The Groundwork For Idealism Part IV – The Philosophical Idealist

Purpose of This Post

A Proof of God’s Existence Part II

In this post my intention is straightforward: to demonstrate the exact nature of the intersection between the metaphysical position of idealism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason [PSR] (and by extension, it’s twin counterpart: the Principle of Plenitude [POP]). In short, I intend to clarify how the PSR (and the POP), can serve as the grounding principle(s) for idealism.

In order to accomplish this, I want to connect this discussion to a previous post of mine: “A Proof of God’s Existence Part II.” In that post, I explained how the PSR and the POP can ground the metaphysical positions of modal pantheism, modal monism, modal realism, necessitarianism, substance monism, and moral anti-realism. That post, essentially, drew out the full implications of modal pantheism. In this post, I intend to illustrate how all of this intersects with the metaphysical position of idealism, specifically by drawing out the idealism that is already inherently baked inside the concept of the PSR.

The Idealism Inherent in the Principle of Sufficient Reason

The intersection between idealism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason is as straightforward as this: the PSR is the foundation of idealism. Specifically, the PSR defines the terms of intelligibility by which the metaphysical position of idealism can be explicated. Put another way, the PSR represents the quintessential mode of cognition by which the subject objectifies the world (and since the position of idealism rests on the claim that the world is not something that exists separate from the subject which objectifies it, it is obvious that the PSR is nothing more than an explication of the process by which the claim of idealism is true).

Let me summarize once more: the PSR, pure and simple, is the groundwork in virtue of which the truth-value of the claim(s) of idealism can be verified as true, instead of false.

Let me deconstruct this intersection more methodically:

As demonstrated in the post titled “A Proof of God’s Existence Part II,” one of the positions entailed by the PSR is the metaphysical position of “substance monism.”
This position of “substance monism,” represents the logical end-point of the PSR. This is because the PSR is a tool by which to observe the world and understand the underlying rationality that orchestrates the world of multiplicity.
That said, the position of “substance monism,” is an abstraction, it is extrapolated from the the world of concrete observations. In other words, we can only arrive at a concept of “substance monism,” from firstly observing and admitting the obvious fact that the world is made-up of many things. Put simply, we can only extrapolate a position of “monism,” from first observing the world of multiplicity. The former is an abstraction extrapolated from the concreteness of the latter.
The world of concrete multiplicity, however, is only observable in the first place precisely because their a subjective mind for which the ability to observe is a reality. In other words, the very fact that the world of concrete multiplicity is observable, presupposes that there is an observer for which observability is a possibility. Therefore, the concrete world of multiplicity presupposes a subject, i.e., a mind.
In turn, a mind is only able to observe the world of multiplicity insofar as Space and Time are themselves irreducible conditions of observability and intelligibility. That is, no subjective mind can exist unless it exists with the pure intuitions of Space and Time.

All of this seems, entirely logical, but would you look at that? All that I have said is entirely implied in the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and yet it entirely corresponds with my ontological system of idealism. The position of “substance monism,” corresponds to the ontology of “Monad.” The observable world of concrete multiplicity corresponds to the ontology of “Matter.” The position of the observer of the observable world of concrete multiplicity corresponds to the ontology of “Mind.” Lastly, the fact that Space and Time are irreducible conditions of the functionality of the Mind, gives us the groundwork necessary to account for the process by which the world makes itself intelligible to us (i.e., by admitting that Space and Time are constructs of the Mind, we are able to establish the entire foundation for idealism).

Ultimately, baked into the fabric of the PSR is a position of idealism, and specifically the particular ontological system I have ascribed to idealism.

The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

19th German Idealist Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. His is best known for his two-volume work: “The World as Will and Representation.”

In this section, I will borrow from Schopenhauer’s deconstruction of the PSR.

In his 1813 doctoral dissertation, “On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason,” Schopenhauer articulates the four forms which the PSR takes in accounting for four distinct class of objects. Each of these four forms, collectively serve as the groundwork for the metaphysical position of idealism, and specifically serve as the groundwork for three members of my ontological system (“Mind,” “Matter,” and “Monad”). “Pure Mind,” is the only member in my ontology which is not accounted for by a form of the PSR, but that is perfectly to be expected for reasons to be discussed in the next part of this series.

Essentially, my ontological system is mainly borrowed from this fourfold division, though I have abridged it for my own purposes (discarding the notion of “Will,” and replacing it with a twofold division of “Pure mind,” and “Mind,” for the sake of analytical clarity). Overall, I think Schopenhauer got it pretty spot-on in his metaphysics, but I figured his work could do with a bit of clarification. The ontological system I clarified in the first part of this series, is a result of that clarification.

Without further-ado, here’s the (slightly abridged) fourfold division of the Principle of Sufficient Reason:

Principle of Sufficient Reason of Being

Definition: The aspect of the Principle of Sufficient Reason of which the form is the phenomenon of spaciotemporal relations, i.e., succession and position, which corresponds to the class of objects which are self-given (given to us [to use Kant’s language] via pure intuitions). In other words, Space and Time are nomological and irreducible conditions of subjectivity. This form of the PSR corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Sensibility.
What it Grounds: This form of the PSR is presupposed by the Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming. That is to say, the phenomenon of Causality (the object of the next form of the PSR) is only intelligible as a function of the space-time relations of succession and position that are known intuitively via pure Sensibility (the object of this form of the PSR). Hence, the Understanding’s a priori comprehension of the posteriori phenomenon of causality is possible only in virtue of the pure Sensibility of the human mind toward the pure intuitions of Space and Time. In short, the PSR of Being is the foundation for my metaphysics, i.e., it is the form of the PSR which focuses on the ideality of Space and Time. Hence, it grounds the entire tri-part ontological schema of Mind-Matter-Monad, despite the fact that it does not ground any particular part of my scheme.

Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming

Definition: The aspect of the Principle of Sufficient Reason of which the form is the phenomenon of Causality as apprehended from without (exterior reality), which corresponds to the class of objects given to us via external perception—the empirical corporeal world. This form of the PSR corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Understanding.
What it Grounds: This form of the PSR grounds the concept of Matter, (i.e., reality from a concrete perspective, [i.e., reality via external perception/a posteriori]). Specifically, this form of the PSR corresponds to the definition of “Matter,” as the infinite substratum of causality, i.e., an eternal, infinitely regressing causal chain/nexus.

Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowledge

Definition: The aspect of the Principle of Sufficient Reason of which the form is the phenomenon of Conceptions, which corresponds to the class of objects given to us via discursive reasoning—conceptual abstractions. This form of the PSR corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Reason.
What it Grounds: This form of the PSR is the basis of a conception of reality from an abstract perspective, i.e., via an internal perception/a priori. This method of conceptualizing reality corresponds to viewing reality as a Monad, wherein all Space, Time and Causality are identical to one another. Like all abstractions, this abstraction is extrapolated from the concrete; the abstraction of a Monad, therefore, is an extrapolation of the concrete reality of Matter. Like all abstractions, this abstraction retains only the universal and formal aspects of the concrete thing from which it is abstracted. Therefore, whereas Matter is defined in particular terms, wherein Space, Time and Causality are all separate and distinct from one another, Monad is defined in universal terms, wherein Space, Time and Causality is all One and identical (i.e., individuality and relativity are suspended in Monad).

Principle of Sufficient Reason of Action

Definition: The aspect of the Principle of Sufficient Reason of which the form is the phenomenon of Causality as apprehended from within (interior reality), which corresponds to the class of objects given to us via self-knowledge. This form of the PSR corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Self-consciousness.
What it Grounds: This form of the PSR corresponds to the conception of Reality as Mind, which I define as reality under the exclusive form of knowledge of Time. That is, in contradistinction to Matter, which possess individuated Space, Time and Causality, and in contradistinction to Monad, which possess unindividuated Space, Time and Causality, Mind possess only unindividuated Time (individuation is a function of the conjunction of Time and Space, therefore Time alone cannot be individuated, and this is demonstrable from the fact that the only Time that is experienceable at any given moment is the concrete, eternal “Now.” The past-present-future distinction is only an abstraction, therefore only the “Now” exists in the forefront of consciousness).

As you can see, this is section is very jargon-heavy, which is why I left this discussion for last in this series. Because this section is so involved, there are many implications contained in these definitions which I have yet to fully explicate, nor which I will be able to explicate throughout the duration of this post. This series, is but the “groundwork for idealism,” but the explication of the implications of idealism will have to wait for an altogether different series of posts.

The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Plenitude

As a counter-part to each and every single one of the four forms of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, there is an equal and symmetrical counterpart Principle of Plenitude, which postulates the maximal actuality of all intrinsically possible members of the ontological category of objects which each given form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason pertains to. For instance, the Principle of Sufficient Reason of Being has an equal and symmetrical counterpart Principle of Plenitude of Being which postulates the actuality of all possible instances of “pure sensibility.” Let me illustrate this more in-depth:

The Principle of Plenitude of Being

Definition: The aspect of the Principle of Plenitude of which the form is the phenomenon of spaciotemporal relations, i.e., succession and position, which corresponds to the class of objects which are self-given (given to us [to use Kant’s language] via pure intuitions). This form of the POP corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Sensibility.
What it Grounds: postulates the actual existence of every possible instance of spaciotemporal relations/every possible instance of the faculty of Sensibility. The former is the objective correlative, the latter is the subjective correlative, each is maximal in its actual diversity. Put simply, every possible configuration of Space-Time is real.

The Principle of Plenitude of Becoming

Definitions: The aspect of the Principle of Plenitude of which the form is the phenomenon of Causality as apprehended from without (exterior reality), which corresponds to the class of objects given to us via external perception—the empirical corporeal world [which is mechanistic, and deterministic]. This form of the POP corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Understanding.
What it Grounds: postulates the actual existence of every possible instance of Causality as apprehended from without/every possible instance of the faculty of Understanding. The former is the objective correlative, the latter is the subjective correlative, each is maximal in its actual diversity. Put simply, every possible configuration of Matter (i.e., every possible causal state of events) is real.

The Principle of Plenitude of Knowledge

Definitions: The aspect of the Principle of Plenitude of which the form is the phenomenon of Conceptions, which corresponds to the class of objects given to us via discursive reasoning—conceptual abstractions. This form of the POP corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Reason.
What it Grounds: postulates the actual existence of every possible instance of Conceptions/every possible instance of the faculty of Reason. The former is the objective correlative, the latter is the subjective correlative, each is maximal in its actual diversity. Put simply, every possible form of Reason/every possible Monad is real. However, because all Reason is a self-consistent whole, there is only one possible Reason–itself. Moreover, the logical end-point of all Reason–Monad–is the same everywhere (i.e., there is only one possible Monad–itself). All possible minds, as long as they follow Reason, converge on the same Truth.

The Principle of Plenitude of Action

Definitions: The aspect of the Principle of Plenitude of which the form is the phenomenon of Causality as apprehended from within (interior reality), which corresponds to the class of objects given to us via self-knowledge [i.e., the world of non-deterministic, internal freedom]. This form of the PSR corresponds to the subjective correlative (i.e., mental) faculty of Self-consciousness.
What it Grounds: postulates the actual existence of every possible instance of Causality as apprehended from within (interior reality)/every possible instance of the faculty of self-consciousness. The former is the objective correlative, the latter is the subjective correlative, each is maximal in its actual diversity (this is the locus of self-objectification). Put simply, every possible Mind is real.

Conclusion

It took up to four posts in total (with the addition of two more supplementary, initial posts) to reach a point in my philosophy where I could comprehensively outline my metaphysical vision in reference to well-grounded principles like the PSR and the POP.

Though from the very beginning, my intention has always been to ground my ontological division of the world into “Mind,” “Matter,” and “Monad,” on the basis of these two principles, I couldn’t just discuss the PSR (or the POP) from the get-go, otherwise it would overload the reader with too much information all at once. For that reason, I delayed the presentation of the PSR (and the POP), until the fourth instalment in this series. Furthermore, I only felt confident doing so once I properly foreshadowed its introduction in the post titled “A Proof of God’s Existence Part II.”

Even with all of this preparation, however, I realize that a full discussion on the PSR has to be delegated to other subsequent posts, namely due to the sheer profundity of the topic at hand. As a result, over the course of the next few posts, I will be expanding on and clarifying any leftover complexities and questions pertaining to my ontological system (of which there are many).

In the next post, I will be introducing an updated diagram of my ontological system, and will be using it as a heuristic in explaining everything that I have covered from parts I-IV.