Essay On Spinoza

1024 Words3 Pages

The metaphysical argument that is made by Spinoza has several interesting and different approaches then many other philosophers of his time. One of the main interesting arguments he raises is in his view of his monist metaphysics of God/Nature. In a brief overview this argument is to state that there is only one substance with infinite attributes, finite modes, and is God/Nature. Spinoza's substance monism argument takes place in his writings of "Ethics I". In this argument Spinoza's views God and Nature as one and does not use previous arguments for the existence of God/Nature. This brings up several issues that will be later covered in this paper.
In Spinoza's view everything in the universe exists as either a substance or a mode. Spinoza then defines both mode and substance in a very interesting method. To Spinoza a substance is that which is independent and needs nothing else in order to be conceived of or exist. He then explains that a mode is something that needs a substance to exist. This means that without a substance a mode cannot exist. Thus this brings Spinoza to explain that there is only one substance in the universe and he describes it as being God/nature. Another important definition to define is what Spinoza defines as God. God in Spinoza's mind is a substance that has infinite attributes, or an infinite being. This substance must have the qualities of being absolutely eternal and absolutely infinite. Spinoza does not argue for a specific God of any religion, but instead defines God and nature as being the same thing. With all of this Spinoza's see’s all animals, plants, humans, etc. are not substances, as many other philosophers argue, but instead they are modes of this one substance (112).
This idea has been l...

... middle of paper ...

...te to each other. This is importance because you would need to be able to explain the multiple essences and explain away the possibility of only one attribute that is perceived over an over again in the wrong way, thus creating multiple incorrect essences that really relate to a single essence. Both of these would give many a pause as to the validity and clarity of Spinoza’s argument.
In the end Spinoza argument lacks the backing and clarity needed to truly make his argument concrete in its assertions. If the arguments clearly explained what an attribute is and its relationship to other attributes and the essence of the substance it would gain a lot of footing. Also the idea that a single substance can only occur due to the idea that no two substances can share attributes lacks logic and leaves a lot to be explained. Overall it is an interesting but flawed argument.

Show More
Related

  • Spinoza Proposition 8

    1048 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Mediations of First Philosophy by Descartes

    1291 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the “Meditations on First Philosophy” Descartes gives a couple of major arguments about the existences of god, he gives one argument in the third meditation and on in the fifth meditation. The argument in meditation three and the one we will focus on is known as the “Trademark Argument”. This argument comes from the fact claimed by Descartes that inside of everyone is a supreme being, which is placed there by whatever created us. From this statement Descartes can say that a mark from a God has been place inside of every one of us. This argument involves the acknowledgement of such an idea is within ourselves, this idea that God is a being who is eternal and infinite and a creator of all things. This is Descartes first premise. His second premise is the “Causal Adequacy Principle.” The p...

    Read More

  • The Cartesian Circle is Wrong

    1602 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rene Descartes meditations on the existence of God are very profound, thought-provoking, and engaging. From the meditations focused specifically on the existence of God, Descartes uses the argument that based on his clear and distinct perception that cannot be treated with doubt, God does exist. In the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes proclaims that he is certain he is a thinking thing based on his clear and distinct perception, and he couldn’t be certain unless all clear and distinct perceptions are true. Before diving into the existence of God, Descartes introduces smaller arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Descartes introduces in his argument that there are ideas in which he possess that exists outside of him. Utilizing the objective versus formal reality, Descartes states “If the objective reality of any of my ideas turns out to be so great that I am sure the same reality does not reside in me, either formally or eminently, and hence that I myself cannot be its cause, it will necessarily follow that I am not alone in the world, but that some other thing which is the cause of this idea exists” (29). In other words, the ideas of objective reality that resides in Descartes can potentially only come from a supreme being, which is God; God possess more objective reality than he does formal reality. We as humans, as Descartes states, are finite substance, and God is the only infinite substance. The only way for us as a finite substance to think of an infinite substance is possible if, and only if, there is an infinite substance that grants us the idea of substance in first place. After these smaller arguments, Descartes states that while we can doubt the existence of many things, due to the fact that ...

    Read More

  • Essay On Anselm's Ontological Argument

    861 Words  | 2 Pages

    In chapter three there is a somewhat disparate side of the ontological argument. It centers on the nature of God than the meaning of him. Particularly, this chapter centers on the early quality of God that is the fact that he needs to exist. Inanimate things, supplementary living things, and humans are ...

    Read More

  • Spinoza's Views On The Nature Of The Body

    884 Words  | 2 Pages

    For Spinoza, the freedom of the human will hinges on its ability to act independently of desire and appetite, to control the body with will. Spinoza questions this idea of control by examining the nature of the body, namely if it can be completely understood, and thereby controlled. Sleepwalking is a prime example of an ability held by the body that functions in the absence of the will of the mind, thus Spinoza concludes the nature of the body is yet to be determined. After finding that no one has rightly determined or explained all of the possible qualities of the body, he writes, “this shows well enough that the body itself, simply from the laws of its own nature, can do many things which it mind wonders at.” Continuing with this idea of

    Read More

  • Examples Of Substance Dualism

    1311 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • l

    1639 Words  | 4 Pages

    agrees with Spinoza on the stance of free will and moral duties, he maintains that the case would be equally true even without the factors of determinism.

    Read More

  • Third Meditation, by Rene Descartes

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the Third Meditation, Descartes forms a proof for the existence of God. He begins by laying down a foundation for what he claims to know and then offers an explanation for why he previously accepted various ideas but is no longer certain of them. Before he arrives at the concept of God, Descartes categorizes ideas and the possible sources that they originate from. He then distinguishes between the varying degrees of reality that an idea can possess, as well as the cause of an idea. Descartes proceeds to investigate the idea of an infinite being, or God, and how he came to acquire such an idea with more objective reality than he himself has. By ruling out the possibility of this idea being invented or adventitious, Descartes concludes that the idea must be innate. Therefore, God necessarily exists and is responsible for his perception of a thing beyond a finite being.

    Read More

  • Aquinas' Arguments for the Existence of God

    1275 Words  | 3 Pages

    Aquinas' Arguments for the Existence of God In Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 3, Aquinas attempts to prove the existence of God. He begins with two objections, which will not be addressed here, and continues on to state five arguments for the existence of God. I intend to show that Aquinas' first three arguments are unsound from a scientific standpoint, through support of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. In the first and second arguments Aquinas begins by stating that some things change and that the changes to these things are caused by things other than themselves. He says that a thing can change only if it has a potentiality for being that into what it changes.

    Read More

  • The Rationalism of Descartes and Leibniz

    1674 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...rney. Since the philosophies of Descartes and Leibniz were built around this idea of an immaterial, indivisible God, the philosophy that followed seemed to many to be shaky and speculative by their own definition. But considering the time period and the pressure involved in philosophizing at all, we must admire and respect the great advancement in thinking that was prompted by these great men.

    Read More

  • David Hume And Spinoza

    1816 Words  | 4 Pages

    David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason

    1389 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Descartes vs. Spinoza on Substance

    2323 Words  | 5 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    Locke distinguishes between three types of substances: God, finite intelligences and bodies. God is infinite and his identity cannot be doubted, whereas finite intelligences have their own beginning of existence as their identity, for example souls. (Essay II.xxvii.2) By identity Locke means being able to tell the difference between things, however similar, that exist at the same time. (Essay II.xxvii.1) Bodies have the same identity as long as there is no addition or subtraction of any particles of matter. (Essay II.xxvii.3) Organisms such as animals, can be identified through the continued existence of the same life with changing particles of matter that are organized to meet the needs of that life. (Essay II.xxvii.5) Locke thinks this is where identity of man also resides, he states, “… identity of the same man consists in the continuation of the same continued life … vitally organized to the same organized body”. (Essay II.xxvii.6) Locke then differentiates between what a person is and what a man is. A person for Locke is a being that can think, is intelligent and knows it can think, “…a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as self…” (Essay II.xxvii.9) Personal identity, moreover, depends on consciousness of pas...

    Read More

  • Descartes’, Spinoza’s, and Leibniz’s Response to the Mind-Body Problem

    2994 Words  | 6 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Essay On Spinoza

Open Document