Leibniz's best-of-all-possible worlds solution to the problem of evil is defended. Enlightenment misrepresentations are removed. The apparent obviousness of the possibility of better worlds is undermined by the much better understanding achieved in modern mathematical sciences of how global structure constrains local possibilities. It is argued that alternative views, especially standard materialism, fail to make sense of the problem ofevil, by implying that evil does not matter, absolutely speaking. Finally, itis shown how ordinary religious thinking incorporates the essentials of Leibniz's (...) view. (shrink)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was one of the great thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is known as the last “universal genius”. He made deep and important contributions to the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, logic, philosophy of religion, as well as mathematics, physics, geology, jurisprudence, and history. Even the eighteenth century French atheist and materialist Denis Diderot, whose views could not have stood in greater opposition to those of Leibniz, could not help being awed by his achievement, writing (...) in his Encyclopedia, “Perhaps never has a man read as much, studied as much, meditated more, and written more than Leibniz… What he has composed on the world, God, nature, and the soul is of the most sublime eloquence. If his ideas had been expressed with the flair of Plato, the philosopher of Leipzig would cede nothing to the philosopher of Athens.” (Vol. 9, p. 379) Indeed, Diderot's mood was almost despairing in a remark from another piece, which also has a great deal of truth in it: “When one compares the talents one has with those of a Leibniz, one is tempted to throw away one's books and go die quietly in the dark of some forgotten corner.” More than a century later, Gottlob Frege, who fortunately did not cast his books away in despair, expressed similar admiration, declaring that “in his writings, Leibniz threw out such a profusion of seeds of ideas that in this respect he is virtually in a class of his own.” (“Boole's logical Calculus and the Concept script” in Posthumous Writings , p. 9) The aim of this entry is primarily to introduce Leibniz's life and summarize and explicate his views in the realms of metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical theology, and natural philosophy. (shrink)

El presente trabajo busca explicar cómo la filosofía de Leibniz da cuenta de una concepción radicalmente objetiva de la belleza a partir de las posiciones teológicas y cosmológicas defendidas por el alemán en contra de Descartes y Spinoza. Después de introducir, en la primera sección, el lugar de la estética en los sistemas filosóficos de los racionalistas, la segunda sección se centra en exponer la definición de belleza propia de Leibniz y configurar un criterio de objetividad estética con el aporte (...) de discusiones filosóficas históricas y contemporáneas. En la tercera sección, se revisa el argumento de Leibniz contra el voluntarismo cartesiano y el subjetivismo de Spinoza en relación a la noción de belleza. En la cuarta, evaluaremos si la propuesta ontológica sobre la belleza de Leibniz es compatible con la definición de objetividad desarrollada en la segunda sección. Se concluye que, a la luz de la cosmología y metafísica leibniziana, la belleza debe ser independiente de toda corroboración subjetiva, ya que la belleza de las cosas es lógicamente anterior, incluso, a la existencia de éstas, lo que resulta en una concepción autónoma y objetiva de la belleza. (shrink)

¿Qué es lo que hace, según Leibniz, que se pueda decir que nuestro mundo es el mejor posible? Varias interpretaciones, no siempre posibles de conciliar, se han propuesto. Sería el mejor porque en ese mundo las criaturas razonables obtendrían la mayor felicidad, o por cuanto realizaría la mayor cantidad de ser y realidad a nivel total, o incluso porque sería el que asocia las leyes más simples con los fenómenos más ricos y variados. El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar (...) que lo mejor ha de comprenderse en el sentido del método de Formis optimis, es decir, como lo que remite, en un genero dado, a la forma más determinada, la cual es a la vez única y la más racional. Así, la perfección del mundo no resulta de que concentraría la mayor cantidad de esencia y bien, sino de que constituye el orden más inteligible, donde cada cosa, sin ser forzosamente la más perfecta en sí misma, contribuye no obstante a la armonía universal, a saber, a la unidad de una multiplicidad que cumple mejor los fines divinos. For Leibniz, what makes our world be the best? Several interpretations not always compatible have been proposed. It would be the best, insofar as it would maximize the happiness of reasonable creatures, or insofar as it would achieve the largest quantity of being and reality as a whole, or insofar as it would combine the simplest laws with the richest and most varied phenomena. The aim of this paper is to show that the best is to be understood in the sense of the method de Formis optimis, as what refers, for a given sort of things, to the most determined form, which is both unique and the most rational one. Thus, the perfection of the world does not result from its containing the largest quantity of essence and of good, but from its forming the most intelligible order, in which every single thing, without being necessarily the best in itself, nevertheless contributes to the universal harmony, that is to the unity of a manifold fulfilling the divine ends in the best possible way. (shrink)

Are we really sure to correctly know what do we feel in front ofan artwork and to correctly verbalize it? How do we know what weappreciate and why we appreciate it? This paper deals with the problem ofintrospective opacity in aesthetics (that is, the unreliability of self-knowledge) in the light of traditional philosophical issues, but also of recentpsychological insights, according to which there are many instances ofmisleading intuition about one’s own mental processes, affective states orpreferences. Usually, it is assumed that (...) aesthetic statements are intuitivelyclear and self-evident. However, a long tradition in psychological researchhas called the idea of introspective transparency and the infallibility of self-knowledge into question (Wilson 2002). This topic has only recently beenrecognized as an interesting problem in aesthetics (Melchionne 2011, Irvin2014). In this paper I will discuss the main shortcomings in introspective self-knowledge, mostly referring to psychological findings. As a consequence, thedevelopment of a folk psychological account of aesthetic experience could beneeded, investigating how people develop intuitive and naïve theories abouttheir aesthetic reactions, taste, and feelings, distinct from a more objectiveand empirically grounded account of how judgment and preferences areactually formed in ourselves, even on a neurobiological level. However, itwill also be argued that bypassing the individual judgment and his expressedchoices in favor of allegedly more objective levels of description would notbe an innocent step to take. (shrink)