In The Monadology, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz creates a metaphysical system that attempts to explain the nature of the material world. Leibniz does not believe that the material world can be explained using mathematics and other scientific principals, so he develops a rational theory to give him the causal explanation that he needs. This system Leibniz creates, appeals to the sufficient reason that is God and the pre-established harmony of the monads that make up the material world. Leibniz sets out to prove that his system has a substantial account of freedom, however, the principles and the rationalization he defaults to makes freedom almost impossible. Therefore, Leibniz’s metaphysical system does not account for freedom. Leibniz’s metaphysical system is broken up into two “realms.” The first realm is comprised of what Leibniz calls “monads.” A monad is a simple substance that cannot be broken down. Leibniz says, “there is also no way of explaining how a monad can be altered or changed in its inner being by any other created thing, since there is no possibility of transposition within it, nor can we conceive of any internal movement which can be produced, directed, increase or diminished there within the substance…The monads have no windows through which anything may come in or go out” (Mon. 7; p. 67-68). Leibniz is telling us here, that monads have all the knowledge that they will ever need, every action they take, or thought they will have is already inside of them. This is what Leibniz’s calls the Predicate in Notion Principle, that the predicate is contained in the subject. Not only do monads have within them all they need, but are also not material objects. “Now, where there are no constituent parts there is possible nei... ... middle of paper ... ... occurs in his idea of “hypothetical certainty.” He uses this as a link to a substantial account of freedom; however, he forgets that God creates a universe where, if I were meant to leave my door open, then I will leave my door open, because that is the best possible action. It is true that the best universe could not have within it any of the other infinitely possible universes, because that would mean simultaneous, contradicting contingencies. In other words, I could not open my door and leave my door closed in the same universe. So it must be that there is only one possible action that God would “certainly” allow. If God makes certain one action in the best universe, then God must make all actions certain in the best universe. Therefore, all actions in the best universe are necessary in that God chose those actions for that specific universe and none other.
P. 15 "God has his mysteries which none can fathom. You, perhaps, will be a king. You can do nothing about it. You, on the other hand, will be unlucky, but you can do nothing about that either. Each man finds his way already marked out for him and he can change nothing of it."
In this paper I shall consider Spinoza’s argument offered in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, which argues for the impossibility of two substances sharing the same nature. I shall first begin by explaining, in detail, the two-step structure of the argument and proceed accordingly by offering a structured account of its relation to the main claim. Consequently I shall point out what I reasonably judge to be a mistake in Spinoza’s line of reasoning; that is, that the definition of a thing does not express a fixed number of individuals under that definition. By contrast, I hope to motivate the claim that a true definition of a thing does in fact express a fixed number of individuals that fall under that definition. I shall then present a difficulty against my view and concede in its insufficiency to block Spinoza’s conclusion. Finally, I shall resort to a second objection in the attempt to prove an instance by which two substances contain a similar attribute, yet differ in nature. Under these considerations, I conclude that Spinoza’s thesis is mistaken.
The other issue that is being discussed between the two philosophers is determinism. Also determinism must be defined before interpreting their views. Determinism according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "A philosophical doctrine holding that every event, mental as well as physical, has a cause, and that, the cause being given, the event follows invariably. This theory denies the element of chance or contingency." Also like to other definition for free will this is confusing and incomplete to the reader. I think that determinism is a theory that every event has a cause and effect and that once a cause is stated than the event will follow.
The flaw within his argument lies in his premise that we are not responsible for who we are in any given respect. He has already dismissed the need for determinism, and as such, has dismissed the thought of spontaneous action. Spontaneous action is neither predicted nor caused, but purely a matter of chance or random behavior. I will assume that there are only two categories of our actions: spontaneous and predetermined or deterministic. In either case, we do not have free will and hence should not be held morally responsible for our actions. However, the fault is this: it is unclear whether his idea of moral responsibility is the correct one as he fails to demonstrate this. This will therefore offset his argument, because of the possibility of many views of moral responsibility, which I will discuss
He also supports his argument that the Bible is true by claiming, if an individual believes what they are reading is true, then we are implying that we trust what it says. We learn to trust and believe in the God that the Bible tells us about, therefore, we trust the words written inside. He describes it as, “Perhaps the most important element in this mix is that we trust the Bible because we have come to trust the God about whom it tells us. The process of coming to this kind of trust moves in a kind of circle: we trust in that God in significant part because of what we learn in the
Then he goes on to conclude by saying that, “The lessons learned from observing people and their beliefs support the position that I have defended: rational people may rationally believe in God without evidence or argument” (Feinberg 142). In schools today, students grow up listening to lectures that are subjective and then later are tested on what the teacher thinks and believes. Whether or not the taught perspective is factual or not, it teaches students from a young age to just take what the teachers, adults, and any authority says as truth, as a way to respecting authority. In the same way that it is reasonable to believe respectable authority, it is rational to have belief in God without specific evidence because we are created with the inclination that a higher being exists and God has shown Himself to be true to every generation. Furthermore, God has placed in every human the inkling to believe what is right or wrong, so when it comes to deciding whether to act a certain way, we can rely on our gut feeling if it is a good action or not. It is a very common and suggested thing to trust one's gut feeling when making a decision, even though it does not require any evidence to see if it is actually the right decision to
Much of his argument rests on the nearly indisputable belief that if we, as a
So I am left with an unsettled feeling that there must exist a third alternative--one that encompasses both God's complete omniscience and humanity's unleashed freedom. The closest established belief I would at this point categorize myself with believing would be that of St. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm, which you site on pg. 119 of your text.
What this quote says, is that how can we possibly be responsible for our own actions if God knows what we are going to do anyways, and if God does know everyth...
If we accept that all his premises are true, we must also accept that his conclusion was true and hence a valid conclusion to be executed; so, let us try to see each premises critically and decide whe...
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes seeks to prove that corporeal objects exist. This argument is put forth based on the principles and supposed facts he has built up throughout the Meditations. In order to fully understand his argument for the existence of corporeal things, one must trace his earlier arguments for effects and their causes, the existence of God, the nature of God, and his ability to never make mistakes.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
Freedom is a human value that has inspired many poets, politicians, spiritual leaders, and philosophers for centuries. Poets have rhapsodized about freedom for centuries. Politicians present the utopian view that a perfect society would be one where we all live in freedom, and spiritual leaders teach that life is a spiritual journey leading the soul to unite with God, thus achieving ultimate freedom and happiness. In addition, we have the philosophers who perceive freedom as an inseparable part of our nature, and spend their lives questioning the concept of freedom and attempting to understand it (Transformative Dialogue, n.d.).
This is because it’s possible for everything both to exist and not to exist, therefore both possibilities must have been fulfilled at some point. He phrases it in those terms, but I believe his argument is better understood by saying everything which exists must have come into existence, and therefore didn’t exist before that. Since something cannot spontaneously come into existence, he believes, another being gave everything else existence. This is called a “necessary thing,” meaning its existence is necessary for the existence of other things. Aquinas believes a being bestowed its necessity onto itself and did “not [receive] it from another.” What was a paradox before, an object being both the cause and effect, is now the logic. This object is God, and gave existence to all other
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.