Page - 69 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 03/01

The Problem of Evil | 69www.jrfm.eu 2017, 3/1, 59–74 nations and would have chosen the best possible combination, with the optimal complementarity of good and evil.23 this idea is illustrated in the DC Universe in a way that is faithful to Leibniz’s imagery. Parallel worlds offer nightmarish versions of the initial world and imag- ine what could have been the fate of the famous superheroes had the circum- stances of their initiation been different. Those stories work on the dark side of each character, acknowledging the extent of the character’s powers and the nature of the character’s demons.24 On another level, however, this universe seems to offer a parody of Leib- niz’s metaphysics. superheroes can be seen as extremely humane (since the turn to reality of the 1960s, their weaknesses have underlined their humanity) or as pathetic representations of divinities. superhero stories may initially have been conceived as modern adaptations of Greek and Nordic theogonies, but the influence of the characters on their environment was gradually reduced in the contemporary age of comics. hence, despite their powers they are unable to achieve a purpose (counter evil deeds) with just their good intentions or, worse, without the use of questionable means – and one of Leibniz’s critiques echoes here: isn’t an omniscient, omnipotent God by definition supposed to be able to achieve the goal of a better world without having to resort to evil?25 even if theodicy seemed to lose its impact after the nineteenth century, the shockwaves and existential crisis generated by the second World War, the holocaust, and hiroshima in the second half of the twentieth century renewed interest in theodicy’s central questions. two texts published in the 1980s shed light on this renewal: hans Jonas’ The Concept of God after Auschwitz, published in 1984, and a conference paper given by Paul ricœur at the University of Laus- anne in 1985, “evil: A Challenge to Philosophy and theology”26. hans Jonas, a German philosopher, student of husserl and heidegger and friend of hannah Arendt, was deeply affected by society’s sudden decline into extreme violence during the 1930s and 1940s and became obsessed with human civilization’s finitude.27 in his 1984 essay, he re-evaluated the pertinence of theodicy’s argu- ments for the contemporary world. One new question arose: how can we still 23 see Leibniz 1969. 24 following Leibniz’s assertions, many philosophers of the seventeenth century discussed the central issues of theodicy, among them emmanuel Kant and G. W. f. hegel (in chapter six of the Phenom- enology of the spirit). Kant’s study of Job, found in an essay of 1791 entitled On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy, constituted a first attempt to revise the theories on which theodicy is constructed. Against theodicy he raised the idea of anthropodicy (justification of humankind as good). in the dialectic chapters of Critique of Pure Reason, theodicy falls under what he designates “transcen- dental illusion”. he does not exclude the question of evil from philosophical discourse, but places it in the “practical” sphere, as something that must not be and that action fights. Therefore, the main concern is not where evil comes from, but why we commit it. see ricœur 1985, 41–42. 25 see franklin 2003, 97–101. 26 this keynotewas also previously given at the American Academy of religion, in 1984. 27 A subject also discussed by Hannah Arendt in Qu’est-ce que la Politique? (1955–1958).