webmaster @ January 6, 2009
a explication de texte paper on this topic by monday at 1pm
Did I show you a house or palace, where there was not one apartment
convenient or agreeable; where the windows, doors, fires, passages,
stairs, and the whole economy of the building, were the source of
noise, confusion, fatigue, darkness, and the extremes of heat and
cold; you would certainly blame the contrivance, without any further
examination. The architect would in vain display his subtlety, and
prove to you, that if this door or that window were altered, greater
ills would ensue. What he says may be strictly true: The alteration of
one particular, while the other parts of the building remain, may only
augment the inconveniences. But still you would assert in general,
that, if the architect had had skill and good intentions, he might
have formed such a plan of the whole, and might have adjusted the
parts in such a manner, as would have remedied all or most of these
inconveniences. His ignorance, or even your own ignorance of such a
plan, will never convince you of the impossibility of it. If you find
any inconveniences and deformities in the building, you will always,
without entering into any detail, condemn the architect.Sorry, ... "it may help" (not "I may help").I am not quite sure what exactly you hope to receive as an answer. But
I may help to mention the source:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/dcnr11.htmlFp-ga is right to point you to the passage in Hume. You might also
consider (as Hume is so obviously doing) whether we are in the best of
all possible worlds, as Leibniz suggests.#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
|
edit