Abstract

The main problem with the law of sufficient reason lies in whether or not it is universally applicable to all forms of thinking, and especially how it works in the process of inference. If we hold that an inference violates the law of sufficient reason because its premise is false, then it would amount to saying that the law of sufficient reason can meet the requirement of a true premise. As a result, the law of sufficient reason would substitute for all branches of concrete science. If we hold that an inference still conformed to the law of sufficient reason even if its premise were false, then what would be the point for the law to require that "the reason must be true" ? Isn't the requirement but an empty shell? Obviously, something is wrong with both answers. Therefore I am of the opinion that the crux of the matter lies in whether or not it is applicable to the process of inference and how it works in the process