David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (2):222-236 (2011)
According to one of Leibniz's theories of contingency a proposition is contingent if and only if it cannot be proved in a finite number of steps. It has been argued that this faces the Problem of Lucky Proof , namely that we could begin by analysing the concept ‘Peter’ by saying that ‘Peter is a denier of Christ and …’, thereby having proved the proposition ‘Peter denies Christ’ in a finite number of steps. It also faces a more general but related problem that we dub the Problem of Guaranteed Proof . We argue that Leibniz has an answer to these problems since for him one has not proved that ‘Peter denies Christ’ unless one has also proved that ‘Peter’ is a consistent concept, an impossible task since it requires the full decomposition of the infinite concept ‘Peter’. We defend this view from objections found in the literature and maintain that for Leibniz all truths about created individual beings are contingent
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra & Paul Lodge (2011). Infinite Analysis, Lucky Proof, and Guaranteed Proof in Leibniz. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (2):222-236.
David Werther (1996). Leibniz and the Possibility of God's Existence. Religious Studies 32 (1):37 - 48.
Ohad Nachtomy (2011). A Tale of Two Thinkers, One Meeting, and Three Degrees of Infinity: Leibniz and Spinoza (1675–8). British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (5):935-961.
Charles Landesman (1999). Moore's Proof of an External World and the Problem of Skepticism. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:21-36.
Gregory Brown (2000). Leibniz on Wholes, Unities, and Infinite Number. The Leibniz Review 10:21-51.
Peter Milne (2008). Russell's Completeness Proof. History and Philosophy of Logic 29 (1):31-62.
Peter van Inwagen (1980). Compatibilism and the Burden of Proof. Analysis 40 (March):98-100.
Carlo Cellucci (2008). Why Proof? What is a Proof? In Giovanna Corsi & Rossella Lupacchini (eds.), Deduction, Computation, Experiment. Exploring the Effectiveness of Proof, pp. 1-27. Springer.
Solomon Feferman (2012). And so On...: Reasoning with Infinite Diagrams. Synthese 186 (1):371 - 386.
Peter Aczel, Harold Simmons & S. S. Wainer (eds.) (1992). Proof Theory: A Selection of Papers From the Leeds Proof Theory Programme, 1990. Cambridge University Press.
Edward N. Zalta (2000). A (Leibnizian) Theory of Concepts. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 3:137-183.
Added to index2011-06-06
Total downloads38 ( #38,135 of 1,088,873 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #30,953 of 1,088,873 )
How can I increase my downloads?