Context of the Leibniz Response to Bayle

Leibniz's Theodicy is genuinely said to figure among the most, noblest uplifting philosophical works of the 18th centuries. Notably, the majority of the 17th and 18th-century philosophers and enlighteners focused and spoke on the essential harmony of faith and reason, the theology and philosophy. However, there is no philosopher joined together and consummated the beliefs and assumptions of the age with the use of power and ideas. In consideration of the beginning of the Theodicy, it becomes evident that Leibniz significantly played a crucial role in the introduction of his conception regarding the conception of Christianity's function in the world and the role of Jesus as the primary agent of natural theology. These aspects and ideas are significantly demonstrated in Leibniz's response and critical analysis of Bayle. This paper, therefore, offers the context of Leibniz arguments and response concerning Bayle and presents the conviction concerning the context in which Leibniz speaks about. Moreover, the paper will further indicate the reasons that I believe will lead my reader to share my belief regarding Leibniz response to Bayle ideas.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

According to Leibniz, Bayle recognizes per Holy Scripture, that there is only one principle, and this is known as an ethical principle. While this is so, Bayle asserts that it is impossible to respond to the challenges regarding the cause of evil. Bayle's arguments are based on the reasoning that if Adam had not sinned, then he would be happy and that human beings were only the subject to the physical evil based on renounced wisdom. Regarding these arguments, Leibniz offers a divergent opinion and provides a different response. In the view of Leibniz, if the evil had not been allowed, then the greatness of good would be undeniably limited. The absence of incarnation would still not prevent the existence of good things because God made the best. As such, the lack of sin would mean that humanity would further not exist. There would be no other creatures in the world that make up an essential component of the earth.

In another view, Bayle asserts that the author things being substantially kind had to be involved in the generation of sin. The pure good would mean that the perfection of things would stand at 6 degrees. This is however when there is no pain or sin. As such, the perfection integrates harmony and has one to step back for proper observation. In this case, therefore, evil is not evil at all. An action that humanity considers sin may not be sin in the Eyes of God but to the one who does it. Bayle offers an argument that evil is attributed to the freedom of creatures and that the reason is the cause of all evils. Therefore, it ought not to have been given. Leibniz, however, believes that God found it good to create man as a rational creature who will be able to know the meaning of sin and the things that constitute to the purpose of being right. Leibniz, however, mentions that he has no power or obligation to explain what constitutes to "good" because it is strictly made of the universal harmony. Leibniz recognizes and urges his audience that it should not be misunderstood that Bayle has different ideas of goodness and justice that are contrary to what they know. The benefactor has, therefore, should not give gifts he is aware will possibly be subjected to abuse.

According to Bayle, Adam must have received the faculty for doing wrong from the good principle. Humanity is unable to understand that it can be the principle of action and that receiving its existence as well as that of its faculties permits it to create its modalities through the use of appropriate power. Concerning this argument, Leibniz does not, however, believe that motion comes from elsewhere and that there is a possibility of being stopped. Contrary to Bayle's opinion, Leibniz thinks that there must be a force to stop it. As such, a creature cannot be propelled to act through simple permission because such kind of simplicity to work will not draw purely possible things nor place divinity in a strategic position to see the manner in which the creatures will act. The decrees subject a creature to circumstances that God foresaw.

Conviction Concerning the Context

I believe that Leibniz response to Bayle tremendously offers a philosophical critique of the defective, disfigured religion and the growing problem and challenge that the freethinking and libertinism pose ion the society. His arguments further present insights regarding how the theologians who observed beyond the conventional religion and based their notions of the reality and morality on the natural theology. A closer look at this the critical response would reveal that freethinking no less than the defective religion was a significant target of the Leibnizian enlightenment. I have a firm conviction about the arguments, issues and the ideas that Leibniz puts across. His response to Bayle has a strong philosophical foundation.

A close look at the arguments would reveal that Leibniz presents Bayle as a formidable and to some extent a thinker who can be admired who was a pre-eminent philosophical genius of the age. However, he considers Bayle as a fideist who lacks a reasonable basis on God's overriding goodness and justice. I believe that Bayle specifically meant to disturb the philosophical influence as he implies that the reasoning of humanity is confounded and is thus unable to meet the objections that he presents. He even calls people to disregard them and instead adopt the revealed dogma. These arguments are substantially pernicious in my view because it tremendously renders belief to become unreasonable. As such, the majority of the readers may be persuaded about the irrefutable solidity of Bayle's objections to our efforts in an attempt to justify the mechanisms that God uses. Bayle presents a lot of skepticism that misleads people to suppose that his mere objections are the string proofs for the religion's truth. In reality, Leibniz demonstrates a lot of valuable philosophical and practical reasoning regarding Bayle almost at the same time.

Set of Reasons to Convince readers about Leibniz readers

As observed, Bayle significantly presents a lot of skepticism that misleads people to suppose that his mere objections are the string proofs for the religion's truth. However, Leibniz comes with a strong effort to individuate a separating space between rational transparency as well as the absolute irrationality for the mysteries that Christians had. As such, Bayle's philosophy places great logical foundations of rational humanity as well as the foundation of any objective morality. These are the very arguments that Bayle employed when discussing David as well as in the Polemic with Jaquelot and Le Clerc. He emphasized that the absolute equivocity of humanity and its divine virtue is related to sin.

Bayle arguments are misleading when he says that inevitable results of any debate on the divine responsibility regarding sin and evil. They are based on the reasoning that if Adam had not sinned, then he would be happy and that human beings were only the subject to the physical evil based on renounced wisdom. However, the reality is that the absence of sin would mean that humanity would further not exist. The readers should be able to understand that the infinite distance between God and man which Bayle is trying to force Jaquelot to embrace emerged to be the principle of moral equivocity between the divine and the human actions. All these establish roadmap for the development of absolute ethical relativism. The assertion that God's pre-eminence and hiddenness is the cause of the different crimes and disorders is mostly misleading and should never be accepted as they are based on Bayle's intuitions.

Finally, readers must understand that Leibniz acknowledges a favorable upbringing with pious individuals as well as other factors that he observes and believes is the right moral attitude. As such, any move to accept the good principles makes people willing to serve and comply with the existing orders. Evil is not attributed to the freedom of creatures as Bayle argues. However, God found it good to create man as a rational creature who will be able to know the meaning of sin and the things that constitute to the purpose of being right.

Works Cited

Brogi, Stefano. "Leibniz and the Anti-Theodicy of Bayle." Theodicy and Reason: 197.

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. "Philosophical texts." (1998).