In book one of the Ethics; Spinoza asserts that every substance is necessarily infinite. To fully understand this proposition one must first evaluate what Spinoza is referring to and the logic leading up to it.
Typically when the word substance is used it is referring to a material object. However, in the Ethics, Spinoza defines substance as “what is in itself and is conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed” (pg. 1). Under this definition, it quickly becomes clear that Spinoza is not referring to anything finite. Substance under this definition could not be finite because finitude necessitates a preceding entity, which in this case would contradict the statement “what is in itself and is conceived through itself” (pg.1).
…show more content…
Later in the Ethics Spinoza concludes that only one substance possessing all possible attributes exists. For Spinoza this one substance is God. Consequently, if God is the one substance, it would be intuitive to assume that he is infinite.
Overall, Spinoza’s argument for substance infinity, like most of his philosophy, hinges upon the claim that an attribute can only be possessed by one substance. If this is true his conclusions regarding substance infinity would logically follow. However, this claim regarding attributes does not appear to hold any real strength. It is easy to conceive of multiple things possessing the same attribute (e.g. a red apple and a red car). Though in a way, this is flawed since under Spinoza’s philosophy these thing would be a mere reflection of the one substance and not actually distinct substances.
In conclusion, Spinoza argues that all substances must be infinite by establishing a metaphysical framework that cannot be tested. Due to this, his claims are true in as far as they cannot be proven to be
...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.
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
cannot arise from a mortal, a finite being. The idea of infinite must therefore be due to
According to Descartes the essence of matter is extension, which he further explains is length, breadth, and depth. Also as implied earlier, the mind exists and it’s sole essence is thought. After considering that the
This means that if Descartes’s premises are true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true. Descartes has two premises in order to explain how substance dualism comes to be true. Descartes uses the Principle of Identity to explain his first premise; Descartes’s first premise is that if I can exist without a body, then I am not a body. Hence, I can exist in a realm where I am not present without my body. Consequently, the second premise Descartes argues is that I can exist without a body because conceiving a characteristic I posses. Therefore, I am not a body and I can go into a spiritual realm without the characteristics of a body. Nevertheless, the mental substance can exist without a body because I can conceive that I exist without a body, and conceiving something makes something possible Descartes concludes that substance dualism is true because I can be present in the moment without a physical appearance. We have the ability to think and the ability to move and these two qualities define substance
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
Rene Descartes builds his epistemic views in his meditations. In Meditation 1, he set out to rid himself of the false knowledge which was the foundation for which he built his life. If there was any doubt to these foundational beliefs, he threw the idea out. Descartes broke down his beliefs in Mediation 2 and found that he is a thinking thing and because he thinks, he exists. That is, he knew he is at least a mind. By Meditation 3, Descartes built upon the foundations of the two previous meditations and defined substances. First, there are modes which are the property of objects like green, smoothness, cherry-flavored. Then he said there are finite substances which are things like cups, trees, and bodies. He also recognized that his mind was a finite substance. God, however, is an infinite substances. Then Descartes went on to describe formal and objective reality. Formal reality is the reality an object has. Through this reasoning, modes depend on finite substances and finite substances depend on infinite substances. Objective reality is the reality the idea the object has. Through this reasoning, the idea of modes depends on the idea of finite substances and the idea of finite substances depends on the idea of infinite substances. By following that logic Descartes came to know that ideas about material things could originate from him, but the idea of God, perfect and infinite, could not originate from him because he is imperfect and finite. Additionally, Descartes reasoned that the idea of God (the highest objective reality) could only have come from God therefore God exists. In Meditation 4 Descartes determined that there was no evil demon deceiving him because that being would be imperfect. God, on the other...
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...
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...
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
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.
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... ...
Spinoza's philosophy had a practical aim. What he wanted to do was to show the way to perfect peace of mind and joy offered by the life of reason. The Ethics is written as a guidebook to a happy, intellectually flourishing life. Basic in Spinoza's thought is the simple observation that we all want to live well but do not know the way to a happy life. He wanted to give us the instructions which include principles about how to guard us from the power of passions which prevent the mind from understanding. In this paper my aim is to consider how well founded Spinoza's techniques against the passions are. I will do this by concentrating on Jonathan Bennett's criticism of Spinozistic psychotherapy. Bennett finds from the Ethics three central techniques of freeing oneself from passions: (i) reflecting on determinism; (ii) separating and joining; and (iii) turning passions into actions. Bennett believes that all these techniques are in some sense flawed. My contention is that Bennett offers good criticism against 'reflecting on determinism'-technique but that his criticism against 'separating and joining'-technique as well as against 'turning passions into actions'-technique is not well-founded. The paper devotes most space to the 'turning passions into actions'-technique. However, before considering Bennett's view of Spinoza's psychotherapy, I will give an overview of Spinoza's theory of activity and passivity.
Berkeley’s Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous is an argument between the Cartesian thinker Hylas and the Berkelean Philonous. In the first of these dialogues, Berkley argues that the Cartesian notion of substance is incoherent and that the word "matter" as Descartes uses it is meaningless.
Part 1: Choose one or two of the Spinoza´s Fourth Part of Ethics and explain the sense of the proposition. Add to your explanation an example and finally your own critical assessment of Spinoza 's position.