"All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well."
- Julian of Norwich
In Voltaire's well-known novella Candide: or, Optimism, Pangloss, a professor of "metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology" claims to have proven that "this is the best of all possible worlds". The central claim of Neo-Panglossianism is that Professor Pangloss was wrong, in that he did not live in the best of all possible worlds, but we do.
Note that this essay is intended only as an introductory description of the key tenets of Neo-Panglossian Philosophy; the detailed proof of these claims will not be included, being a topic deserving of separate treatment in its own post; likewise, the implications of these claims will not be fully explored herein for reasons of brevity.
Common Objections
The central claim of Neo-Panglossianism is at first glance surprising, and can be best understood by addressing some of the reasons that it is not already obvious that we indeed live in the best of all possible worlds:
Consider a hypothesized Utopia; does it not constitute a better world than that in which we live?
One may indeed post worlds with various advantages over ours. Moreover, one might think that, whatever good things exist in this world, whether natural or artificial, we may posit another world in which such virtues are found or achieved in greater measure. However, the world in which we live possess one virtue that is not and cannot be matched by such conjectures, namely that the the world in which we live exists, and those hypothesized do not. And it is absurd to claim that something can be good, without also being.
Suppose that the world in which we live does not in fact exist. Would this not disprove your previous point?
Were this supposition to be granted, it would indeed disprove the central claim of Neo-Panglossian philosophy. One may consider the case of a fictitious or hypothetical Neo-Panglossian philosopher in a fictitious or hypothetical world. This notional philosopher would believe that they lived in the real world, that best of all possible worlds, but would be incorrect.
Considering this argument, however, you will find that Neo-Panglossianism has, the merit (rare among philosophical positions) that those of its adherents who actually exist are correct in their convictions.
Should the state of the world improve, would not the world of the future be both better than that of the present?
This is a reasonable point. The Neo-Panglossian position is that, should matters take a turn for the better, the world of the future will be better than the present, and be the best of possible worlds, but it not better than the present yet, as it does not yet exist. We may always say that that, at present, the present is the best of possible moments.
Further Topics
The planned Neo-Panglossianism sequence shall include:
An Introduction to Neo-Panglossian Philosophy
A Proof in Detail That This is the Best of Possible Worlds
Metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology in Neo-Panglossian Thought
A Neo-Panglossian Guide to The Good Life
Although the subsequent posts in the sequence have not been written, this author can assure you that they will be completed and posted in due time, unless it is for the best that they are not.
"All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well."
- Julian of Norwich
In Voltaire's well-known novella Candide: or, Optimism, Pangloss, a professor of "metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology" claims to have proven that "this is the best of all possible worlds". The central claim of Neo-Panglossianism is that Professor Pangloss was wrong, in that he did not live in the best of all possible worlds, but we do.
Note that this essay is intended only as an introductory description of the key tenets of Neo-Panglossian Philosophy; the detailed proof of these claims will not be included, being a topic deserving of separate treatment in its own post; likewise, the implications of these claims will not be fully explored herein for reasons of brevity.
Common Objections
The central claim of Neo-Panglossianism is at first glance surprising, and can be best understood by addressing some of the reasons that it is not already obvious that we indeed live in the best of all possible worlds:
Consider a hypothesized Utopia; does it not constitute a better world than that in which we live?
One may indeed post worlds with various advantages over ours. Moreover, one might think that, whatever good things exist in this world, whether natural or artificial, we may posit another world in which such virtues are found or achieved in greater measure. However, the world in which we live possess one virtue that is not and cannot be matched by such conjectures, namely that the the world in which we live exists, and those hypothesized do not. And it is absurd to claim that something can be good, without also being.
Suppose that the world in which we live does not in fact exist. Would this not disprove your previous point?
Were this supposition to be granted, it would indeed disprove the central claim of Neo-Panglossian philosophy. One may consider the case of a fictitious or hypothetical Neo-Panglossian philosopher in a fictitious or hypothetical world. This notional philosopher would believe that they lived in the real world, that best of all possible worlds, but would be incorrect.
Considering this argument, however, you will find that Neo-Panglossianism has, the merit (rare among philosophical positions) that those of its adherents who actually exist are correct in their convictions.
Should the state of the world improve, would not the world of the future be both better than that of the present?
This is a reasonable point. The Neo-Panglossian position is that, should matters take a turn for the better, the world of the future will be better than the present, and be the best of possible worlds, but it not better than the present yet, as it does not yet exist. We may always say that that, at present, the present is the best of possible moments.
Further Topics
The planned Neo-Panglossianism sequence shall include:
Although the subsequent posts in the sequence have not been written, this author can assure you that they will be completed and posted in due time, unless it is for the best that they are not.