Leibniz Philosophy and His Responses to Bayle Paper Example

The context of Leibniz philosophy and his responses to Bayle

Theodicy, as used by Leibniz, tends to defend the Natural theology. Through Theodicy, Leibniz was able to explain the contradiction information about God and connection of evil to theology. Most philosophers during the 17th and 18th worked mostly to try to enlighten on the relation between theology (faith) and philosophy (reason). Until then, no philosopher was able to explain the relationships between faith and reason. That will convince readers to Leibniz responses. The draft will also be about the ideas that will persuade readers to Leibniz responses.

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

Save 25%

Leibniz used Theodicy in coming up with his philosophy of the Christians in this world and how Jesus promoted natural theology (Russell, 34). He was able to use ideas and power explain the beliefs about Christianity. These ideas analyze the responses made by Leibniz to Bayle ideas. This draft describes the context of Leibniz responses to Bayle and Bayle ideas and provides the conviction of the reactions of Leibniz. The draft will also be about the reasons

From Leibniz perspective, he understands that Bayle argues it is difficult to understand the genesis of evil. According to Bayle, human beings would be happy if Adam had not sinned while being in the garden of Eden. The suffering that people go through is because of the evil that took advantage of Adam. From these ideas, Leibniz provides a different opinion. He says that if there were no evil, righteousness would not be highly valued. God created the best, and this means that the lack of crime would not mean that good things will not exist. The existence of human beings would not be there because of no sin. No sin would say that the earth will not have humans who are the most precious creatures.

Bayle also views that humans commit sins because of the freedom they have got. Bayle adds that crimes may be considered to be a sin by other humans and God may not consider it a sin. Sinning here means that it is not a human fault to sin. So, human commit crimes because of the reason, and thus it is not evil. Leibniz, on the other hand, believes that God created human as an intelligent creature who will be to know the differences of sin and right. Leibniz adds that it is the responsibility of man to choose to sin or be right.

Leibniz is not able to explain well really entails because it is a very complex universal factor. Leibniz acknowledges to his supporters that no one to misunderstand or hate Bayle because of his opinions. He urges them to respect Bayle's ideas because it is only contrary to the knowledge they have. According to Bayle ideas, Adam was pushed to sin by a good cause. Bayle explains that humans' sins as a result of power which to they see to be right and humans cannot control it. Leibniz, however, views that humans are capable of avoiding sinning.

Leibniz also believes that if there is the motion to sin, there is also a different power which can stop to curse. According to this, Leibniz suggests that humans cannot act on simple causes as this will not show them if they do evil or good acts. According to Bayle, God did not put sin on earth with any purposes that are why any actions done by a human should not be evil. But according to Leibniz responses, God placed evil on earth with intention knowing that humans are capable of choosing right and wrong.

Conviction on Leibniz responses to Bayle's idea

According to the answers, I think Leibniz was criticizing Bayle and other freethinkers on the challenges they are bringing to the society about religion. Leibniz offers philosophical explanations to them on how they are misinforming the community on matters of faith. (Leibniz et al., 213) He uses the views of other theologians to explain the realities of natural theology. From the responses, one would see that Leibniz was also targeting atheists and freethinkers. I firmly believe in the views and ideas that Leibniz has championed against Bayle. The responses made to Bayle by Leibniz can are philosophical correct. Bayle ideas when scrutinized closely can be seen to be unreasonable and thus misinforming.

According to the arguments, one will observe that Leibniz views Bayle as a genius who can influence a lot of people for his philosophical ideas. Leibniz, however, thinks that Bayles lacks an understanding of the relationship between reason and faith (Graetz et al., 165). He believes that faith and rights cannot be used to define together to define religion. I think the arguments put forward by Bayle lacks philosophical backing as it views humans only capable of expressing themselves with anger or in undesired behavior.

He proposes to people to reject the existing information about religions and to adopt new principles which are not well known. Bayle's ideas seem very pernicious according to me because it makes beliefs useless. With this response, a lot of readers may disapprove Bayle's ideas that seek to criticizes the way a lot of people view God. Bayle philosophy tries to persuade people that his thoughts are the true religions which are so misleading. In contrary Leibniz offers a lot of ideas and explanation which are very accurate and have philosophical backing, unlike Bayle.

The big difference between Leibniz and Bayle ideas lies in the belief of reason and faith. Bayle views that when reason and faith come together, they become very hostile. He firmly believes in logic that evil occurs because of uncontrollable power. While Leibniz believes in natural theology which accommodates both reason and faith, with his ideas, He develops a philosophy which critically disagrees with Bayle's ideas.

Reasons to convince readers about Leibniz responses

From the arguments, Bayle is observed to offer philosophies that try to persuade people that his ideas are the true religion which is so misleading. Leibniz in other hand tries to come with opinions that are very logic and reasonable which explains the sins that humans make. Bayle's argues that is only a sin if the one who did it see it as sin. Bayle's emphasizes that doing good and crime are related to evil. These ideas are very evident when Bayle uses David, Joquelot and Le Clerc in Polemic

Ideas that Bayle presents are very incorrect and misinforming when he says that sin and evil cannot happen without control. He believes that the crime that Adam committed is the reason why people are suffering and he is not happy. Lack of wisdom is what caused Adam to sin this is according to what he believes(Adams et al. 216). But in reality, the existence of humanity depends on sins and the lack of sin will insinuate no human presence.

Bayle's wrongly uses Jaquelot to explain the differences between the divines and man behavior. All these arguments created the foundations of what actions and behaviors acceptance according to your culture. The idea that God high status and invisibility is the reason for people to sin and do evil is very wrong and should not welcome. These assertions are according to Bayle's philosophy which is very misleading.

Bayle arguments are very shallow as they do not consider the abilities of humans to be to think on their own. That why he sees that human are not capable of stopping sins, but they follow unseen forces. While Leibniz sees that God placed evil on earth with purposes because he understands that human can decide on good and bad. According to the natural theology, man is supposed to adore God and not question him. Bayle's arguments seem to questions the work of the lord, unlike Leibniz ideas which supports and loves God's creation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the audiences need to understand that Leibniz supports the religious upbringing of people which will make them have the right attitude towards morals. Religious education will individuals always stay away from sins which will make them follow the existing ethical rules. Freedom does not lead to sins or evil as Bayle suggests. God saw it fit to create a human who will be intelligent enough to understand and be able to differentiate between right and sin. Humans have the power to stop crime and evil. God created evil with purpose, not the way Bayle puts it.

Works Cited

Adams, Robert Merrihew, and Richard Merrihew Adams. Leibniz: determinist, theist, idealist. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1994.

Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.

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

Russell, Bertrand. The philosophy of Leibniz. Routledge, 1992.