Week 11: The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence (Letters 1-3) [Optional further reading: letters 4-5]

 

DQ1. What is the difference between substantivalism and relationism about space? How might one argue for substantivalism?

 

DQ2. Here is Leibniz's 'shift' argument against substantivalism.

Leibniz's 'Shift' Argument from Sufficient Reasons (pg.15)

  1. (Premise): If space has absolute and independent existence (substantivalism), then space absolutely uniform.
  2. (Premise): If space is absolutely uniform, then there is no sufficient reason as to why an arrangement of matter is located where it is, as opposed to being 'shifted' (e.g., shifted 2 meters to the left, or reflected about the East-West axis).
  3. (Premise): Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason.
  4. (Conclusion): Space does not have absolute and independent existence.
  1. What valid argument form does this take? Explain.
  2. Do you agree with the premises of the argument? Why or why not?
  3. Can you formulate a revised version of this argument that uses the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles? Would you find the revised version more or less plausible than the original?

 

(Optional) DQ3. How might a relationist reply to Newton's argument from the bucket experiment?