So user, do you live in the best possible world?

So user, do you live in the best possible world?

Attached: hith-10-things-voltaire-painting-104418281-2.jpg (1015x1200, 156K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LRBOi-JrvMM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

What did you do, read the Wikipedia summary of Candide? Fucking retard.

No, I live in my garden.

Attached: white_sage.jpg (736x1163, 96K)

Or kick around lit for a few years and know there’s this Leibniz fanboy

its the only world i know so it might as well be the best.
since ya know
i dont have anything else to compare it to.

no, bc ted is still in fucking jail
and i'm here whacking off to brown-skin boys
that remind of my ex

But could it be better, is the question.
The answer always ought to be yes.

Unironically yes, everything serves an ultimate good

The question is worthless in design

>So user, do you live in the best possible world?
LOL what do you think

Attached: suburban sprawl.jpg (1600x1200, 760K)

Yes!

Attached: images (8).jpg (225x225, 5K)

There is only one possible world: the real world.

Yes, Heaven is thine; but this
Is a world of sweets and sours;
Our flowers are merely—flowers,
And the shadow of thy perfect bliss
Is the sunshine of ours.

No I'm surrounded by cocksuckers

It's probably the best I can do, but it's shit.

Seems so!
youtube.com/watch?v=LRBOi-JrvMM

Leibniz didn't think that human happiness was the only criteria in determining what world is the best possible world, but also things like preserving the simplicity of laws of nature (so that's why he can allow that a falling boulder can crush you and your family and it's still the best possible world)

Voltaire is retarded. Leibniz's view even if it isn't right is at least plausible.

The material world is incapable of being the best possible world. The complexity of this world prevents humans from escaping suffering, and we will be reborn in the Pure Land by the Grace of Jesus Christ.

What's wrong with that notion?

Attached: 1535153687339.jpg (960x640, 241K)

>at least plausible
... you sure about it

Voltaire followed Leibniz in Zadig, then rejected his ideas in Candide. It makes no sense mocking him since he defended both positions one after another. If you know Leibniz and read Zadig carefully you'll see that Voltaire actually understood him well enough too.

Btw you cannot judge our world without taking into account its future, so, criticizing Leibniz cannot simply rely on the opinion saying, 'the real world isn't good enough'. Leibniz was perfectly aware of this and addressed this issue in his letters to Bourguet.

Attached: based_voltaire.jpg (463x719, 111K)

Leibniz argument for Best Possible World has nothing to do with human happiness, nor any other criteria. It’s a purely logical argument from the fact that, of all worlds, God would will the best of them into existence.

The best possible world is not enough to fulfill my dream of being vored by a gts