Introduction

Poma, Andrea

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5031-9_1

Introduction

Andrea Poma²

Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2012

693 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in German Idealism ((SIGI,volume 14))

Abstract

The Introduction explains why theodicy is necessary and how a philosophical theodicy, such as that of Leibniz, can answer to the objections of its antagonists.

“Cum Deo”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Cf. P. RICOEUR,Le mal. Un défi à la philosophie et à la théologie, Labor et Fides, Genève 1986, pp, 13 f., 26. H. HÄRING,Das Problem des Bösen in der Theologie, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1985, presents an approach similar to that of Ricoeur, from this point of view. Although he presents three distinct definitions of ‘theodicy’, he nonetheless argues that the term “understood in its strictest sense” indicates “an attempt to present a systematic јustification of God in the face of obјections levelled at Him due to the existence of evil (and above all of suffering) in the world, inasmuch as it is His creation.” “Such an attempt,” continues Häring, “rests on a rigorously defined conception of God, which does not concur unconditionally with the biblical and Christian conception.” From now on, for brevity’s sake, I will refer to Leibniz’s Essais de Théodicée with the shorter title Theodicy. I will use the same term without an initial capital letter to refer to theodicy in general, as a literary genre or philosophical problem.
2.
Cf. ibi, pp. 18 ff. Ricoeur, too, already perceives in the “biblical domain” that God is, on some level, on trial (cf. ibi, p. 20).
3.
Psa 10:13.
4.
1Pet 3:15.
5.
The following studies, among many others, treat of the theme of theodicy from various different cultural points of view: H. GOITEIN, Das Problem der Theodicee in der älteren Jüdischen Religionsphilosophie, Teil I, Diss., Mayer & Miiller, Berlin 1890; K. GRONAU, Das Theodizeeproblem in der altchristlichen Auffassung, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1922; A.-D. SERTILLANGES, Le problème du mal, 2 vols., Aubier, Paris 1948, 1951; G. GRUA, Jurisprudence universelle et Théodicée, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1953, pp. 346–357; F. BILLICHSICH, Das Problem des Übels in der Philosophie des Abendlandes, 3 vols., A. Sexl, Wien-Köln 1936, 1952, 1959; M.B. AHERN, The Problem of Evil, Schocken Books/Routledge & Kegan, New York – London 1971; G.L. PRATO, II problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, Biblical Institute Press [Ànalecta Biblica 65], Roma 1975; H. HÄRING, op. cit.
6.
This thesis is maintained in manifold forms, for example, by J. SPERNA WEILAND, La Théodicée, c’est l’athéisme, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, “Archivio di Filosofia,” LVI (1988), n. 1–3, pp. 37–50; A. PEPERZAK, Dieu et la souffrance à partir de Leibniz, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, cit., pp. 51–74; H. Lübbe, Theodizee una Lebenssinn, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, cit., pp. 407–426.
7.
A good example of this kind of theodicy, which refers exclusively to the revelation, is The Wisdom of Sirach. Cf. G.L. Prato’s accurate analysis (op.cit.).
8.
Cf. I. KANT, Über das Mißlingen aller philosophischen Versuche in der Theodicee, Akademie Ausgabe, vol. 8, p. 255; Eng. trans. On the miscarriage of all philosophical trials in theodicy, in I. KANT, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and Other Writings, trans. and ed. by A. Wood and G. Di Giovanni, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998, p. 17.
9.
Cf. P. RICOEUR, op. cit., pp. 23 f.
10.
I. KANT, Gesammelte Schriften, Akademie Ausgabe, vol. XXIII, p. 85.
11.
I. KANT, Über das Mißlingen aller philosophischen Versuche in der Theodicee, cit., p. 255; Eng. trans. cit., p. 17.
12.
This difference was observed, albeit in a somewhat different sense, in G. CUNICO, Da Lessing a Kant. La storia in prospettiva escatologica, Marietti, Genova 1992, pp. 191 f.
13.
O. MARQUARD, Entlastungen. Theodizeemotive in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie, in IDEM, Apologie des Zufälligen. Philosopische Studien, Reclam, Stuttgart 1986, p.14.
14.
Ibi, p. 15.
15.
Cf. ibi, pp. 15 f.
16.
Cf. O. MARQUARD, Idealismus und Theodizee, in IDEM, Schwierigkeiten mit der Geschichtsphilosophie. Aufsätze, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M. 1983, pp. 63, 65.
17.
Cf. O. MARQUARD, Entlastungen. Theodizeemotive in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie, cit., pp. 18 ff.; IDEM, Idealismus und Theodizee, cit., pp. 57 ff.
18.
Cf. O. MARQUARD, Entlastungen. Theodizeemotive in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie, cit., p. 20.
19.
O. MARQUARD,Idealismus und Theodizee, cit., p. 65; cf. IDEM, Entlastungen. Theodizeemotive in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie, cit., p. 18.
20.
Cf. O. MARQUARD, Idealismus und Theodizee, cit., p. 62.
21.
Cf. O. MARQUARD, Entlastungen. Theodizeemotive in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie, cit., pp. 11 ff.
22.
Cf. O. MARQUARD, Idealismus und Theodizee, cit., p. 62.
23.
Cf. O. MARQUARD,Entlastungen. Theodizeemotive in der neuzeitlichen Philosophie, cit., p. 13.
24.
I here abstain from dealing with the question as to whether Kant, who Marquard certainly places amongst the developers of modern theodicy, effectively dispenses with any sense of mystery – a supposition regarding which, nonetheless, I have my doubts.
25.
Cf. P. RICOEUR, op. cit., pp. 13, 26.
26.
Ibi, pp. 13 f.
27.
Ibi, pp. 27 f.
28.
V. MELCHIORRE, Per una teodicea simbolica, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, cit., p. 115.
29.
S. QUINZIO, La giustizia impossibile, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, cit., p. 685. The article is reprinted in IDEM, r adici ebraiche del moderno, Adelphi, Milano 1990, pp. 131 ff.
30.
S. QUINZIO, La giustizia impossibile, cit., pp. 687 f.
31.
L. PAREYSON, La filosofia e il problema del male, in “Annuario Filosofico,” 11(1986), p. 8; cf. p. 10. M. Van Overbeke (Le pari optimiste de la meilleure des communications possibles, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, cit., pp. 75–83) presents a critical discussion of these kinds of position, which contains some telling observations.
32.
L. PAREYSON, Filosofia della libertà, il melangolo, Genova 1989, p. 17.
33.
In addition to the authors already cited (Ricoeur, Melchiorre, Pareyson), many others adopt a similar stance. Cf., for example, J. GREISCH, Faut-il déconstruire la théodicée?, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, cit., pp. 647–673; P. HENRICI, Von der Ungereimtheit, Gott zu rechtfertigen, in AA.VV., Teodicea oggi?, cit., pp. 675–681.
34.
I here refer to “philosophy” in the sense in which Leibniz himself understands it – that is to say, as critical rationalism. Different thinkers conceive of “philosophy” in different ways: Pareyson himself maintained that philosophy could, even in modern times, continue to serve a useful function in interpreting religious experience.
35.
S. LANDUCCI, La teodicea nell’età cartesiana, Bibliopolis, Napoli 1986.
36.
Ibi, pp. 11 f.
37.
Ibi, p. 13.
38.
GRUA 103.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Turin, Turin, Torino, Italy
Andrea Poma

Authors

Andrea Poma
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poma, A. (2012). Introduction. In: The Impossibility and Necessity of Theodicy. Studies in German Idealism, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5031-9_1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5031-9_1
Published: 03 August 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5030-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5031-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics