Let's talk abot Leibniz!

[Pedro I Rengel]

He said we live in the best of all possible worlds. Because God is.

This is both Ontology and Ethics. For the question we then ask is why or how is any given thing good? Since it is also Ontology, we are not compelled to cheat reality by imposing a reason on her, but rather to seek the answer in the most honest questioning of her.

Why is pain good? Leibniz's ontoethics would not have you deciding. One simply knows pain is good because we live in the best of all possible worlds.

This is also Dualism. The knowledge that everything is good without the knowledge of why or how. It is very sexual, because the knowledge that it is good invites the questioning of how and why!

And since your very questioning exists, and is thus good, there's no pressure.

In short, it is an ethics and ontology because it gives both what things are and what to do about them as a consecuence of what they are.

[Fixed Cross]

Two mistakes;

1
That the world is the best of all possible worlds does not imply that everything in it is good.
Only that there is more good about it than any other possible world.
But that doesn't mean that in other possible worlds, some things wouldn't be better at the cost of more other things being worse.

2
Leibniz did not simply state this without reason. It is the logical conclusion of a comprehensive meritocratic argument he intuited but which is first explicated with VO.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"...some things wouldn't be better at the cost of more other things being worse."

How could any given thing be better? If this is the best of all possible worlds?

You seem to be limiting the possibilities based on something. It cannot be God. So what is it?

[Pedro I Rengel]

In any case, talking about Leibniz again, God is limitlesness itself. Limitlesness is on the side of good.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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

[Fixed Cross]

"...some things wouldn't be better at the cost of more other things being worse."

How could any given thing be better? If this is the best of all possible worlds?

Well, when you feel up to it read my entire post. I know it is YUUUUGE. But it is in there.

You seem to be limiting the possibilities based on something. It cannot be God. So what is it?

That, too, is in that YUUUUUUUUGE post.

Better just not try though. We know what comes from trying sometimes - you don't want to risk accomplishing anything.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'll take that as a very ill-mannered no...

[Fixed Cross]

Dunno what you're on about. I just refused some bullshit.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Lol. English street kids ARE little rich boys compared to Venezuelan ones. Just sayin.

Still haven't answered about Leibniz guy. I guess you won't at this point.

"...you don't want to risk accomplishing anything."

[Fixed Cross]

I told you what was wrong with your argument. Leibniz did not err like that, so this isn't about him, or refuting his arguments. I have no issue with Leibniz, he intuited the self-valuing logic by the elements that eluded Nietzsche but still had to connect this to the part of his brain that produces faith, where I connected it to certainty.

[Pedro I Rengel]

With love, cause I've known you for going on 10 years now and consider you a friend, you said a lot and said nothing just now.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"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?"

[Fixed Cross]

L
"...you don't want to risk accomplishing anything."

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

So you don't want to talk about Leibniz?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Because you haven't.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Psssht. I thought so.

Center of the universe syndrome.

Why and how is that good?

Hmm....

[Pedro I Rengel]

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!

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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

[Pedro I Rengel]

"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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Silence...

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.