18 Answers

  1. In Voltaire's Candide, Pangloss also states that we live in the best possible world.

    The answer is very simple – our world is the only one we know, and therefore it is both the best and the worst of all worlds.

  2. The answer was given by the elder Paisius:

    You can live on the principle of a “fly”, which flying into the room sees only the rotten remains of meat or animal excrement, or you can-on the “principle of a bee”, which in the room immediately flies to sweet jam or a piece of marmalade, not paying attention to the rest.

    Everyone in this world creates their own world by choosing one thing and turning a blind eye to the other.

  3. It is possible that they are both right-If it is the only possible one, then it is also the best possible one, and it is also the worst possible one. It can also be not the only one, but one of the equivalent ones, and also the best and worst at the same time

  4. Both. Both are as close to the truth as possible, and both are extremely far from it.

    A person is a unique mathematical model. But even this model has an extremely large number of disadvantages.

    We develop science, move progress forward, have learned to interact with each other, but at the same time, our science knows ways to destroy ourselves, our progress allows us to create weapons faster and faster, and the ability to interact with each other is actively used by people in wars.

    Therefore, both are equally close and equally far from the truth…

  5. If there is only one world, then “the worst possible” and “the best possible” are the same thing. And trying to declare such things is a severe form of megalomania, an attempt to proclaim yourself a god.

  6. And who is closer to the truth pessimist or optimist, and why? That's when you give the answer for yourself, it will become clear who was closer to the description of your world.

  7. Oddly enough, both are absolutely right! And at what in any forms.Remember the wise Aesop with an answer about language! But here's the paradox, the reason ???why does a person, against all the rules, follow only one chosen form?

  8. The one who invented the Truth removed the balance between Good and Evil, and created Chaos in the minds and minds of many, sending them in search of the Truth that does not exist.

  9. There will always be a 50/50 split of opinion on such issues. Otherwise, humanity would have remade the world in its own way long ago. But, thank God, these are just opinions and views. God is God's, and man is man's.

  10. Perhaps God intended everything as described by Leibniz,but everything went according to Schopenhauer's scenario.As the unsurpassed V. S. Chernomyrdin said, ” We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.”A person is imperfect and his task is to try to somehow get closer to perfection.

  11. The basis of our material world is duality, i.e. everything has its own anti-dual: good-evil, light-shadow. So both are right here. It's just that these are two opposite views of the same thing.

  12. As far as I understood, when reading Leibniz, he did not mean the best of worlds, but the most likely world of all worlds. Well, with Schopenhauer, everything is clear. I like to reread it myself when I'm in the mood.

  13. ..because the human mind is dually contradictory…as for our mortal world in hell, it doesn't exist…the second coming of Jesus will bring-UNITY=RESURRECTION…this will be our INFINITE WORLD…

  14. Strictly speaking, it was worth putting Leibniz first in the question, because Schopenhauer's phrase is a direct answer to it.

    In principle, everything is quite simple and logically follows from the philosophical systems of everyone. Leibniz more or less belonged to the Enlightenment project, a significant feature of his philosophical views: the desire for universality of methodology. What else can you expect from a person who came up with a binary calculus system? And Leibniz attempted a” Theodicy ” – the justification of God. Why, if there is a God and he is good, do terrible things happen in the world and there is evil? Leibniz sums up his philosophical system to express the idea that ” everything is God's will.” Evil exists in three guises: metaphysical (imperfection), moral (sin), and material (suffering). God does not particularly like any of them, but he allows them to exist in order to realize free will, and also because moral and material evil can prevent greater evil. Since God is not a fool, he thought it all out in advance, established an exact correspondence between good and evil, his will and the ability of man to choose. Therefore, the evil in this case exists not just to be, but with necessity. That's why everything is arranged so well and smoothly, according to God's will, in this best of all worlds (And thanks to Leibniz for computers, the Internet, and everything else).

    From Leibniz, the thread goes back to Kant, who closed the Enlightenment project and created a philosophical system that was extremely pessimistic about the ability of man to make sense of the world. Although he was strongly influenced by Leibniz, Kant was very skeptical of such philosophical quirks, since it all dictates a view from the point of view of eternity, and Kant established that there is no other point of view than that of a particular person. If you are talking about something, then you are talking about something that is specifically given to you and is supposed to be given by you.

    From Kant we go to Schopenhauer, who considered himself a true Kantian, the most faithful exponent and follower of his ideas (he did not suffer from modesty).For Schopenhauer, the world is will and representation. Everything we know about the world is given to us in a representation through which we discover that the world is based on will. It is unconscious, illogical, and unified. But it manifests itself in all living beings as pure aspiration and therefore inevitably leads to conflicts. The struggle for existence, the endless bickering of all against all for the right to possess a large piece of this world (Yes, it is Schopenhauer's ears that stick out from Freud's concept of the unconscious). Leibniz's God had a plan, Schopenhauer's will has no plan and cannot be; it is an inevitability that is experienced by everyone born, and therefore doomed, to suffer in this struggle of all against all. The will is stronger than the intellect, the will is stronger than morality, the will is stronger than anything else, and it never stops. The pleasure is fleeting, and then you want more and for this you need to go and do something bad to someone. History is a bloody farce without meaning, built on the accidents generated by evil, which originates from the collision of the manifestations of will in human beings. Although Schopenhauer had ideas about individual salvation (aesthetic insight, austerity, and compassion), this did not make the world a better place in his eyes. So, it is unlikely that such a world should be called the best.

    Who's right? With all due respect to the great philosophers, this is too radical a statement of the question. So, both are assholes. Leibniz openly goes into scholasticism, putting philosophy at the service of religious dogmas. Schopenhauer largely starts from purely subjective things and is sometimes too inconsistent. But if I don't shy away, I would bet on Schopenhauer, because he is more about what to do with all this and how to act in such a world.

  15. The world is mostly divided out of contentment and discontent.

    Dissatisfaction with the fact that there are diseases, death, shit, inadequate personalities, psychos, murderers, bandits, the devil(he is the main loser and brings failures to others)…

    Contentment is that you have something to do: eat, watch movies, play games, work at your favorite job, read books, fantasize, listen to music, win…

    In this world, everything was mixed up. The world is like a mix of different parts.

    Art (for some garbage get millions) and power(slavery) from the devil. Technology from God(God is a tech guy).

  16. I do not know what and how they thought but the truth is far from azhivut people are not in universities and on the ground and it is clear that the social stratification is very clearly hints about the difference between the life of the well-fed and not very different opportunities here and life is different another thing is that who and how to use it because

  17. Both are equally close to each other and far from the truth. They are close because they are children of a Western worldview and lifestyle. They basically couldn't go beyond this mindset.
    Because some people say that the truth belongs to God, and I agree with them.

  18. I do not know what exactly these philosophers wanted to say, and no one knows what thoughts they wanted to express, but I can give my interpretation. Our world is the worst possible, because it can never compare to the ideal worlds that we can imagine, but at the same time it is the best, because unlike imaginary worlds, it exists in reality. For example: that you will choose a piece of bread or a photo of a very delicious ice cream. So both are right. You will note that I have not given you any answers to your questions, but this is the essence of philosophy: it doesn't give clear answers, it makes you think.

Leave a Reply