This was a fun recap of Leibniz's thought on the subject. I am surprised there was no mention of Voltaire's take on the problem. The two thinkers that I think were most noticeably absent from this discussion were his contemporary Spinoza (who believed that everything in the world was God), and Nietzsche (who threw out God, good, and evil in favor of a will to power). Both of these I feel answer the question in a consistent and coherent and completely different way than Leibniz.
This was a fun recap of Leibniz's thought on the subject. I am surprised there was no mention of Voltaire's take on the problem. The two thinkers that I think were most noticeably absent from this discussion were his contemporary Spinoza (who believed that everything in the world was God), and Nietzsche (who threw out God, good, and evil in favor of a will to power). Both of these I feel answer the question in a consistent and coherent and completely different way than Leibniz.
.....I kept waiting for Candide to pop up. ⛵🦙🌍
“Genuine goodness vs human suffering lead to a deeper, more nuanced synthesis even if it’s one of ongoing inquiry rather than definitive resolution”.
“to seek meaning in a world that often defies easy explanations”
Leibniz wasn’t making a moral argument at all, but an ontological one. “The best of all possible worlds” isn’t about goodness, it’s about necessity.
🇫🇷✍🏼 But what about Doctor Pangloss? 🤔😏