A Critique of the Best Possible World in the Philosophy of Leibniz and its Implications for our Existential Reality

Abstract

The notion of the best possible world faces several challenges when confronted with the existence of evil. The problem of evil and suffering in the world is an aged significant challenge in philosophy. There have been various theories, aiming to solve the problem of evil. However, these theories have been criticized by many philosophers and theologians. Leibniz also attempted to reconcile the existence of evil with his belief in the best possible world by positing that evil is a necessary part of the world and is outweighed by the good in it. He posits that the world we live in is the best possible world that God could have created. His view is based on the idea of God as a perfect being, who created the world with the intention of maximizing the amount of good in it. Thus, if God is a perfect being and created everything to be good, how then do we explain existence of evil? One can also ask, is the idea of best possible world an illusion or is it real? If it is not real, is being optimistic the best state of mind one can have especially in this world plagued by evil? To what extent is man free? By analyzing his texts through the hermeneutic method, this research elucidates Leibniz’s belief in a pre-established harmony, wherein all elements of the world interconnect perfectly to manifest the best feasible state of affairs. This investigation highlights the inherent shortcomings of Leibniz’s philosophical stance when confronted with the gritty realities of existence. Also pointing out its implication in the modern world. The hermeneutic analysis uncovers discrepancies between the idealized “best possible world” and the empirical world marked by suffering, moral dilemmas, and inherent imperfections. This research concludes that there is tension between Leibniz’s metaphysical optimism and the complex, often unpredictable, nature of human experiences and therefore emphasizes that purely metaphysical interpretation of the suffering in the world, is limited, being that it neglects the existential aspect of human existence.