The Best of All Possible Worlds?

I’ve been reading Leibniz again.  He explains why there is suffering in this world.  When God surveyed all the the possible ways the world could be, he found that this is the best, even though it contains suffering.  So God created the best of all possible worlds.

But this leaves me puzzled.  If there is so much suffering, why didn’t He refrain from creating any world?

The only reason I can find in Leibniz is that he says it’s better to exist than not to exist.  So this world is better because it exists?  However, I can find no reason why Leibniz thinks it’s better to exist than not to exist.  I’d like to know so I can advise a suicidal friend.

Any help here?  Please put comments on the Advanced Reasoning Forum Facebook page.

The sterility of Leibniz’s view contrasts with the creation story in The BARK of DOG.  The reason that DOG created the world was so that sentient creatures could learn to love (agape), and there is no great love without suffering.

In peace and hope,  Arf

A New Essay linking linguistics and metaphysics and logic

Here is the abstract for a new essay I’ve completed:

“Some say that the distinction between nouns and verbs is present in every human language.  Some even say that such a distinction must be in every human language.  Others give analyses to show that a particular language does not have a noun-verb distinction.  By reviewing this controversy we will see how issues of language universals, metaphysics, relativity in language and thought, and methodology of investigation in linguistics are intertwined.”

You can find it at:

I’d be very glad to get comments and criticism.