Abstract
AbstractThe problem of evil and the injustice it brings out has a long history in western philosophy and it has been one of the core arguments against the existence of God as an all-powerful and all-good Being. In a number of texts Meillassoux agrees with this line of argument, but he also argues that atheism fails to take into account the injustice of evil. His central thesis is that while the existence of evil discounts the existence of the ‘revealed’ God, he proposes a messianic vision where we can hope for the arrival of a God who will have the power to rectify the injustices that have been committed. To justify the possible arrival of such a being Meillassoux describes the world as a contingent place such that things happen without a necessary reason. This explains why, in the past, novel and inexplicable situations (‘advents’) have arisen and, possibly, others might arise. One such possibility is the arrival of a God who will redeem all the injustices suffered within the world.
Highlights
The problem of evil and the injustice it brings out has a long history in western philosophy and it has been one of the core arguments against the existence of God as an all-powerful and all-good Being
To justify the possible arrival of such a being Meillassoux describes the world as a contingent place such that things happen without a necessary reason
This preoccupation is evident in the philosophical writings of contemporary philosopher Quentin Meillassoux whose engagement with it redresses what he considers to be the inadequate responses to the problem of evil
Summary
Within (Western) philosophical theology, the problem of evil in the world has been used to challenge the existence of God as a transcendent being with the attributes of omnipotence and benevolence (among others). If the defence of freedom requires waging war, the evil of war can be understood Meillassoux rebuts this claim with two arguments: (a) to say that the ‘crimes of history’ are justified because humans have been given the freedom to commit them is similar to a politician who has been given the power to prevent a massacre, but allows it to take place in the name of freedom. Meillassoux distinguishes between ‘spectres’ and ‘essential spectres’: while the former are those spectres we cannot mourn for some reason or other (for example, we feel that we did not love our partner enough, or that we neglected our duty towards our parents, etc.), the latter haunt us because we find the whole pointlessness of their death both unbearable and unacceptable Their death—whether ‘natural or criminal’—could have never been predicted either by the victims or those who survive them: it is a ‘death that bears no meaning, no completion, no fulfilment, just an atrocious interruption of life...’.8. The history of the twentieth century (and ) is one long catalogue of ‘odious’ and ‘horrendous’ deaths, and Meillassoux asks how we can ‘live a non-morbid relation with the departed?’,9 and how we can mourn them so that their memory would not subject the living to ‘hopeless dread’ but re-connect with them. In effect, what is required is a new way of establishing a relationship with the dead that would ‘actively insert[s] their memory in the fabric of our existence’.11 We need to learn how to live with the dead again in such a way that they receive the justice they deserve
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
