Why God Thinks what He is Thinking?: An Argument against Samuel Newlands' Brute-Fact-Theory of Divine Ideas in Leibniz's Metaphysics

According to the most prominent principle of early modern rationalists, the Principle of Sufficient Reason [PSR], there are no brute facts, hence, there are no facts without any explanation. Contrary to the PSR, some philosophers have argued that divine ideas are brute facts within Leibniz's me...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Propach, Xaver Maria (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: University of Innsbruck in cooperation with the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham 2021
In: European journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2021, Volume: 13, Issue: 3, Pages: 171-185
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:B Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1646-1716 / Existence of God / Newlands, Samuel 197X- / Providence / Metaphysics
IxTheo Classification:AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism
NBC Doctrine of God
Further subjects:B Rationalism
B Leibniz
B ideas
B Modality
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (doi)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:According to the most prominent principle of early modern rationalists, the Principle of Sufficient Reason [PSR], there are no brute facts, hence, there are no facts without any explanation. Contrary to the PSR, some philosophers have argued that divine ideas are brute facts within Leibniz's metaphysics. In this paper, I argue against brute-fact-theories of divine ideas, especially represented by Samuel Newlands in Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility, and elaborate an alternative Leibnizian theory of divine ideas.
Contains:Enthalten in: European journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.24204/ejpr.2021.3301