Leibniz's Argument Analysis

Many philosophers have debated the question of truth. Can truth exist? Can it exist outside of context? Can we know anything? Philosophers from Leibniz to Hume have worked through these questions using rationalism or empiricism to guide their search for truth. These philosophers have reached multiple conclusions. Therefore, the debate continues. By exploring some of the arguments surrounding the debate, and putting them in a contemporary context it becomes easier to understand the opposing views and to make decisions about truth based upon them. Leibniz and Hume have two very different ideas when it comes to truth and knowledge. As a radical thinker, Leibniz uses logic and identity statements to build his claim for the existence of truth and knowledge. Hume, on the other hand is an empirical thinker, who believes that all knowledge comes from sense experience. By using these differing methods of thinking, …show more content…
We can perceive people and what they are and how they do things; however, we cannot reach the ultimate truth of what a person is. We cannot reach any ultimate truth, so how can a decision be made? Hume argues that using our experiences of humans and causality we can determine a knowledgeable answer. In terms of whether or not an embryo or fetus is a person, he would argue that the cause is pregnancy and the effect is a human because that is what happens the majority of the time. Leibniz, on the other hand, would argue that God himself predetermines whether or not an abortion occurs. Yet how can a God who is perfect and full of wisdom allow such an act to occur? Hume’s argument against there being a God is strong with the perceptual evidence of non-existence; this makes Leibniz’s argument weak. Can truth exist outside of the context of Religion or Abortion in either one of these cases? No, it cannot. Everything that occurs comes from experience and the senses, so how can something exist outside of the