David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Sophia 49 (1):1-13 (2010)
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that Leibniz’s form/matter defense of omnipotence is paradoxical, but not irretrievably so. Leibniz maintains that God necessarily must concur only in the possibility for evil’s existence in the world (the form of evil), but there are individual instances of moral evil that are not necessary (the matter of evil) with which God need not concur. For Leibniz, that there is moral evil in the world is contingent on God’s will (a dimension of divine omnipotence), with the result that even though it is necessary that God exerts his will, there are particular products of his will that are contingent and unnecessary—including human moral evil. If there are instances of evil which are contingent on God’s will and yet unnecessary, then the problematic conclusion for Leibniz’s view must be that human evil depends upon divine concurrence, not just for its possibility in the world (which is necessary) but for its instance (which is contingent). If the form/matter defense of omnipotence contains a true paradox, then God concurs in the form as well as the matter of evil. To assuage this difficulty for Leibniz, I will argue that he could either give up an Augustinian notion of evil, or rely upon a distinction between *potenta absoluta* and *potenta ordinate*, which was popular among important thinkers in the medieval period.
|Keywords||Problem of evil Moral evil Leibniz Omnipotence Divine concurrence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jill Graper Hernandez (2013). The Anxious Believer: Macaulay's Prescient Theodicy. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (3):175-187.
Similar books and articles
Marilyn McCord Adams (1987). Duns Scotus on the Goodness of God. Faith and Philosophy 4 (4):486-505.
Richard Swinburne (1978). Natural Evil. American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (4):295 - 301.
Theodore Guleserian (2000). Divine Freedom and the Problem of Evil. Faith and Philosophy 17 (3):348-366.
Bruce Langtry (2008). God, the Best, and Evil. OUP Oxford.
James R. Beebe, Logical Problem of Evil. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Franklin Perkins (2006). Reproaching Heaven: The Problem of Evil in Mengzi. [REVIEW] Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 5 (2):293-312.
Rafael Pangilinan (2010). Evil in Plotinus’ Hypostases of Being. Philosophy Pathways (150).
Catherine Jack Deavel (2007). Relational Evil, Relational Good: Thomas Aquinas and Process Thought. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (3):297-313.
Jill Graper Hernandez (2005). Divine Omniscience and Human Evil: Interpreting Leibniz Without Middle Knowledge. Philosophy and Theology 17 (1/2):107-120.
James Franklin (2003). Leibniz's Solution to the Problem of Evil. Think 5 (5):97-101.
Added to index2010-01-27
Total downloads74 ( #54,374 of 1,790,294 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #141,142 of 1,790,294 )
How can I increase my downloads?