I don't know, can Leibniz answer the challenges of modernity? Paul Ricœur famously identified three masters of suspicion, Marx, Freud and Nietzsche. What's Leibniz responses to their challenges?
'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
61–66 of 66 posts
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t see the good being contingent on a five year old getting bone cancer.
You don't know that the child wouldn't have grown up Hitler. The argument seems similar - not exactly, but similar - to the question "if global warming is real, why is it snowing here". A function describing the maximum global integration over happiness could very well contain many local minima.
> "if global warming is real, why is it snowing here". A function describing the maximum global integration over happiness could very well contain many local minima.
Love that answer. its a really good analogy.
Of course plenty of people I (probably most people) do not understand it with regard to global warming....
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but an omnipotent God could presumably just make Hitlers not exist. The argument rests on the assumption that there are hidden dependencies in the laws of the universe, such that it was logically necessary that Hitler (or insert whatever other evil here) had to exist to make the best possible world. That's hard to swallow.
> an omnipotent ... could The Architect in Leibniz is not omnipotent, and can only make the best out of what is possible.
Apologies, re-reading this - which is literally false -, in view of a quick re-read of some salient paragraphs:
the Architect in Leibniz is omnipotent, and his project is regarded as the best possible; only, the project involves a limited humanity that cannot understand it.
(In the original writing above I meant 'omnipotent' in an oblique way (including "clarity" and "satisfying all" as "perfections"), which is too stretched and rhetoric not to mislead.)
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
I can't speak to Leibniz since I haven't studied his philosophy at all, but there seems to be at least a distinction between a fallen world (or a corrupted world) and a fallen man.
That is, you could take the view of some (so called) gnostic sects that see the world as a corrupted mess created by a demiurge. In such a view one could understand man as a divine spark that is imprisoned within this world, perhaps even maliciously tricked by that demiurge, and gnosis is the realization and means to escape. That is a kind of heresy that was argued against quite vehemently by the early church fathers (as well as Neo-Platonists like Plotinus for what it is worth).
That would be opposed to a view that the world is a good creation (or at least as good as was possible given the material available, in the vein of Plato's Timaeus) and man is the ambiguous thing, given free will and the choice to align itself with God. In that case, the fall of man is better seen as a rejection of a good that has been offered.
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#65Earlier 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.
Nah, just create the world at a state where modern medicine can cure cancer, like we're on the slow road to doing. In the 1800s someone might have asked "if suffering is required and a child is going to die of a systemic infection, maybe the whole project should have been scrapped at the planning phase". To me it's clear that human flourishing without much suffering is possible in this universe and it's more about kn…
> Nah, just create the world at a state where modern medicine can cure cancer, like we're on the slow road to doing.
We would have cures for every illness if not for human selfishness and evil. Look at all the money and effort spent on war during the last 10,000 years, on legal fees and disputes for the last 5,000 years. Rather than love our neighbors as ourselves, too many of us in our hearts say, "This land is MINE! This money is MINE! This patent is MINE! The credit is MINE!" If all this effort went to instead cultivating gifted individuals to research and cure diseases we'd have all our cures.
Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
A theologist like Leibniz is concerned with dogmas, which are like axioms: They are assumed to be true and form the basis of a logical system, that is supposed to consistent.
Beside that Leibniz contributes to a thousands of years old discussion about theodicy, the righteousness of god.
Let's look at the historical context first, because your bible verse is fitting:
In many cultures of the ancient world, misfortunes and disasters are said to be the result of a divine punishment. This can be seen in the old testament on many occasions, but it's basically the same in Greek societies etc. Christian scholars read the book of Ijob as an instance, where this thought is challenged: Ijob is living a righteous live, why is he punished?
The book itself doesn't really give an answer to that, but in the ancient world view kin liability applies. So even when Ijob was sinless, he inherits the sin of his forefathers, going all the way back to Adam.
Your bible verse (Romans 5:12) is referring to that, but if you read a bit further, this world view of the old testament is contrasted with the new testament. To paraphrase: Where one man (Adam) brought sin into the life of many, now one man (Jesus) takes the sin from all.
So in the Christian doctrine the argument, that bad things happen to us due to inherited sin doesn't apply anymore.
Which leads us to the scholarly discussion, which Leibniz is part of. The central dogmas (axioms) of Christianity relevant for the theodicy question are the following:
* There is only one god
* God is almighty
* God is all-loving
* God is understandable, since God revealed himself through Jesus.
The job of philosopher/theologist is to resolve, the perceived contradiction, that bad things are happening to good people and a loving, almighty God wouldn't allow that.
The most common solution is to drop one of the axioms, e.g. "God wants to help us, but he can't" (not almighty) or "God works in mysterious ways" (not understandable).
Leibniz instead doesn't sidestep the problem and argues, that even the best possible world can't be free from sorrow. I, personally, really like his line of thought, but this comment is already to long to describe it further.