires context to become a fact requires said context to become a fact, thereby facts cannot exist without their context. But a self sustaining law like that could never be a fundamental law, for then we could also add the rule “all red cars are always red”.

Again, i am not well versed in the subject and english is hard in this kind of matter for me, but what is the point?

Replies

Comment by contractualist at 02/02/2025 at 12:32 UTC

0 upvotes, 0 direct replies

“But is that not the inherent result of the definition of it?”

Thanks for the review and this is correct. The PSR is equivalent to the definition of reason itself. It’s a conceptual analytic truth, a tautology even. That’s why it’s a fourth law of logic .