Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Associate prof. of Iranian institute of philosophy
Abstract
An examination of the history of the development of the philosophical issues in the West indicates that since the Demiurge (Demiourgos) of Plato in the Timaeus created the sensible world in imitation of the intelligible archetypes, failing at the same time, to overcome some necessities, until the beginning of the seventeenth century and the emergence of the Cartesian anthropocentric conception of reality, the common question most often raised by modern philosophers, in their discussions about the nature of God, man and universes in this: What is Justice? Is God just? Was man created in the best form? Is the existing world, the best among all the possible worlds? The answer to these questions among the Christian thinkers before Leibniz (1646- 1716) was mostly based on the principles of dogmatic theology. Even in the fifteenth century the question as to how God's providence and foreknowledge could be reconciled with the human free choice was the pivot and axis of most philosophical and theological problems. In addition, the progress of natural sciences and the emergence of necessary causal laws in the domain of the various sciences impaired the human freedom of choice.Spinoza and Leibniz, each in his own peculiar way, endeavored to prove that the human free choice is compatible with the causal determinism required. By science. In Leibniz, God wills the most harmonious and compossible worlds. In the present article, prior to Leibniz's rational justifications of the principle of "the best possible World", his conception of the world as based on the principle of the pre-established harmony (in the framework of the monads ), along with some other related issues are analyzed.
Highlights
For Leibniz, the human intellect can grasp the reality of pleasure and pain, joy, and sorrow, because they are based on inner experience, which itself is innate in man. In his treatise on "De rerum originatio radicali " (The Radical Origin of Things) elaborating on the existence of evil in the world, he maintains that the existence of evil is the necessary prerequisite for the realization of the highest and ultimate good. Evil no doubt is always accompanied by pain and the aftereffect of all kinds of evil, whether natural, moral, physical, or metaphysical is the various kinds of pain and suffering. Now, is the existence of metaphysical evil compatible with the accepted view in Christianity that God's providence and eternal will, shall save and redeem all human beings?
In his Monadology (1714), Leibniz proves that to be the substance is equivalent to being a monad and hence the substance of God is the same as the "Divine monad". In his Theodicy again, he has endeavored to prove that the Divine attributes are "the primordial possibilities of all possible beings". In other words, they are the principal ideas. Infinite things are the delimitations of the infinite Divine attributes. Three among the infinite attributes of God are more worthy of attention: Knowledge (or Wisdom), Divine will (benevolence or the free choice of the good) and Divine power.
All possible things, in Leibniz's view, have a relation to external reality. Each of them has an inner impulse or desire (conatus) for existence. The realization of such an innate impulse for existence, according to the Divine free choice, is conceivable only in those possibles which possess the highest degree of reality in relation to the whole. Stated in other terms, their existence should be harmonious and compatible with the existence of God and that of other possible beings, without the finite mind is capable to perceive the cause of such compatibility or its privation, because such perception requires the prior knowledge of the totality of a possible world. The actually present world is a contingent world, possible for it to exist or not to exist. Presently non-actual worlds are either impossible or that they are possible but as yet they have no sufficient reason to exist. The possible worlds, according to Leibniz are multifarious. God's choice of the best possible world demands the Divine volition, itself depending on the Divine intellect. The existence of the best possible world, in addition, requires a multiplicity of the world.
In the Theodicy, Leibniz also tries to reconcile the Divine attributes of power (grace), knowledge (wisdom) and volition with the existence of the different kinds of evil which apparently contradict his benevolent teleology and presents a conclusive analysis of the concept of "free choice", itself a main ethical theme, and proves that this concept is univocally predicated of both God and man. The degree of the free choice of each monad, moreover, depends on the clearness and distinctness of its perceptions. Acts arising from clear and distinct perceptions are good, but on the contrary, if their determining causes are indistinct and confused, they become evil. "Sin" in Leibniz's view is an aftereffect of the confused perceptions.
A section of this article is again assigned to a discussion about the idea of the "best possible world" in Leibniz, where the theory revolves upon such related issues as "the most possible variation", "the best possible order", and "the most possible perfection" in his philosophy.
"Theodicy after Leibniz" constitutes another section of this article. The Theodicy of Leibniz became the groundwork for the German enlightenment. The eighteenth-century Germany was transformed into a sense into "the century of Divine justice" or "the century of theodicy". Reference is also made in this regard to the views of other philosophers such as Cassirer, Jaspers, Lessing, Schiller, Fichte, Hume, Wolff, and in particular Kant.
The last part of the article is concerned with a discussion about the views of the opponents of Leibniz's Theodicy. Anti- theodicy, in no way, implies a sort of atheism or the absolute denial of the Divine justice. The adherents of this so-called "theory of protest" thesis have posed and addressed the following questions: "if God is an omnipotent being and the absolute Good, why is He indifferent with regard to the injustices, evils and the sufferings of this world?" John K. Roth (1940-), one of the theorists regarding this problem, in his "A Theodicy of Protest" denies the absolute and pure goodness of God, confirming at the same line His absolute omnipotence.
References
- Aawani, Shahin (2016); "Human Happiness in Plato's Viewpoint (Evaluation of Alcibiades and Philebus)", Sophia Perennis, IRIP.Vol. 28, 2015-2016, pp. 5- 26.
- Copleston, Frederick Charles (1988); A History of Philosophy, vol. 7,( Fichte to Nietzsche) Persian translation by Dariush Ashuri; first ed. Tehran, Elmi - Farhangi Publishing Co. and Soroush Publishing Co.
- Descartes, Rene: The philosophical Writings of Descartes (3 Vol.), Trans. By: J. Cottingham and R.Stoothof and D. Murdoch and A. Kenny/ CUP (U.S.A) 1984-91 [CSM]
- Leibniz, G. W.: Die philosophischen Schriften, herausgegeben von C.J. Gerhardt, Berlin, 1875- 90 (GP).
Keywords
)
Send comment about this article