Dr. Pangloss vs. Amor fati

[Sophus]

Voltaire's Candide: Or Optimism was one big satirical reponse to what he considered to be the philosopher Leibniz's annoying optimism. Leibniz really did have that excessive amount of optimism going for him. According to him this is "the best of all possible worlds" and "if we were able to understand sufficiently well the order of the universe, we should find that it surpasses all the desires of the wisest of us, and that it is impossible to render it better than it is, not only for all in general, but also for each one of us in particular". Basically, God will see to it that everything is a-okay because there is a "pre-established harmony". Voltaire's Candide features a philosopher named Dr. Pangloss (translated from the Greek means "boob" or fool). Pangloss is a spitting image of Leibniz who frequently says "this is the best of all possible worlds" and constantly tries to reason this is so even through tragedy after tragedy they endure. He sought to prove that if this is the best of all possible worlds then is God really omnipotent since this is the best he could do? Furthermore, as I interpret it, he implies a Panglossian view only adds insult to injury when one is suffering.

Fastforward one century and along comes Nietzsche who has expressed an affinity for Voltaire yet their philosophies are quite different. A significant contribution of Nietzsche's was amor fati (a Latin phrase meaning "love of fate"). Nietzsche says "My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal itâ€"all idealism is mendaciousness in the face of what is necessaryâ€"but love it."

Ironically enough, there are many parallels between Nietzsche and Leibniz, which is kind of bizarre considering the Christian faith typically depends upon the view that this world is imperfect and not their "home" (that's Heaven). Nietzsche is a determinist and Leibniz is a pre-determinist, but still it seems only Nietzsche was lean toward the ideal of amor fati, which eliminates the need for a progressive, graduation toward perfection. This eliminates a need for hope. I infer that Leibniz would reconcile that with the Christian philosophy through his idea that evil is a product of man, not God, but that God is an optimizer. Thus this best of all possible worlds actually is not always in perfection for "each one of us in particular", rather it is, in fact, at times, waiting to be optimized by its Creator.

Thus for Nietzsche the world can always been viewed as perfect; the responisbility lies with the viewer. For Leibniz, it is "perfect" only because it is being made perfect in your personal life by God, who will soon enough make it apparent. But you can find peace by recognizing this in the now. But what do you think? Would Leibniz have agreed with the amor fati philosophy or not? Would Voltaire?

Just a post stamp - To add further irony, Leibniz concluded from this "pre-established harmony" that there was no such thing as freewill, something Nietzsche considered to be a foundational theology to Christianity and that without its presumed existence, Christianity could not exist. Not that he was ignorant of Calvinists or anything, just that if Yahweh existed Nietzsche reasoned Freewill should too.

[AlP]

I haven't read Leibniz or Voltaire. I can't really say much. Your commentary on Leibniz reminded of the Efficient Market Hypothesis: the idea that financial instruments always sell at a "perfect" price that reflects all available information. The EMH has a religious aspect to it that I find interesting.

You're a criminal....God knows markets are efficient.

I know. That's not the reply you were hoping for but it's all I've got

[Sophus]

I haven't read ... Voltaire.

[/quote]The theory is based on religious beliefs? Is it well accepted in economics? Kind of interesting, I've never heard of it...

[AlP]

The theory is based on religious beliefs? Is it well accepted in economics? Kind of interesting, I've never heard of it...

I think it would be a stretch to say it's based on a religious belief. I think it has some religious aspects though. It is the most prevalent economic theory of market pricing in academia and probably also in financial management. The theory is assumed to be true without much in the way of actual evidence. In fact quite the opposite, it's riddled with holes. Some economists ardently defend it, like Fama in the quote above. It seems almost like faith. If EMH is not true, a lot of neoclassical economics becomes essentially meaningless, so it's understandable, sort of like a religion that loses its deity.

The major opposing field in economics is behavioral finance, which is scientific, a lot of it based on psychology and how people behave when they invest. I'm in the behavioral finance camp.

I'll read some Voltaire.

[Sophus]

The major opposing field in economics is behavioral finance, which is scientific, a lot of it based on psychology and how people behave when they invest. I'm in the behavioral finance camp.

That makes sense. I've always seen economics as more of a a psychology study.

I'll read some Voltaire.

Thanks for recommending Camus and Sartre btw.