Reference no: EM133346556

Question: According to Leibniz, the Newtonian theory of absolute time violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Leibniz presents the following argument for this claim.

Supposing anyone should ask why God did not create everything a year sooner, and the same person should infer from this that God has done something concerning which it is not possible that there should be a reason why he did it so and not otherwise; the answer is that his inference would be right, if time was anything distinct from things existing in time. For it would be impossible that there should be any reason why things should be applied to such particular instants rather than to others, their succession continuing the same. But then the same argument proves that instants, considered without the things, are nothing at all and that they consist only in the successive order of things; this order remaining the same, one of the two states, namely, that of a supposed anticipation, would not at all differ, nor could be discerned from the other which now is. (L.iii.6, p. 15)

How would I extract, explain and evaluate Leibniz's argument for this claim?

Extract an argument - locate the central premises that bring you to a conclusion, and the conclusion clearly and literally, then write the argument out premise-conclusion form

Explain an argument - take each premise and give the most convincing reason for thinking that the premise is true. if any words or phrases appear that a typical student would not know the meaning of, explain it

Evaluate an argument - explain 1. whether the argument is valid and if so, what logical form it is (modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.) 2. whether it is a sound argument. Additionally, please mention an objection to the argument, even if it is sound