Discourse On Metaphysics Essay Example For Students

Discourse On Metaphysics Essay In the Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz he suggest that, â€Å"we maintain that everything that is to happen to some person is already contained virtually in his nature or notion, as properties of a circle are contained in its definition.† This assertion raised a difficulty for Leibniz. This difficulty was that â€Å"human freedom will no longer hold, and that an absolute fatality would rule over all our actions as well as over all the rest of what happens in the world.† With such a reality there would be no use for free will and whatever fate succumbs an individual is the will of the Most High; in other words, being destined. But for Leibniz, this is not the determined reality of humanity. Leibniz asserts, that it is God and only God, who has the insight of mans greatest reality. And man is unable to derive all of what he is, and is to become. For only God can foresee his fate. Leibniz suggest it is the perfect and good outcome, that God has prepared for each indivi dual; and it is up to each person to fulfill that potential end. This potential end (which God only knows all possible outcomes), is achieved through the person making free decisions and determining her fate. God decrees only the most perfect possible outcome for humanity, and this notion is woven within the cosmic tapestry of the human mind (a priori). Though this is the decree of God, that only the most perfect possible reality shall be for mankind; the imperfect is possible. For Leibniz states, â€Å"as I have already said, although God’s choice of the best is certain, that does not prevent the less perfect from being and remaining possible in itself, although it will not occur; for it is not its impossibility but its imperfection which makes God reject it.† Therefore, only the most perfect outcome is to be for an individual. These outcomes and future outcomes of life are based off the innate nature of the individual. And it is the individual who will choose the bes t possible outcome of all possible outcomes for her life. For God wills it so. This being so, what makes up the nature of a person who chooses to perceive and know God, versus, the person who chooses to live his life consciously perceiving a reality without God? This person who chooses not to know God, denies the existence of such a Being. If God decrees the most perfect outcome for man, why would such a notion or nature be created and manifested within that individual? Because then, the person only has the most perfect possible outcomes of endless possible outcomes within the confines of his innate nature; which is not to know the Divine Creator. This being the case, he condemns himself according to the scriptures. In attempting to reveal insight upon the first part of this two-fold question, one must first discern the meaning of human nature. According to the authoritative opinion of The Random House College Dictionary human nature is defined as; â€Å"the psychological and social qualities that characterize mankind.† In assessing the psychological and social qualities of mankind, it was easy to find oneself consumed within the vastness of characteristical qualities for which humanity has been endowed. These qualities range from ignorance to knowledge; grief to joy; from incontinence to self-restraint; lust to perseverance; injustice to justice; from malice to compassion, and other psychological and social quality which fall under these particulars. Therefore, human nature consist of an almost infinitude amount of possible psychological and social qualities. It also appears as if no one quality has any prevalence over another quality in accordance to its impact upon the human condition. It seems as that at birth these qualities are already present, but unexpressed. These qualities continue to be unexpressed, ‘less circumstances and experience invoke and develop them as the child becomes older. One can not be taught to feel happiness or sorrow. Nor can the nature of lust be thrust upon the human soul as a cloak is placed upon the person who is to wear it. It must be within the soul innate, a priori, lying dormant, and awaiting development. Now perhaps this is a possible reason why Leibniz suggest â€Å"that everything that is to happen to some person is already contained virtually in his nature.† For this individual’s human nature has an infinitude of possible psychological and social qualities; which gives him an infinite number of possible realities to live out, depending upon the qualities of his nature. In approaching the first part of the question, (what makes up the nature of a person who chooses to perceive and know God, versus, the person who chooses to live his life consciously perceiving a reality without God?), it is seen that an individual’s nature is made up of an innumerable amount of qualities, ranging from that of the divine to the profane. Homeless Books EssayBut on the other end of this spectrum, there are peculiar findings. In speaking to others who did not profess to have a desire to know God, some spoke of a similar nature and life to those who did profess to know and seek God. They did not find themselves ravaged by the torments described above. And if they did experience any torments or possessed those qualities throughout their everyday lives, it was of a mild manner; in no way forcing them to seek a divine influence. Those who sought God, spoke of trials that they had experience, but within these trials there was a sense of peace and comfort as they turned toward God. In the same respect, those who do not profess God, are able to find this same since of peace and comfort by turning to other human beings or their various loves and passions of life. The ability to commune with those who have transcended this plain of existence is unable to be examined and taken in to consideration. For if it were feasible, perh aps light could then be shed upon whether or not those who chose not to know God, did seek Him because they were now tormented, and only could hope for another chance, as they were leaving this world. Since that is not a present possibility, the remaining similar findings must be taken into account. These similarities bring up a puzzling question. Are the natures of one who chooses God and one who does not choose God the same? In light of the evidence of such a reality in the above description, in conclusion one can say that they are the same in nature. This strange, but intriguing finding brings cause for deeper investigation. If the nature of every individual is seemingly similar in its vast infinitude of possible qualities, then one must look at what difference lies between one who chooses God and on who does not choose God. The main and most significant difference between them is the choice itself. Then in essence, it has nothing to do really with the nature of the individual, b ut the choice that she makes about the relationship she is going to have with God. This brings the investigation to the second part of the two-fold question. If God decrees the most perfect outcome for man, why would such a notion or nature (a nature of a person who does not choose God) be created and manifested within that individual? Well, it must be suggested that the nature each human being is given has the same potential psychological and social qualities of each other. This has become evident. Leibniz states in his discourse that, God gives each person a nature that has only the perfect outcome intended. Thus, you will be given the best end pending on what qualities you are inclined to choose. If one chooses to know God, she will receive a life that is perfectly befitting of that choice. All the potential and possible circumstances, experiences, and conclusions will be in the thoughts of God, and will only be revealed to the individual in a finite way, though she possesses it in its entirety within her. And just like the person who has chosen God, the person who has not chosen God will receive her perfect outcome. If it is to be a life of torment and suffering, this is the perfect and good life according to the choices she makes inclined by her nature. Thus it can be stated, that the psychological and social qualities of human nature are the same. This being so, it is the choice one makes that determines if God will be sought after or not. The perfect end is decreed by God. It is the responsibility of the individual, what life path he will take according to his inclining nature. The choice is left up to the individual. And the choice concerning this matter of God, can easily be summed up in Blaise Pascal’s wager; either you choose for God, or you do not choose for God. But as fate deems it, as you are born, so must you choose!!!! Philosophy