The Error of Leibniz: Resolving the Problem of Omni-benevolence

Part I: Creating the paradox of a Perfect System 1. Introduction This tractate, Tractate 5: Leibniz and Theodicy, appears relatively unimportant when compared to the voluminous material found within the previous tractates. One must not forget, however, that we are dealing with abstractual concepts... ... It is theodicy we must examine in order to understand how we are to redirect the ?masquerading metaphysician? back to becoming a purist, a legitimate metaphysician as opposed to acting within an ontologist masquerading as a metaphysician. It is Leibniz who introduced the concept of ?perfection? and ?imperfection? and labeled such a concept with a unique term of its own, theodicy... ... In terms of the shortness of the tractate, there is no doubt the tractate is ?shorter. The concepts with which the work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, deals are abstractual in nature and as such ?perfection? and ?imperfection? are found to be, metaphysically speaking, non-relativistic in nature. Should one feel uncomfortable with the concept of puristic non-relativistic values of abstraction, one may find comfort in reexamining the diagram introducing this tractate. Upon doing so, admirers of Leibniz may find comfort in observing that although the tractate regarding Leibniz may be ?shorter? than the other tractates, Leibniz and the concept with which he dealt take up more space within the diagram and require the listing of his name more frequently than any other philosopher. In addition, the diagram credits Leibniz with having established the first thought of there acting within a distinctly separate and independent ?location? existing ?isolated from? the physical. So much for the ?shortness? of the Leibniz? tractate, but what of the emotional approach versus the less objective approach found within the tractate itself as ?compared? to the first four tractates? Leibniz introduced a very emotional concept, the concept of humanity, the concept of all forms of abstractual knowing acting within ?imperfect? versus simply the individual in the puristic sense of the word. Such personal re-characterization of our very essence deserves its own unique emotional response. Leibniz, through his work, re-characterizes our, humanity?s, actions as being ?imperfect?. Leibniz creates the concept of imperfection becoming a location of the lack of ?perfect quality? through the emergence of a new location. As the new location emerges, its characteristic becomes defined: Perfection exists. As such the concept of ?omni?? spreads to action as well as knowledge, power, and presence. Through Leibniz, ?Separation through exclusion? becomes a necessity. And where will examining Leibniz and theodicy take us? It will take us to the metaphysician who perhaps was the first philosopher since Leibniz to discard the façade of being ?an ontologist working in the guise of a metaphysician?. It will take us to the work of Immanuel Kant himself. Leibniz attempted to create a term to resolve what he considered to be a paradox underscoring religious and philosophical thought. Theodicy, a term introduced by Leibniz to characterize the topic of God?s government of the world in relation to the nature of man. The problem is the justification of God?s goodness and justice in view of the evil in the world. He attempted to compartmentalize the contradictory discussion regarding the concept of a ?perfect? God being ?perfectly good? while allowing ?evil? to exist, while allowing evil to take place, while allowing evil to be created ?within? It?s personal creation which ?lesser? ?beings? call ?the universe?. But Leibniz failed to recognize that as soon as he accepted the first three forms of ?omni-?, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, than the fourth form, omnibenevolence, became an invalid concern to both religion and philosophy.