Throughout the history of metaphysics the question, What is? has always been answered in an incomplete,unsatisfactory or complicated manner, but Spinoza tried to answer this question in an exceptional way simply by describing God and His essence. Based on Spinoza’s views, God’s qualities can be referred to as attributes and modes are merely affections of a substance. This paper will provide a detailed view of Spinoza’s key ontological definition of God as the only substance, his attributes, and their co-relations. The study goes further to explore the major scholarly argument between Spinoza and Descartes, in regard to their view of substance, and its attributes.
Descartes and Spinoza appear to hold different perceptions in regard to the existence of substance. However, both scholars have some comparable perceptions of the same in some aspects. They both refer to God as the primary substance. One thing that both Spinoza and Descartes seem to agree in general is the definition of substance. According to Spinoza, a substance is nothing but a thing that subsists in a manner that it does not depend on any other thing for its survival. In the introduction of his work, Ethics, Spinoza illustrates substance as 'what it is conceived through itself and in itself'. 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...
... middle of paper ...
... FS 1953, Spinoza’s Definition of Attribute, Philosophical Review, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 499-513.
Kline, G 1977, On the Infinity of Spinoza’s Attributes, London: Routledge.
Melamed, Y 2012.The Building Blocks of Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance, Attributes and Modes (08.14.11). Johns Hopkins University. Available at: http:// philosophy.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/08/Spinozas-Metaphysical-BuilBlocksFinal.pdf [Accessed December 5-15 2013]
Nadler, S 2006, Spinoza’s ethics: an Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pollock, F 1966, Spinoza: His Life and Thought,New York: American Scholar Publication.
Rocca, MC 2008, Spinoza: The Routledge Philosopher Series, London: Routledge.
Scruton, R 1999, Spinoza. London: Orion.
Woolhouse, RS 1993,Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz: the Concept of Substance in 17th Century Metaphysics, London: Routledge.
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.
Outline and assess Descartes' arguments for the conclusion that mind and body are distinct substances.
According to René Descartes, substance dualism is a dual particular kind of matter that has two kinds of properties. In this case, the two kinds of properties are mental properties and physical properties of human beings. The mental properties are the thoughts of an individual and the physical properties are the extension in space. Descartes explains that a person is not identical to a body; a person can exist without a body because it is not a body. Henceforth, Descartes claims that substance dualism is true. From this point of view, Descartes makes his claim that substance dualism is true in order to make clear what the new science really is about, to explain the new physics of the contemporary period, and to figure out the vitality of the
God is by defined as, “a substance consisting of infinite attributes” in Proposition 11. Spinoza presents 3 Axioms based off his definitions to prove God’s existence. They are as follows: “(e)verything that exists, exists either in itself or in something else”, “(t)hat which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived though itself”, and “(t)hat from a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows”. He uses these, along with his Propositions and Definitions to argue God’s existence in four steps.
Over the years, there have been various interpretations given on what Descartes really meant in his ontological argument. However, most of given interpretations only examines the simple meaning of existence but Descartes arguments looks at existence in relation to the perfection of God. In short, what Descartes is claiming is that there is no any other way that he can examine the context of G...
Leibniz’s conception of infinitely many simple substances and denial of mind/body interaction was developed in response to Spinoza’s claim that there is only one substance and his idea of parallelism, which states that thought and extension express the sa...
Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings, tr. John Cottingham and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
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...
Moore, Brooke Noel., and Kenneth Bruder. "Chapter 6- The Rise of Metaphysics and Epistemology; Chapter 9- The Pragmatic and Analytic Traditions; Chapter 7- The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries." Philosophy: the Power of Ideas. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Traditionally, metaphysics was viewed as consisting of three distinct but related components: cosmology, ontology and theology. Cosmology dealt with the being of the natural world conceived as a universe whereas ontology dealt with the being of the particular thing in the cosmos qua its own being. Theology was the investigation of the being of God naturaliter, that is, without exclusively appealing to the truths of Revelation. In his masterful work, God Without Being, Jean-Luc Marion launches a profound challenge to the tradition of metaphysics in general, and more specifically, to the related field of metaphysical theology. Marion claims that God must no longer be thought of in terms of the traditional category "Being", for that reduces God to an all too human concept which he calls "Dieu". In a sense, a violence is done to God and our understanding of God, for we seriously delimit that which by nature is indeterminable. Drawing upon an Heideggerian-inspired notion of the phenomenological Destruktion, Marion maintains that God must be thought outside the ontological difference and outside the very question of Being itself. In so doing, we free ourselves from an idolatry wherein we reduce God to our own all too narrow conceptual schemes. Marion urges us to think God in light of St. John’s pronouncement that "God is love" (1 Jn 4,8). He believes that love has not been thought through in the metaphysical tradition. Thinking ‘love’ through will lead the philosopher to a more accurate understanding of God as unlimited giver/gift.
In the beginning of the course of unraveling 17th and 18th century profound philosophers we became acquainted with Descartes dualism, by analyzing that extension according to Descartes are two of God’s distinct features in which we ought to perceive. Not only did Spinoza toss the conception that God actively alters the earth through Descartes proclaimed “natural laws”, but unlike Descartes he believed God to be the only definite substance. For Spinoza God and God’s creation weren’t two diverse, distinctive substances instead only god or as he phrased nature is the sole true substance. This paper will entail why he takes a monist stance and rejects traditional religious views through the building blocks of
Descartes suggests that there is a gland inside the brain in charge of the ‘interaction between the non-physical and physical substance, he maintains that “from there it radiates through the rest of the body by means of the animal spirits” (Descartes, 1649/1984, p.341). In other words, Descartes suggests that it is in the pineal gland of the brain that both substances interact. But this explanation does not successfully address the problem of interaction; however, although controversial, the Cartesian’s concepts of ideas, mind, material bodies, the Cartesian plane or person, are still very influential notions in philosophy today. P.F. Strawson reacted against the view of a person that results from this Cartesian view, and proposed quite a different sort of
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.