I've recently been thinking about the laws of logic, and how they are uniquely self-intelligible. This eventually combined itself with my own thinking on the PSR, and voila, I've thought of an inductive argument for PSR based on the nature of being:


The laws of logic, such as the principle of contradiction and identity, show how being is uniquely intelligible not only to the human intellect but also in itself. It is self-intelligible and self-explanatory, which means that being is intelligible when it comes to it's laws and principles.  But if PSR is false, then brute facts are not only possible, but the existence of anything right now is also a brute fact, and this would literally introduce unintelligibility into the nature of being. So on the one hand, we have the principles of logic which make being self-intelligible and a light of understanding, but on the other hand, we have another part of being that is unintelligible with regards to explanation and reason.


This would force us to conclude that the nature of being is partially completely self-explanatory and intelligible through and through, yet to conclude that another part of it (namely the existence of things and even the very possibility of something coming about for no reason, and ultimate foundations of contingent facts) is completely unintelligible, which is absurd. 

I think that the self-evidence of being with regards to logic should give us pause and a great amount of inductive evidence to conclude that every part of being is actually completely intelligible in itself and that the PSR really does hold. Otherwise we would have to conclude that one part of being is perfectly self-intelligible and another part is brute and unintelligible, which is absurd. 

It would be like holding that a certain existential contingent fact is partially brute and partially caused by God.



What do you think?

Last edited by aftermathemat (1/25/2018 9:15 am)