imascholar

Best possible world and individual concept. When god picks you he creates the best possible world. In ur concept involved not only truth about you but your relation to everything in the universe in past/present/future. Logical connection b/w god creating best possible world and creating you.

Pre-Established Harmony? L's theory of causation. God created particular possible you, all the truths in your concept are contained in you. SO, everything contains its entire history already. Experience of time, its difference in expression of universe of each created individual at every moment of timeline that is contained in the each individual concept. My giving a lecture is my particular way of expressing the universe. Its more clearly expressed that I give lecture right now than that I spend all Sunday's night working on a paper, at this point in time that part of my timeline is not clearly expressed. But its equally true of me that I lecture you on Leibniz and also that something going on somewhere, it is equally contained in my individual concept.

Notion of expression is !!! We express more clearly those thing that happen right now and here than somewhere in other time.

Clock-Store. You walk in and all clocks strike 3pm. 3 ways u can explain that fact. Why they strike at same time?
Ok, obviously it must be the case that clocks cause each other to strike - causal powers theory of causation (Malebranche hates this view
Occasionalism - Ok, there is store keeper, they strike at same time not because they have causal powers, but because the store keeper makes 'em all strike at the same time. Clocks are occasions, and keeper willed the general law for them all to strike at same time
Pre-Established Harmony (middle view). Each clock contains causal power in a sense that each clock runs on its own but clocks don't affect each other (no outside powers in clocks). So why strike at same time? Well, it happens b/c that shop keeper set 'em in such a way that when they run on their own, they strike at same time.

Universe as a clock shop, and people are clocks that run on their own and all made by a clock-maker, he is so good that he can make things happen to all things at same time by setting clocks up at the very beginning, not intervening all the time. God set 'em up so that they fit pattern of best possible world.

When u express particular view about you, other individuals around also express truth about them, less or more clearly. So individuals don't directly operate on each other, but what we see that each guy expresses his own individual concept, so that they create a pattern of light, as causation in an ordinary sense. One light blinks after another, but they do not affect each other. Lights run a predetermined program that create patters - appearance of motion/causation.

Individuals have no real contact with each other. I have no direct experience of you, I have impressions that I assume are you. Existence of others is the best explanation of the pattern that we observe, experience.

L attack on thesis that we see all things in God (Malebranche), Ontologism, or Vision in God. Which is, we have infinite ideas that could come from our minds (how finite can contain the infinite) or that we perceive an object separate from us, ie God. For M its absurd to think that we can have infinite ideas, cause we r finite. Idea as immediate object of perception, M agrees that we can have ideas of infinite. L is sympathetic to M view. But he claims that its absurd to think that our ideas are someone else's. So we either perceive something infinite or how finite substance can include the infinite. L answer is that each substance in finite only in one particular way, I include in my concept all truths of god and nature, in myself I'm infinite. All finite things include truths about everything including infinite being. In ur concept can be contained infinite truths. L says, each individual is the image of god, but we can't see from all perspectives like god, but only from one perspective. God sees from every perspective but he sees every possible perspective in every possible world. We are more limited in our expression and perspective, but otherwise we r infinite. We see ideas in ourselves, not in god, we just don't see infinite clearly.

What can God know? Thomas Aquinas' view or Traditional View
1.
Things that are actual, have definite truth or falsity of being actual (if they actually happen its true that they actually happen)
2.
Things that are possible, known as truly possible, anything that is actual is possible.

Contingent counterfactual of freedom. Ex. if I watch TV tomorrow I will watch firefly. If I do watch TV and I do watch firefly, then its definitely true that both parts are true but whole sentence is compound, second part depends on first. If free will is ability to do otherwise than u actually do, then it's not clear that right now not having made decision there is any definite truth value to the claim of first part of sentence, it's possible I won't do it. Its contingent, its not necessary true, and implies free choice. Suppose I do something different, don't watch TV at all. It's a possibility b/c of free will I can do many number of choices, then first part of conditional and second are false. So it's a counterfactual proposition, ends up being false.

So is this statement a claim of possibility or of something actually true. Possible or actual? Mercy. One might say, there is no necessity in the link b/w two parts, I might watch something else. So even if I do watch TV, it doesn't follow I'll watch firefly. So, there is no definite truth value in connection b/w parts. No necessary connection in the link. Sentence is neither true nor false.

Molina suggested, suppose there is something true of false. Traditional view said that we have meaningful sentence that could be true or false but isn't actually true or false. So, suppose, this sentence is true or it's false. Not an absurdity. They won't divine knowledge to be as board as possible.

Traditionalist would say, there is a problem, you'd deny free will if you claim it is def true or false. My decision to go to store will logically imply me buying milk. If this is actually true, then we don't have free will. Molina had to reconcile two things. He denied all God's knowledge division into two categories. God's knowledge of vision (that are actual) and his self-knowledge (things are possible)

Possible natural knowledge (god knows his own power and thus all possibilities)
Middle Knowledge (wassup with that? Molina is not very clear about it)
Actual Knowledge of vision (nothing can exists unless god allows it to exist)

He sometimes refers to it as super comprehension. God knows your free will so well; he knows what you will do. Is it determinism? So what you would do is prior to your choice. Molina doesn't want to be a determinist. The way in which god knows our ability to choose freely is important, when he creates the world, he knows all possibilities the world can take, so God deliberates on all this possible orders of nature and he chooses one of them and creates the world that particular way and in this way it makes this sentence def true or false. God creates all universe from begin to end in one instant of creation.

Traditionalist will still say its determinism.

Molinism - Jesuits vs Dominicans - traditionalists. Another opponent of molinism are Jansenists. Strong view of divine predestination. They are determinists. Free will that is compatible to everything happening by divine determination. Dispute b/w Jansenists and Jesuits.

Leibniz develops his new view, he is a compatibalists (Jansenists) but he takes some things from molinists. For his this is the best possible world. There are a lot of possible worlds, order of nature, god can choose among them. God can only choose the world with simplest laws and richness of the effect, an intersection point b/w those two. L thinks that god has individual concept of every person. This concept contains what you did, doing and will ever do. When god creates u he actualizes this concept. Its true of me that I talk while in Russia somebody shot a bird. U r related to everything in the world in some way, so ur individual concept includes the entire world. When god chooses the world to create he picks one and creates you, in doing so he creates entire universe. If things were different then god would create someone else who is very similar to you. L kinda accepts middle knowledge, but on L view there are infinitely many possible Brandons and each is different, but very similar. In creating universe he creates only one Brandon. L is a compatibalist.

Mavpertuis is a physicist agreed with Leibniz about final causes in the world. He discovered the least action principle. Simplicity of laws is part of God's aim, purpose.

L's position on miracles (???). Everything in universe happens necessarily b/c god created it as best possible world. Since every individual concept contains truth about all others, L denied that there is any strong diff b/w miracles and ordinary operations of laws. Basic idea is that all truths in individual concept follow necessarily but not all are equally central to the individual. Some truths are more fundamental, like parents or feeling of hunger, there are degrees of centrality to the truths that are within one's nature. Very central things to me impose sharp limits on what I can do. Miracles relate to being in best possible world, it doesn't follow strictly from central core of individual concept but more from general high order laws of which we are ignorant. Creation and incarnation are two strict miracles that happened. They follow only form god himself, not from nature of this world.

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

Rationals – search for foundation of science. L is lawyer, math hobby, invention of calculus, dispute with Newton. Now we use Leibniz notation. Criticized Cartesians laws of motion.

569 . L writes headings first.

On the divine perfection and that God does everything in most desirable way

God is absolutely perfect being. Consequences of it? Several entirely diff perfections in nature and they all belong to him in highest degree. What is perfection? Forms and natures that are not capable of highest (maximum) degree are not perfection such as greatest number involves a contradiction [ there is no max number ] (ex. Power's max degree is that covers all possibilities). Max degree of power/knowledge involves no contradiction!

Spinoza had sharp distinction b/w looking at world anthropomorphically (how we desire) and how it is really is, L disagrees with this distinction. L said, that 'the more enlightenment we are about god's works the more we'll find them in conformity with our desire'. God’s creation is such that perfectly wise man will find it perfect in every way. The more we understand creation the wiser we are the more our desire is precisely what we find in creation, creation becomes everything we can possibly want.

Against Those Who Claim There is no Goodness in God's Work or that the Rules of Goodness are Arbitrary.

1st one is Spinoza as his target. Works of God are good for the sole reason that God has made them. External denomination – [chair] label I put on things b/c I relate to them in a certain way, it does not identify anything in the thing itself. L says, some people say this: ”what makes world good is that God considers it good”, so goodness is external denomination, nothing in thing itself that makes it good. L denies this position, on the contrary, he says, things are good in themselves. Without seeing goodness in creations we have no way to conclude that god is good. By considering his works we discover their creator, works must carry his mark in themselves. If we recognize something good in creation itself and so deduce that their creator is also good. Otherwise we cannot conclude that god is good. Spinoza's develops idea that goodness is only extrinsic denomination. What makes a pie good is that god has decided, labeled pie as a good thing. L argues that perfections are in things themselves, they indicate excellence of objects themselves.

Voluntarism – goodness of things is result of divine will, it ends up making God a tyrant, arbitrariness, takes away our own judgment of goodness of things, evil and good is arbitrary. All act of will presuppose reason for willing and this reason is naturally prior to will.

Descartes' position on Eternal Truth – principle of non-contradiction or math truths. D thinks that these truths are true by the will of god. God is efficient cause, all truths are effects of divine will. This is example of voluntarism regarding eternal truths. No1 else agrees with this position. If everything depends on god's free choice to such degree, then we have to admit possibility that God could have created world where something could be black and not-black and 2+2=5. this position renders our reason useless, we couldn't know the world by pure reason. Rationalist couldn’t agree with it.

Naturalism - Spinoza argues that all truth follows from divine nature, which is logically prior to anything else in the divine. Intellect gives the will something to will about. S is a naturalist regarding eternal truth. Nature, intellect and divine will in that order. So eternal truths are result of divine nature and so prior to divine intellect and will, every truth follows from divine nature. S is naturalist. Malebranche has a different position: objective reason that makes us all rational is God's own self image. M is also a sort of naturalist about eternal truth, he said that God has to act as reason tells him to act because he by nature loves order which is part of reason, so god’s reason is more powerful than god. He always acts accordingly to his reason. For S all contingent truths are also necessary also, but hard to understand.

Leibniz is an intellectualist about eternal truths. Not only god’s will is productive, what makes things true, divine intellect is also a productive power, but acts in a diff way producing diff sort of thing. Will produces contingent truths that could be otherwise, not necessarily true. Intellect produces necessary eternal truths, the opposite of them involves a contradiction. God does not produce truths out of free choice it is result of god's understanding of himself, these truth are result of God being rational. L has active view of intellect.

Why are those truths true? Is because nature of universe is that way, or maybe in some other universe some other truth are foundational.

Descartes makes necessary truths high level contingent truths. Spinoza collapse contingent truths into necessary truths, but just don't have the same knowledge as of necessary truths. L ultimate theory of relation b/w contingent and necessary truths is that last can be reached by finite analysis while contingent require infinite analysis and only god can do it. Malebranche position is that there are necessary and there are contingent truths and they are completely different sorts of things.

God acts necessarily in perfect ways

Is this the best possible world?

L says yes! And its obvious. God (perfect) so he acts in best possible way so does he make the world perfect? Aquinas says, yeah… but in a very limited sense. (teacher writes bad essay as example of errors to teach his students) Traditional view, yes god is perfect and always acts in best possible way and yes world is best possible but we don’t have a clear idea of what god is doing so it allows world itself be extremely imperfect. Another view (L has it in mind), Malebranche is his target. (Arnauld greatest critic of Malebranche).

God is able to make world more perfect than this one, where rain falls where needed. But to do it he will have to multiply laws of physics, no longer simple. In short, this world is very imperfect, M says, what matters is that god has to act in best possible way, simple and orderly way, b/c this world can be understood in simple laws of physics. L insists that this world is best possible world! Some aspects if considered on their own are not perfect, but taken as a whole, is the best. Simplest and richest way. This world unifies in the simplest way the richest diversity of effects. Two goals of god, to act in simplest way and to produce richest effect, this world is at intersection of those two goals. Proportion b/w god's action and what he does in acting. World with lot of minds and each mind can see it from different perspective, thus its kinda creating many worlds.

Nicolas Malebranche 1638-1715

Health problems. Priest in oratory of divine love, scholastics he didn’t like. Bookstore – treatise on man by Descartes, human body as extension, mechanistic terms. If Cartesian dualism is true, then mind is not mechanistic, we really are our minds, superior to our bodies. Ability to rise above physical limitations. Focus on mind, overcoming the body. M spread Cartesian ideas in Europe.

Ontologism or ‘vision in god’

We see all things in god, he is direct object of our mental activity, thru him we can think about anything at all. It was criticized widely.

Infinite, we can think bout things as infinite. We r finite yet we can recognize something as infinite. How? Well, we don’t really have any idea of infinite. World traveler argument. Perfectly round planet, man falls from clouds and starts walking on earth. He goes and goes, finally sits down. His journal: <0,1,2,3>, you can go forever. and so on as indefinite is Who knows how much more there is to go? Or ‘and so on’ as genuinely infinite as in math. We can make this distinction, which is in itself important. B/w indefinite vs infinite ‘and so on’. Then we do have some idea of infinite. Also, if we had no real idea of infinite, then Pythagorean theorem is false strictly speaking (infinitely precise number).

Q, this idea of infinite as we finite being have how is it related to us when we think about it. Is it in some way part of us, when we have intellectual perception of math. A puzzle! ‘how a finite being can contain something infinite?’. If we can’t contain something infinite, then that infinite we are perceiving is some object. So either we can contain an infinite (m denies) or what we think about when we think about infinite is actually existing something infinite, as perferct infinite being. When we think, we always think of something. When we think of nothing, we think of something really general, has no particular limits, its infinite, god. This thing has to be something, actually existing and distinct from us.

What if we think of finite and negating it, infinite is what is not finite. Ok, but w/o beggin the q, tell us how we rec things as finite? By recognizing that what we think about is not infinite. U can’t start with finite and then build infinite. Why? Infinite is not contructed out of finite, however if u have idea of something infinite, it gives u a way to recognize something as finite.

We might say, well we can take a bounch of finite things (circles) and smear them together in our minds, infinite grounds of possibilities. BUT, distinction b/w ‘and so on’s”. not indefinitely many possible circles but infinitely many possible circles.

God is precondition to any thought at all. This background contains all possibilities, when we think of any particular thing we recognize a particular way of infinite perfect being, rec potential of squares. Whenever we think of something we think of god, insofar as he cotains w/in himself a certain set of possibilities.

Still some ideas are more perfect than others, minds than bodies. Ideas in god have a certain order, and acc to it we measure ourselves morally. Universal reason as summing up of order of all ideas, all possibilities. Order is so fundamental, not even god can act against it. Reason there is ordre in god, that god has perfect self-knowledge, and in it he perfectly represents himself to himself. God loves his self-representation, so everything he does is part of his love of self-reason. So god can’t act contrary to order. We see this order, we have direct access to divine mind. This universal reason is 2nd person of the trinity “divine word”. God divine word is god’s intellectual conception of himself, traditional identification. But divine word is a ‘person’, thus reason is not a passive collection of ideas, it is a divine agent. It not only shows us ideas, reason shows ideas to us, thinking is done by divine word (god) not ourselves. It also gives us feelings, states of mind, like intellectual and moral conscience, gifts of universal reason.

Theory of idolatry

For Hume all ideas trace back to some sort of sensory impressions. M says that ideas are more fundamentally than impressions, all rationalists think that way. Hume is different. Impressions are more important. Ideas in terms of impressions. Yet Hume was very influenced by M thought, especially Hume’s theory of causation.

M holds that order is so fundamental that even god can’t act against it. God is good in general. God has to make everything that acts according to order. Being moral is acting according to order. But we don’t! b/c at some point we had a fall from reason. We have impulse, love of good in general (god), when we go wrong is when impulse to loving good in general occurs thru loving particular things (pizza). Problem is that we love a particular thing and we stop, instead of looking further for God.

Theory of causation – occasionalism

Bodies have power to act, causal powers, WRONG! Only god can be a true cause, only he can be as such that whatever he will, happens necessarily. Occasional causation, not true causation, bodies are not true causes, but occasional. God does everything acc to General Laws, or causal link b/w cause and effect. God is willing the general law so necessarily everything has to act according to it. Causation in regular world is regularity of events according to General Law. Things happen according to laws.

4 possibilities of where we get idea of cause: 1. external objects 2. will over bodies 3. will over mind 4. God. Hume argues against first 3, that this cannot be the source of our idea of necessary causation. Hume takes arguments from M.

Obj1, Billiard ball argument: All we see is one thing happens and then another thing happens.

Obj2, Anatomy arguments: when I will my hand to move, I don’t have any control over what is happening in my body, I don’t have direct access to way my muscles move or nerve signal travels, I trust that everything will occur according to laws, I only will and acc to general law my hand moves.

Obj3, Creation from nothing argument. Will over Mind: I will to think of something and it pops up in our mind. U think you create things from nothing. Its absurd to think you can create things from nothing.

Hume is skeptic, empiricist, very close to atheist. Similar to Malebranche's Idolatry, he has similar account to how paganism arises. P761, when ppl attribute bodies special power to make them happy or sad, hurricane or lightning is caused by some being.

Obj4, Hume breaks out from Malebranche. Hume argues, if we get idea of causation from god, then anything could happen, even most absurd things and there won't be any regularity. Malebranche disagreed, his occasionalism is in part based on his ontologism, that we have access to divine reason, which is divine order.

God, Free Will and Evil

Two basic positions, Jansenism – Determinism vs. Molinism – attempt to have both claims that god is omnipotent and all knowing and that we have general free will. M wanted middle position: so J are right in some sense; what free will is not something positive, like causal power, that would be a divine quality, but our free will is actually of free won’t. everything positive in our free will is directly from god, we contribute a limitation, we stop at something that we shouldn’t. God allows evil! (Leibniz) M argues that its impossible to have a completely perfect world, logical contradiction. For every world god could make he could make better one. Our world is under construction, incomplete, in it god chosen to act in simplest and most fruitful ways (general laws) so b/c of that evil happens. God act necessarily perfectly according to order but he makes and imperfect world as he is morally required to do so b/c acting in simplest ways allows evil to exist in imperfect world on particular level. Things go wrong on particulars, when everything is done on general laws. B/c god acts perfectly there is evil in this world. Leibniz would say that acting perfectly will create perfect things. He will argue that we live in best possible world. For M its an oxymoron, logical contradiction. 1-8 Discourse.