Employing the principle of charity, I will initiate a review of this book with as little criticism as practicable. Leibniz is an significant figure, not for philosophy per se, but for originating Mathematical Logic – so, I guess philosophy – the ideas of kinetic energy, and Calculus. Of course, you can debate the whole Newton vs. Leibniz hokum somewhere else! All of these accomplishments are astounding; therefore, I opine that Leibniz should be remembered for all the preceding achievements. Now is where it gets awkward. Leibniz accepted the ontological proof for the existence of God; and by God I mean the Christian God of 17th Century (the purpose of this review is not to talk about beliefs, I will just leave that phrasing ambiguous). Leibniz advised that God could have chosen any sort of world; since, it is possible. Nevertheless, since He [God] is perfect by definition, “this is the best of all possible worlds.” Of course, Leibniz would be ridiculed by Voltaire for this ludicrous deduction in Candide, but I digress. Leibniz's argument goes something like this: Life is not worth living if we do not have free will. Free will is the purchase price of sin. A world without free will is not worth living in. Therefore, “this is the best of all possible worlds.” Yes, it does go like that, and even the…show more content… Leibniz's reasoning is inclined towards inconsistencies, and at times, incoherence. Moreover, Leibniz's formulation of us living in “the best possible world” is difficult to quantify when, in modernity, you see an ample share of the world living in unbearable circumstances (v.g., I flush my toilet everyday with water cleaner than most of the world's drinking water). To explain to someone that the reason they are living in squalor is for the “greater good” would be derisory. Hence, one can easily understand why Voltaire so effortlessly lampooned Leibniz on his “best possible world”
