1. Spinoza’s Proof for God’s existence 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. Firstly, he establishes the uniqueness of a substance. Spinoza uses Definition 3 to prove Proposition 1, 2 and 4, by explaining that that an effect always follows a cause and if there is no cause, it is impossible for an effect to follow. If things do not have anything in common, we cannot use them to understand other things, making them separate. Spinoza further distinguishes the uniqueness of substances in Proposition 1 by using Definition 5 as proof to show that if conception of one thing does not involve the conception of the other thing, substances can be by nature prior to its affections. By proving these Prepositions, he concludes that two substances, which have different attributes and share no cause and effect, have nothing in …show more content…
In Proposition 7 and 8, Spinoza solidifies that this abstract idea of primary substance must exist. If the One Substance cannot be created by anything external, and we know things exist, then this One Substance must exist. If we assume that substances can be finite and infinite, then the One Substance must be infinite for nothing else can limit it. This One Substance refers to "God", which is made clear in Proposition 11. God 's ultimate essence must contain all other attributes and can influence modes in the material world. This Original Substance is infinite and everything that exists is in God 's
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
...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.
Many readers follow Descartes with fascination and pleasure as he descends into the pit of skepticism in the first two Meditations, defeats the skeptics by finding the a version of the cogito, his nature, and that of bodies, only to find them selves baffled and repulsed when they come to his proof for the existence of God in Meditation III. In large measure this change of attitude results from a number of factors. One is that the proof is complicated in ways which the earlier discourse is not. Second is that the complications include the use of scholastic machinery for which the reader is generally quite unprepared -- including such doctrines as a Cartesian version of the Great Chain of Being, the Heirloom theory of causaltiy, and confusi ng terms such as "eminent," "objective" and "formal reality" used in technical ways which require explanation. Third, we live in an age which is largely skeptical of the whole enterprise of giving proofs for the existence of God. A puzzled student once remaked, "If it were possible to prove that God exists, what would one need faith for?" So, even those inclined to grant the truth of the conclusion of Descartes' proof are often skeptical about the process of reaching it.
...es me, “God should have endowed me with this idea, so that it would be like the mark of the craftsman impressed upon his work” (Descartes 34, 51). Descartes says “the whole force of the argument rest on the fact that I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am (namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist.” (Descartes 35, 52) My nature and my existence themselves prove the existence of God, therefore, Descartes says “the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists.” (Descartes 34, 51)
Spinoza cites the source of the misconception of freedom as man’s inability to understand himself and the causes of his actions. Spinoza expounds on this confusion, “So, experience itself, no less clearly than reason, teaches that men believe themselves free because they are conscious of their own, and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined, that the decisions of the mind are nothing but the appetites themselves, which therefore vary as the disposition of the body.”(p.157) Spinoza conceives decisions and determination to be the same thing, but considered under different lights. When being considered through the lens of thought, the idea is considered a decision; while through the light of extension, it is considered determination, an action caused by laws of motion and rest. Though considered differently, the source of both of these ideas are caused by the striving of the human will, and thus dependent on
Having faith is believing in things that you don’t see. According to the Meditations, Descartes gets rid of beliefs that he isn’t certain of and keeps the ones that are undoubtable. He tries to prove that God has must exist since we have such a clear and distinct idea of him. I believe it is impossible to prove without a doubt that God exists.
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...
This paper is intended to explain and evaluate Descartes' proof for the existence of god in Meditation Three. It shall show the weaknesses in the proof, but also give credit to the strengths in his proof. It will give a background of what Descartes has already accepted as what he truly knows. The paper will also state Descartes two major points for the existence of God and why the points can easily be proven false. The paper will also show that if a God does exist that God can in fact be an evil deceiver. The paper will also show that the idea of a perfect being cannot be conceived by an imperfect being.
If looked at closely, one thing that comes out in the open is that the ontological argument given by Descartes differs from the original explanations of the ontological argument. The model for the majority of conventional deductions is the ontological argument presented by St. Anselm in the Proslogium II. Interpreted loosely, Descartes argument means that his notion of God is that of a superlatively perfect being. In itself, existence is excellence. In reality, God must exist or else the idea that one has about God would lack any form of perfection and as expected this would be illogical. The core of God is confined in the idea of existence just like the essence of a triangle revolves around its three sides (Platinga 11).
An argument that's been going for as long as religion has existed is the existence of God. There are always people out there that want the believers to prove to the non-believers that God exists. Thomas Aquinas is the one to start the idea that the non-believers should be the ones trying to prove to the believers why there is no God. Making the non-believers take the action to research the proof that God doesn't exist. Professor Ralph McInerny mentioned in his article, that believers are tired of having to answer the same old questions and doing the research to show non-believers that God does exist (p.1). For once, let's have the atheist do the work to show the proof there is no God. The reasons why the atheist should be responsible for proving
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.
He entails that a substance is in itself, followed by being conceived through it. Therefore, it is impossible for us to be classified as a substance, so beings according to Spinoza’s interpretation meant we’re instead a Mode of a Substance. For him we’re all modes of God because we depend on God for our existence and are conceived through God’s essence. Hence, a mode being in another and conceived through another. Moving on to the next definition an attribute, which is an essence of an object or being. For example when examining a ruler, the extension is an attribute of the eraser. Last but not least axions, which implies it’s rather in itself or in another. Spinoza firmly grasped the ideology that by them being conceived through other things, everything as a whole is conceived through itself or another. Wholly by that every contribution of nature can be comprehended by rationalizing the foundation. From establishing the cause the comprehension follows necessarily. An exhibition of this would be if you’re a bachelor then you’re unmarried considering one cannot be a married bachelor. Now that the definitions have been untangled one ought to display how they mold into the previously mentioned
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).
One common perception of God is that God is not so much a being, but according to seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, that "God is everything, identical to the universe itself." That is to say that God is a part of all humans, all animals, all objects, and all matter in the universe. This particular view is called pantheism, which is literally defined to mean that there is no God, but only the combined forces and laws that are manifested in the existing universe. According to Spinoza, we are each and all an integral part of God, not as individuals or even humanity as a whole but as an integral part of what Spinoza called the "One Substance." He also believed that we are each and all components of some greater being, a being so unimaginably large that we are each nothing more than tiny parcels of matter in that being's blood.
...ranscendence of God, and ascription of free will to human beings and to God. According to Spinoza, this features made the world unintelligible.