Let's talk abot Leibniz!

“Would you like to rebutt Leibniz and claim that God, limitlesness, has no preference for good or bad?”

I’ve read Leibniz. You told me you haven’t but maybe you have. This is coherent. What you have said so far ain’t. Except in that

“You seem to be limiting the possibilities based on something.”

And yet

“It cannot be God.”

Because

“talking about Leibniz again, God is limitlesness itself.”

So

“So what is it?”

But even more coherently

“Would you like to rebutt Leibniz and claim that God, limitlesness, has no preference for good or bad?”

I pointed out two erroneous assumptions that someone of your intelligence can easily recognize. You are not addressing these errors, but throwing straw men and disjointed references at me. My very modest accomplishment here seems to elude you like the larger part of the Empire State Building was once hidden from me by a snowstorm.

I will never understand those that don’t have the power of inference.

So you don’t want to talk about Leibniz?

Because you haven’t.

At least not at the level I would hope any philosopher to be able to.

Some allusions to some achievement. Unconnected to anything Leibniz said, specially since they are only allusions.

You expect me to take that shit seriously?

Psssht. I thought so.

Center of the universe syndrome.

Why and how is that good?

Hmm…

Some first considerations:

It speaks of the richness of the world that one being endowed with so much of it is capable of interpreting it as him being the center of the universe! What riches lie ahead for us who don’t have this limitation! And even before that, what riches this person enjoys of God’s world, the best of all possible ones! What joy for him such richness must be, pain and all!

Kekekekkek

This guy paraphrases one Leibniz statement , interprets it like 1+2 equals a monkey, I point him to his silliness, and he goes on a triumphant prance-fest.

I wish there was something to respond to Pedro I Rengel. But making logical errors the point of your OP just gets you this - contempt.

This “argument” from Leibniz is a festeroo of stupidity too. It doesn’t take much to realize he penned this down to get the Church off his back

God has the idea of infinitely many universes.

Who created God?

Only one of these universes can actually exist.

In gods name, WHY?
No argument whatsoever.

God’s choices are subject to the principle of sufficient reason, that is, God has reason to choose one thing or another.

Because… as a human imperfect mortal obviously he knows God’s mind. Obviously.

God is good.Therefore, the universe that God chose to exist is the best of all possible worlds.

Lol.

And at night he pets you on the head.

Even if any of this made any sense at all, your idea that in the best possible universe all individual things are the best too is just another layer of feeble randomness on top.

If you had read Leibniz you would not seek out this… billboard-attribution. You’d be studying the architecture of a monadological argument.

“God’s choices are subject to the principle of sufficient reason, that is, God has reason to choose one thing or another[.]”

So God is limited by reason?

Obviously then this is not Liebniz’s God. But let us say it is and you meant preference,

“God has reason to choose one thing or another.”

So something other than good?

Again, try not to feel insulted, I’m just trying to understand how you are approaching Leibniz.

As if bad manners weren’t the most insulting thing of all (to yourself and all present).

But I like talking about Liebniz. So I’m listening.

Silence…

For who is any and everything good, part of the best of all possible worlds? For who sees it as good. God sees everything as good. When a person sees everything as good, that is that person allowing the Grace of God to guide him.

This is the Ethics side of Leibniz’s Ontology and Ethics.

"He scanned the landscape one more time.

  • No,

he said,

  • there are no philosophers here."

And he turned away from the mirror.

Well if it is this important to you, I’ll say “well done chap!” and hope it is of use to you.

Your rendering of L gives something identical to what they teach in new age ashrams and you always let on hating these.
Im not dissing you, this is true. New ageism is basically this, nothing can be wrong, have faith God wills it.
I have found this philosophy to be deeply corrupting, so much so that it allows mothers to get an ego boost at their sons death.

So I guess I am just worried. I hope you will get back to being a philosopher of Will and Destiny (fun and meaning), rather than of God and Fate (obedience and head-bopping).

Do stupid dirty hippies take away from the power of The Doors?

Certainly not!

Hmmmmm
I don’t know. I once read his Discourse on Metaphysics and it seemed that his declaration, or conclusion, (depending on your opinion about deductions from arbitrary premises) was drawn from religious principles, very much in the same vein as Aquinas and the scholastic tradition.

He argued that God does everything in the most desirable way. This is very optimistic given the state of existence we experience. Mosquitos seem to me unnecessary. Of course, he would disqualify my ability to pass judgment on Creation (third proposition). Without the implication of the Biblical God his Discourse would be missing a key part. His Metaphysics is in every way a theodicy.

So, this world is not the best of all because he has assessed other possibilities but from the principle that God does everything in the best possible way, and a critique on Creation shows a lack of love towards God (fourth proposition).

To me, his propositions show an uncritical point of departure. Where such love of God is lacking, as in Nietzsche, the conclusion that this is the best of all possible worlds is not achieved (Although his “Amor Fati” was every bit a blessing on all existence. The Lutheran upbringing perhaps, yet without any appeal to Reason, but rather blood and breeding). I doubt that, as stated in the Discourse, his logical conclusions were the expression of a belief in meritocracy, quite the contrary, on the obsequious premise that God is the best in all He does and that our perspective is never the provider of a standard to judge Creation unless aided by love of God.