Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Spinoza criticism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Spinoza criticism
This essay hopes to define Spinoza’s reasoning behind his ‘Deus sive Natura’, arguing that God and Nature, or the universe, are but one substance. This separation is distinct to Spinoza’s substance monism, and argued through a geometric essay structure that allows reasoning to be accessible, as well as logical should the reasoning at each step have validity.
Spinoza defines a substance as something ‘conceived through itself’ , there cannot be anything that causes a substance as it is ‘self-explanatory’ . Therefore, Spinoza reasons, it comes to follow that one substance cannot be caused by another, and so two substances must essentiality not share any attributes.
However, having two, or more, substances, cannot explain why this number of substances exist, and so, Spinoza explains the world as having just one substance with infinite attributes, which avoids having to make this impossible explanation. Spinoza’s reasons his argument in proposition V by stating that ‘there cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute’ .
…show more content…
For example proposition V rests upon axioms I and IV, as well as, definitions III, V, VI. By backwardly engineering the argument, Spinoza lays out a firm, clear argument that builds from the basic definition of a substance to an argument pertaining the reasoning of his
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
...Spinoza insists, it is nonetheless possible that two substances can be distinguished in virtue of them sharing an attribute and yet be distinct in nature by possessing an attribute not shared by the other. So, whereas substance A shares an attribute with substance B - namely, both share attribute C - the former differs in nature from the latter in terms of each one possessing an attribute not contained by the other. If the nature of Substance A is attribute C and attribute D, and if the nature of substance B is C and E, then it appears that the nature of each one, though each shares an attribute in common, is fundamentally distinct. So, it appears that Spinoza’s commitment to the thesis that no two substances share the same nature or attribute stands in error, and thus I conclude under the possibility two substances sharing an attribute while differing in nature.
He continues by saying that for any change to occur there must have been a previous cause that existed in reality and if one was to trace this line of causes and effects all the way back there must be a first cause that began the chain. But there cannot be anything worldly like that because anything natural must have an impetus already in reality to transform it from potentiality to reality. The only explanation, in Aquinas' e... ... middle of paper ... ... s a cause except God.
Spinoza is a modern thinker who explains God as a cause as well. Spinoza is a monist who believes everything is one. Therefore, he believes God is the only substance and existence there is. Spinoza states that "by God I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an inf...
. Its most famous defender is Descartes, who argues that as a subject of conscious thought and experience, he cannot consist simply of spatially extended matter. His essential nature must be non-m...
This understanding of the objects, also known as Faculty of Rules, relies on the sense of self and is thus, the source of the laws of nature. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel, and Friedrich Max (Indologe) Müller. Doctrine 1/The Element of Transcendentalism." Critique of Pure Reason: In Commemoration of the Centenary of its First Publication.
An important idea is that since the mind can differentiate itself from the body, and the body is unable to think, which leads to the conclusion that the two substances cannot be the same, as they have different properties [Descartes 1641: 32]. This is a valid argument as each premise leads to the conclusion, regardless of whether the premises lead to a sound argument. While this is a valid argument, I would say that premise i. could be seen as a supposition, as there is no empirical proof of Descartes being able to visually or physically separate the substances. As I have presented Descartes argument and supplied additional, suppressed premises, I will now assess the soundness of this
He elaborated this to mean that a substance does not require a sense of anything else to exist, which also seem to coincide with Aristotle's interpretations of how a substance exists, that it is independent of all other things. (1). The fundamental feature of substance, as expressed by Spinoza, is its independence. Spinoza defines God as a substance that is completely unbounded, or a substance "comprising of infinity of attributes", of which every one of them illustrates an in... ...
In this paper, I will explain and argue for two-way interactive substance dualism. Dualism is a term referred to the idea that there are only two basic kinds of things and everything real is categorized under those two things. Dualism is split into two types, substance dualism, and property dualism. Substance dualism is the idea that the mind and body are two different sorts of basic substance, whereas property dualism is our mental and physical properties are two separate types of basic properties even though they may be properties of the same thing (lecture). Branching from dualism, mind-body dualism argues that the mind and body are two separate entities. Although they are two different substances, i.e. brain/body being material and
This paper will attempt to state and explain the Cartesian Ontological Argument, its most promising lines of objection and some of the replies to these objections. Before studying the argument, it is important to notice that this type argument, unlike causal or teleological arguments, tries to be based on reason alone, not observation. Descartes considers that his a priori claims can derive the existence of God from the very concept of God.
Book XII of the Metaphysics opens with a clear statement of its goal in the first line of Chapter One: to explore substances as well as their causes and principles. With this idea in mind, Chapter One delineates the three different kinds of substances: eternal, sensible substances; perishable, sensible substances; and immovable substances. The sensible substances are in the realm of natural sci...
The arguments are vast and wide spread. There are still many other philosophers out there who have weighed in on this problem who were not able to be covered in this paper. As you can now clearly see each of these three philosophers had a discourse between one another through their own works in which they tried to reconcile the issues that arose in the others. Interestingly all of these philosophers used God in quite different ways in order to make their argument fit their needs. They also all addressed the idea of substances in different ways, taking it to mean different things. Thus in conclusion neither Descartes, Spinoza, nor Leibniz have arguments that I agree on. Each one has its strong points and its weak points. By tweaking each argument I made them better fit my own understanding and beliefs.
This essay will define Cartesian dualism, explain and critically evaluate Gilbert Ryle’s response to Cartesian dualism in his article, “Descartes’ Myth” and support Ryle’s argument on Descartes’ substance dualism.
However, only a few in a life time choose not to be satisfied with only just survival rather they assume the yoke of redefining life for themselves and for others. In philosophy of religion, pantheism is usually in conflict with traditional religious authority, which claims that the pantheistic belief is nothing more than a blasphemous form of idolatrous worship. A man by the name Benedictus (Baruch) Spinoza took it upon his shoulders to construct an explainable theory of this deistic belief and as a result earned the name of the father of Pantheism. I, George Meza, had the privilege of investigating the life of this rational genius as he struggled along the path of enlightenment in a society that was as different to him as his theory of ethics was to the Synagogue and the Church. Spinoza’s works ranged from the political to the theistic, from the mathematical, to even the intellectual. I ask the question what trials and troubles in the life of Baruch Spinoza could birth such a passion for what was known at the time as heretical theology. What was the impact of Spinoza’s work on our technologically advanced society that has put aside terms such as G-d and ethic and has attempted to redefine the term free will?
...ranscendence of God, and ascription of free will to human beings and to God. According to Spinoza, this features made the world unintelligible.