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.
In this paper I will describe the foundationalist structure of Descartes’ arguments in his work Meditations on First Philosophy. Foundationalism is the view that there are some beliefs are epistemologically basic and can be known without knowing anything else is true (Loeb, Lecture 1-14). For example, philosophers such as Descartes would acknowledge that geometric truths, such as 2 + 2 = 4, are so fundamental that they don’t need to be proven through argumentation. Thus, these truths can provide the basic foundation for further arguments. In my paper, I will show that two foundational claims of Descartes are first, the existence of the mind, and second, the existence of God. From these claims Descartes derives many others, including the argument for material objects and souls. As I lay out Descartes’ case, I will examine the philosophical soundness and validity of his foundationalist account, as well as its merits and potential weaknesses. In the end, I will conclude that Descartes’ foundationalism, while alluring in its simplicity, does not survive deeper investigation.
Outline and assess Descartes' arguments for the conclusion that mind and body are distinct substances.
In this essay, I plan to defend Descartes ' theory of Substance Dualism against the objection made by Princess Elizabeth. Substance Dualism is theory which states that there are two fundamental substances, mind and body. Princess Elizabeth 's objection against Substance Dualism is based off of her idea of how the mind and body interact in order for mental causation to occur. I defend Descartes 's theory by offering my own objection against Princess Elizabeth 's idea of what causation is.
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...
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...
...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.
In the construction of the Large Hardon Collider, physicists seek and hope to unlock the mysteries of the universe by analyzing the attributes of the most miniscule particles known to man. In the same way, theologians have argued back and forth over the course of human history with regards to the divine attributes of God, seeking and hoping to unlock the mysteries of the metaphysical universe. Although these many attributes, for example omnipresence, could be debated and dissected ad nauseum, it is within the scope of this research paper to focus but on one of them. Of these many divine attributes of God, nothing strikes me as more intriguing than that of God’s omnipotence. It is intriguing to me because the exploration of this subject not only promises an exhilarating exercise in the human faculties of logic, it also offers an explanation into the practical, such as that of the existence of evil, which we live amidst every day. So with both of these elements in hand, I am going to take on the task of digging deeper into the divine attribute of omnipotence in hopes of revealing more of the glory of God, and simultaneously bringing greater humility to the human thinker. In order to gain a better understanding on the subject of divine omnipotence, I am going to analyze four aspects of it. First, I am going to build a working definition of what we mean when we say that God is omnipotent. Second, I am going to discuss the relationship between divine omnipotence and logic. Third, I am going to discuss the relationship between God’s omnipotence and God’s timelessness. Last, I am going to analyze God’s omnipotence in relation to the existence of evil in the world. Through the analysis of these four topics in relation to om...
. 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...
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.
Descartes. "Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy." Readings in Modern Philosophy. Ed. Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins. Vol. I. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000. 22-55. Print.
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?
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.
...ranscendence of God, and ascription of free will to human beings and to God. According to Spinoza, this features made the world unintelligible.