Thread for Specific Philosophers and/or Philosophical Movements

Xylokopos those are excellent points. Very well put. I think of three things as I was reading. First, there is the generous interpretation of Leibniz's Theodicy. I think Bertrand Russell, in his book on Leibniz, did about as good a job as you can of trying to salvage his claims. Russell (and myself if I am to be honest) REALLY wanted to interpret Leibniz in the absence of his divine, omnibenevolent Creator (which, as you noted, he absolutely does NOT want to do). That interpretation really focuses on the use of the word "best." If we are talking about, for example, infinite possible worlds, where each has greater or lesser degrees of existence (very Anselm ontological argument) then maybe this is the "best" of all possible worlds. But that's like defining the "best" sandwich as the one that's made the fastest. We all have an intuitive understanding of what "best" is supposed to mean in relation to Theodicy and honestly I think Leibniz meant it that way.

Second, there's Kant's unintentional apologism for Leibniz. Think Kant was a horrible writer but would have made a great diplomat. He really gave a lot of care to incorporate and acknowledge the best of both the Rationalists/Dogmatists and Empiricists and I think he did a hell of a job in that aspect. When he's explaining his fourth Antinomy (the God one), he's basically saying "Look you're trying to take experience (appearances) and say something about the Thing-In-Itself (noumenal). And that's why the freakin' computer in your head crashes or gives you weird data back on your screen." Think this fits Leibniz well. Unequivocally BRILLIANT man. But really wacky conclusion he gets about the Divine and the Problem of Evil. I like Kant's apologism for this (even if it was unintentional) as it salvages the brilliance of the man while completely acknowledging the utter wackiness and knee jerk WTF reaction we all get when we hear Leibniz's position.

Third, I personally prefer St. Iranaeus's "Vale of Soul Making" Theodicy as retconned by philosopher John Hick in "Evil and The God of Love." Earth as boot camp for the soul is the only theodicy I've heard of that's seemed to even have a shot at facing the very valid, and very strong objections faced by all theodicies.

Thanks for the discussion topic xylokopos. Don't think many people delve as deeply as you did into Leibniz (and especially the nuances of his Theodicy).
 
For a nice accessible summary of Leibniz Best of All Possible Worlds theory I recommend this paper by James Franklin:

https://www.academia.edu/9001873/Two_caricatures_II_Leibnizs_best_world

Keep in mind that for Leibniz this being the best possible world means the best possible world in toto i.e. considered from start to finish (I’m disregarding modern accounts of Possible World semantics here though we could take this as the total state-of-affairs which makes contingent up reality from start to finish). So depending on the temporal boundaries of such a world he arguably* only requires the amount of Good to exceed that of Evil by the greatest extent possible – an possible extent which determines the extent of what ‘Omnibenevolence’ means.

*I say arguably because since God acts under the necessity of His own Nature rather than through free choice it may be that the world with the most good in has to happen no matter how unpleasant the rest of its contents are.

I am not accusing either of you of philistinish readings of the phrase ‘Best of all Possible Worlds’ but it’s worth noting that some Pessimists were arguably committed to this. Hartmann is an extreme case in point but others take it more prosaically to mean that no better world is even possible. When asked about the after-life Ligotti I think once said something to the effect that he couldn’t imagine any world better than this only worse (here we enter confusion over possible worlds though – surely there is a world in which for instance he worked with nicer people).

Michael said:
Third, I personally prefer St. Iranaeus's "Vale of Soul Making" Theodicy as retconned by philosopher John Hick in "Evil and The God of Love." Earth as boot camp for the soul is the only theodicy I've heard of that's seemed to even have a shot at facing the very valid, and very strong objections faced by all theodicies.
Click to expand...

I prefer Spinoza's all seasons being alike to God...

Michael said:
X Russell (and myself if I am to be honest) REALLY wanted to interpret Leibniz in the absence of his divine, omnibenevolent Creator (which, as you noted, he absolutely does NOT want to do). That interpretation really focuses on the use of the word "best."
Click to expand...

Don't worry we can get the same result - try Optimalism

EDIT: IF people are not already aware of it R.M. Adams' http://www.amazon.com/Leibniz-Determinist-Robert-Merrihew-Adams/dp/0195126491/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438542254&sr=1-1&keywords=leibniz+adams is the recommended modern account of Leibniz' metaphysics including of course his theodicy and its modal implications. Rescher's http://www.amazon.com/Leibniz-Expanded-Nicholas-Rescher/dp/0822962187/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438542437&sr=1-3&keywords=leibniz+rescheris also a classic.

Edited Edit: is there anyway to stop Amazon links displaying those silly boxes? Edit the Third: thanks for the tip-off
 
Last edited:
Evans you kick ass. Thanks for the info! Great, great points.

I have not heard of Rescher's work on Leibniz. Looks incredible.

And gotta have Spinoza in there somewhere; love that guy.
 
The Rescher book looks brilliant, I wish it were around 17 or so years ago.

Also, many thanks for the Franklin paper, I knew there were many aspects of the argument I was forgetting and they all came back as I was reading it, especially the notion that true statements about contingent worlds are necessarily true in all contingent worlds - way to go, bringing together logic and metaphysics like horny lovers, unless I am seriously misunderstanding the point - and the definition of "best" through minimal requirements. I will also admit I had forgotten the side arguments about the interconnectedness of good and evil in human action and, in terms of consequences, the local vs global scale, etc.

Still, Franklin's defense is not very satisfying, is it? The first part of the paper is very strong and I like the examples from mathematics and music, but I am not sure what he is trying to accomplish by entering Leibniz into a tradition of Christian apologetics alongside Augustine and Aquinas. Also, while I would not go as far as to say he is misquoting Augustine, I am certain he did not really mean that Sin/the Fall of Man was a happy mistake. And then all that other stuff, about the grocer's logic and prayer and minor improvements...I don't know, either you see Leibniz as a Theist or as a clever Scholastic Theologian, you cannot have your pie and eat it.

Evans said:
I am not accusing either of you of philistinish readings of the phrase ‘Best of all Possible Worlds’ but it’s worth noting that some Pessimists were arguably committed to this. Hartmann is an extreme case in point but others take it more prosaically to mean that no better world is even possible. When asked about the after-life Ligotti I think once said something to the effect that he couldn’t imagine any world better than this only worse (here we enter confusion over possible worlds though – surely there is a world in which for instance he worked with nicer people).
Click to expand...

I am a pessimist but having some knowledge of Leibniz and the philosophical tradition he engages with, it would be disingenuous to reason thus: best of possible worlds = as good as it gets = this is bloody terrible. That said, Hartmann and Ligotti and everyboy else who does not see benevolent forethought behind this world are almost compelled to reason in this way: that out of all contingencies, this particular one was actualized, makes this mess tragically inevitable and -even more tragically - unimprovable. You can also see it in Cioran, this idea that humans are propelled to act in order to optimize a reality that can never be optimized through action because now, you have people with free will but no divine intervention or plan; so we act at cross purposes in order to achieve an imaginary future of brotherhood and accord and in this way our utopias turn to bloodbaths and mass graves.

Michael, my favorite version of theodicy is not in the Christian tradition of "justifying the ways of God to Man", but rather in tandem with Nietzsche's interpretations of the divine in the old Greek epics and dramas: a God that has my failings, is a God I can get behind 100%, i.e., the point is to create and vizualize divinities that justify our misery and our ecstasy through shared traits, that is, theodicy as anthropodicy.

My head hurts.
 
xylokopos said:
Still, Franklin's defense is not very satisfying, is it? The first part of the paper is very strong and I like the examples from mathematics and music, but I am not sure what he is trying to accomplish by entering Leibniz into a tradition of Christian apologetics alongside Augustine and Aquinas. Also, while I would not go as far as to say he is misquoting Augustine, I am certain he did not really mean that Sin/the Fall of Man was a happy mistake. And then all that other stuff, about the grocer's logic and prayer and minor improvements...I don't know, either you see Leibniz as a Theist or as a clever Scholastic Theologian, you cannot have your pie and eat it.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by that last part? I would agree with Nicholas Jolley that though Leibniz is certainly a Christian in as much as he consider Christian Revelation to be largely true and not in conflict with his own views his deeper philosophical commitment is to a kind of Neoplatonism. He definitely had little time for the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin (it gets in the way of his metaphysical anthropology) though he occasionally pays lip-service to it. So if you’re saying Leibniz is willing to quote selectively: hell yes! I think he is a Scholastic-inclined philosopher albeit one descended from the 'extreme Neo-Platonist' line which gave us Cusa and Bruno.

Edit: sorry, misreading (not enough sleep last night), if you mean about Franklin quoting Augustine on Original Sin then you’re probably right. As I said: I am not defending Leibniz theodicy or Franklin’s exceedingly watered-down development of it.

xylokopos said:
That said, Hartmann and Ligotti and everyboy else who does not see benevolent forethought behind this world are almost compelled to reason in this way: that out of all contingencies, this particular one was actualized, makes this mess tragically inevitable and -even more tragically - unimprovable. You can also see it in Cioran, this idea that humans are propelled to act in order to optimize a reality that can never be optimized through action because now, you have people with free will but no divine intervention or plan; so we act at cross purposes in order to achieve an imaginary future of brotherhood and accord and in this way our utopias turn to bloodbaths and mass graves.
Click to expand...

I doubt there are many who have taken this to its ultimate conclusion though in considering this world as used in the modal sense to be necessary – that it would be impossible for any supposedly contingent propositions about reality to have been otherwise. That's a pretty terrifying thought in and of itself without even bringing in the state of said world.
 
Since I've mentioned him back there I may as well go straight ahead and post these - for discussion of what school of philosophy Leibniz came out of and how his theodicy relates, rather tenuously as it turns out, to elements of Christian theology, these two videos by Jolley are interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zm8RIOemPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWB8RhOJ3q8&index=1&list=PL7E5FF9DA249A3F66
 
Professor Sugrue's lectures are fantastic - I discovered them about a year ago, around the time I also discovered Daniel Bonevac's channel.

Great resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top