[deleted]
'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
31–40 of 66 posts
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#32My understanding was that Leibnitz was a pivotal figure in the ideas behind early computing. Didn't see that mentioned in the article so much.
He was pivotal in a lot of stuff, so such not being mentioned in an article discussing his metaphysical ideas is not surprising.
Obligatory mention of the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#33Leibniz independently invented calculus, including the notation for the derivative that is most common today.
He also basically invented computer science -- he did pioneering work in binary arithmetic, designed a mechanical calculator, and came up with the concept of a "universal language", which was an early attempt at codifying the rules of logic and reason into a form that could be operated upon mechanically.
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#34> In such a way, Leibniz, to cite Milton, dared to “justify the ways of God to men.” Voltaire responded with a snarky misreading that exploited the undeniable empirical fact that evil was not balanced by good in the lives of every discreet individual. But Leibniz made no such claim. The best world was optimized as a whole, containing just as much good and evil as was required for the totality of creation. I like this…
> My question has rather been that, if suffering is required and a child getting bone cancer and dying at five is the best of all possible worlds, maybe the whole project should have been scrapped at the planning phase. Is that better? it would also require not having all the good things from creation.
I can’t see the good being contingent on a five year old getting bone cancer.
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My question has rather been that, if suffering is required and a child getting bone cancer and dying at five is the best of all possible worlds, maybe the whole project should have been scrapped at the planning phase. Is that better? it would also require not having all the good things from creation.
I can’t see the good being contingent on a five year old getting bone cancer.
In that case you have rejected Leibniz's argument anyway so the argument in the comment I was replying to does not arise.
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#36> Leibniz challenged “humanity to participate in the work of striving toward perfection,” > Because the world is the creation of a perfect being, it can achieve only the “best possible” state short of divine perfection. That's a lot of presumptions: That the creator is perfect, there is even a perfect, what I (Leibniz) call perfect is the god's/gods' perfect, ... while not giving a frame of reference. I find this a c…
Perfection for Leibniz might be considered more of a logical concept than an observable state. After all, he uses the same thing to argue (somehow) for the existence of god! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#ExiGod This leads to some strange conclusions about perfection that aren't intuitive, and sometimes seem monstous.
Perfection might be imperfect.
I’m reminded of Pythagorean philosophies of harmony that quickly reveal the imperfections inherent to math, ie right triangle with two sides of one unit producing square root of two or Pythagorean tuning which is so perfect it is imperfect (eg the wolf fifth)
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace "perfect" with "likely optimal" and you get the general thrust of it without the deus ex machina.
"Because the world is the creation of a likely optimal being, it can achieve only the “best possible” state short of divine likely optimisation"? If understood in a very mystic transcending meaning of "creation" maybe, otherwise it reads still like dogma to me.
I’m also reminded of quantum probabilities and expected outcomes— how possibilities converge to create reality, like quantum Darwinism. https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-...
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Because the world is the creation of a likely optimal being, it can achieve only the “best possible” state short of divine likely optimisation"? If understood in a very mystic transcending meaning of "creation" maybe, otherwise it reads still like dogma to me.
I’m also reminded of quantum probabilities and expected outcomes— how possibilities converge to create reality, like quantum Darwinism. https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-...
That is a new quantum thing to me, but looks interesting, thanks.
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#39> A key to Leibniz’s view is symmetry of creation. The best only emerges against the worst, the beautiful against the ugly, the harmonious against the dissonant. Leibniz's surviving corpus is massive and sprawling (far larger than any other member of the Republic of Letters) so it could be that i haven't read whatever this is a reference to, but I don't recognise this sense of balance. For Leibniz as i understand him…
The balance idea sounds like misremembered Hegel. I think the best of all possible worlds theory should be seen for what it is: an attempt to reconcile the idea that a perfect god made the world with its observable imperfections. It’s intellectually more satisfying than the “fallen world” idea which just leads to more questions, and it remains compatible with mainstream Christian doctrine. If you want to reject mains…
Pretty hard considering Hegel would not even be born a few decades after Leibniz died. Agreed that it is preferable to the "fallen world" starting point of so many other philosophies. Once you think the world is fallen or broken, the only remaining thing is trying (and waiting ;) ) to bring about some kind of Utopia by changing humankind, nature, etc..
See Judaism, Gnosticism, Marxism, Positivism...Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#40> A key to Leibniz’s view is symmetry of creation. The best only emerges against the worst, the beautiful against the ugly, the harmonious against the dissonant. Leibniz's surviving corpus is massive and sprawling (far larger than any other member of the Republic of Letters) so it could be that i haven't read whatever this is a reference to, but I don't recognise this sense of balance. For Leibniz as i understand him…
The balance idea sounds like misremembered Hegel. I think the best of all possible worlds theory should be seen for what it is: an attempt to reconcile the idea that a perfect god made the world with its observable imperfections. It’s intellectually more satisfying than the “fallen world” idea which just leads to more questions, and it remains compatible with mainstream Christian doctrine. If you want to reject mains…
> intellectually more satisfying than the “fallen world” idea which just leads to more questions, and it remains compatible with mainstream Christian doctrine.
Doesn't mainstream Christian doctrine say that we're in a fallen world? Isn't that bit about "by Adam's sin we all sinned" (I'm forgetting the rhyme) a pretty central part of the catechism? (basically Romans 5:12)
Now as to God creating a universe in which a fall like that could occur (one that emphasizes free will), is that perhaps what Leibniz was addressing?