[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 48 KB, 470x227, epi.jpg?w=470.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12113691 No.12113691 [Reply] [Original]

discuss.

>> No.12113703

>>12113691
Epic (urus)

>> No.12113713
File: 25 KB, 197x276, 3635abk_3febb396c435c01[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12113713

Got BTFO by Leibniz. This goes for literally every argument atheists use by the way.

>> No.12113725

That's not even a good argument desu

>> No.12113730

>>12113725
This is because the greeks are overrated and useless unless you're interested in historical timelines.

>> No.12113738

>>12113730
Plato is not overrated

2000 years and he still hasn't been refuted

>> No.12113747

>>12113738
He was the first psychologist, how could he be?

>> No.12113750

>>12113738
he has tho

>> No.12113773

>>12113691
Not a good argument for calling a god evil as his definition of evil could be different from ours. So he could still be omnipotent and simply not willing to stop it because he doesn't find it nescessary.
All the argument does is say why we as humans shouldn't like a god but that's it.

>> No.12113783

>>12113691
With the exception of the Platonists, the ancient Greeks did not understand God.

>> No.12113802

>>12113750
>the problem of universals has been solved, nominalists declared the unanimous victors

no he hasn't you goof

>> No.12113818

>>12113691
>Because reason and faith must be entirely reconciled, any tenet of faith which could not be defended by reason must be rejected. Leibniz then approached one of the central criticisms of Christian theism:[72] if God is all good, all wise and all powerful, how did evil come into the world? The answer (according to Leibniz) is that, while God is indeed unlimited in wisdom and power, his human creations, as creations, are limited both in their wisdom and in their will (power to act). This predisposes humans to false beliefs, wrong decisions and ineffective actions in the exercise of their free will. God does not arbitrarily inflict pain and suffering on humans; rather he permits both moral evil (sin) and physical evil (pain and suffering) as the necessary consequences of metaphysical evil (imperfection), as a means by which humans can identify and correct their erroneous decisions, and as a contrast to true good
From the wiki of Leibniz

>> No.12113829

>>12113691
He’s right but 4chan “Christian” LARPers will just disregard it

>> No.12113832

>>12113818
Schelling blew Leibniz the fuck out

theodicies, for the most part, are just the art of stealthily moving goalposts, semantical rearrangements of furniture. oh now evil is an absence of good, oh now evil is a natural consequence of metaphysical imperfection... mhm, deny evil's positivity but never address the heart of the matter, the brute fact of it in the first place.

the question is not only why the Good is apparently corruptible, but also why God would create a universe that runs on death and predation. what human failings is a doe being eaten alive paying for? what a load.

read Schelling, he fucks Augustine and Leibniz in the ass and makes em clean their shit off his dick with their tongues

>> No.12113852

>>12113832
Give me a summary of Schelling's critique, I am not familiar with him. Also don't know why you are bringing up Augustine, his conception of evil is not compatible with Leibniz'.

>> No.12113856

>>12113818
This only explain why bad things happen to bad people, or as a consequence of a persons actions. What about evil that affect the unborn? Or evils that affect entire populations without bias and can hardly be blamed on human mistakes, natural catastrophes or unforeseen plagues for example.

>> No.12113885

>>12113856
Evil exists by design, the existence of pain is a prerequisite for the development of virtue, thus the system contains just enough so that the net increase in virtue is greater.

>> No.12113899

>>12113852
basically you have to man up and admit evil has its origin in God, any theodicy that denies this or chalks it up to some kind of metaphysical privation is beating around the bush, he accepts the free will argument but with some caveats: freedom is the principle of evil AND goodness, so it is not somehow separable from these potentialities, in other words freedom is a precondition of evil and not something that must be corrupted first, the Fall had to be a fall into freedom, into subjectivity

and second, Schelling spends the bulk of the relevant essay arguing for why free beings must necessarily be internal to God, a kind of de-mechanized pantheism, since freedom cannot exist outside of God without threatening a dualism. freedom is a kind of groundlessness, because any free act is an act posited by itself and through itself, and that groundlessness is the root of evil, because it is God's own groundlessness, the inability for the principle of predication to account for its own existence - just because existence is not a predicate

>> No.12113906

>>12113885
>thus the system contains just enough so that the net increase in virtue is greater.

a bold, bold, bold fucking assumption m8

>> No.12113968

>>12113906
Well, at least the potential for such.
>>12113899
>basically you have to man up and admit evil has its origin in God, any theodicy that denies this or chalks it up to some kind of metaphysical privation is beating around the bush, he accepts the free will argument but with some caveats: freedom is the principle of evil AND goodness, so it is not somehow separable from these potentialities, in other words freedom is a precondition of evil and not something that must be corrupted first, the Fall had to be a fall into freedom, into subjectivity
None of this is denied by Leibniz, and the final part on the fall being the fall into subjectivity is biblical, the fruits of the tree gave knowledge of good and evil and thus moral agency.
>and second, Schelling spends the bulk of the relevant essay arguing for why free beings must necessarily be internal to God, a kind of de-mechanized pantheism, since freedom cannot exist outside of God without threatening a dualism. freedom is a kind of groundlessness, because any free act is an act posited by itself and through itself, and that groundlessness is the root of evil, because it is God's own groundlessness, the inability for the principle of predication to account for its own existence - just because existence is not a predicate
Interesting, I would like to study this. Where can I find this discussion?

>> No.12113981

>>12113968
it's all in his Inquiry into the Essence of Human Freedom. short work too

>> No.12114018
File: 793 KB, 1484x918, 1542192370298.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12114018

>>12113691
enough of this fucking bullshit

"god" = the demiurge, a tyrant bastard god, who has imposed a system of imperfection upon what was supposed to be a perfect world

GOD = the one beyond existence and non-existence itself. distant but knowable, transcendent but simple, only knowable through WISDOM, and the source of all

WISDOM = the spirit infused in good natured human beings, in animals, in plants, etc.

EVIL = the system of imperfection meant to enslave enspirited beings into materiality

>> No.12114741

>>12113691
His understanding of God, evil and omnipotent, though attractive at first sight, are very different from those Plato, and the Neoplatonists, for example. Most christian philosophy has followed Plato's and Aristotle's understanding of God, perfecting it and elaborating upon it. That's the reason it's not a good argument, even if it is very striking. Perhaps if it was aimed at a vulgar understating of Zeus, or a superficial one of the Triune God, it would be sufficient; otherwise, it just reveals Epicurus' shallowness.