Spinoza’s Argument for Substance Monism and Common Objections Spinoza’s Ethics is widely thought of as Spinoza’s greatest work. One noteworthy claim that he makes in his Ethics is his argument for substance monism, or the existence of only one substance. In Proposition 14, Part I of his Ethics, Spinoza states that “There can be, or be conceived, no other substance but God.” This statement amounts to saying that everything else in this world, whether it is extended or not, is a mere image of God. Spinoza’s proof for this comes in three steps. One, assume that no two substances can share an attribute. Two, assume that there exists a substance that contains infinite attributes. Three, by these two assumptions, another substance cannot exist …show more content…
Therefore, even if we could distinguish between two different affections, it would not necessarily say anything about the substances in themselves. Thus, we cannot distinguish between substances just by their affections. Thus, substances can only be distinguished by attributes, in which case no two substances can share an attribute. The second assumption Spinoza makes in proving substance monism is that God exists. Spinoza gives many proofs for this, I will only give one. It is given that for every thing there must be a cause or reason for its existence or non-existence. It is also given that this reason must be inside, or outside the thing being considered. Suppose God does not exist. The reason for this must be inside or outside God. First, if the reason is inside God, it goes against our definition of God as a substance because substances necessarily exist (Proposition 7.) Thus the reason is not inside God. Second, if the reason exists outside God, then we would be implying that a thing outside of God exists that is causing God’s non-existence. This thing that explains God then necessarily has the same nature as God because if not, it could not be the cause of God (Proposition 3.) But if it does have the same nature, we would consequently be claiming that God exists because this thing outside of god will identical to God. Thus, no matter where the reason for God’s non-existence lies, we cannot prove that God does not exist, and therefore God must exist.
Every individual is different in a specific way. Like people, substances have unique qualities, such as properties, which aid chemists to differentiate and identify the particular components the substances consists of. These particular qualities are identified as either physical or chemical properties. Physical properties are properties which do not require a chemical change of its composition in order for the substance to be classified. A few examples of physical properties include color, density, odor, boiling point, melting
This proof relies on causal reasoning, suggesting that there must be a cause of the idea of God that is as great as God himself. Though my idea of God might have come from my father, and my father's idea of God might have come from a priest, the suggestion is that at the end of that causal chain, there is a first cause, which is God. The proof of the first cause is usually used in pointing out that there must be some unmoved mover at the source of all change in this universe.
The composition of a pure substance is constant, and thus pure substances have characteristic physical properties that do not change and this is why we are able to separate each element in this lab experiment. Examples of physical properties that can be used to describe pure substances include solubility, conductivity, magnetism, density, boiling point, and melting point.
The two philosophers, however, had some differences in regard to the number of substances and their attributes. In spite of the fact that Descartes’ definition presents God as absolutely faultless; this presentation does not see him as more of a substance than every other finite substance. Descartes does not show God as the only substance, but he holds that there are other finite substances. Accordingly, the term ‘substance’ is not applied universally to God but as well as, to all other creatures. While some created things need only the normal concord of God to exist (in that case substances), others can only exist with the help of other created things. Such things are referred to, as per Descartes, attributes of substances.
The first supporting argument which I will present to support substance dualism is Divisibility. In earlier writings, Descartes divides the objects of our perception into two main classifications: mental substances pertaining to the mind and physical substances pertaining to the body (Alanen, L., 1996). Any substance with mental properties has an absence of physical properties and any substance with physical properties has an absence of mental properties (Rodriguez Pereyra, G., 2008).
Property dualism proclaims the existence of a single, physical substance (unlike Cartesian dualism), but argues that this single
This book Logical Reasoning by Bradley H. Dowden is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. That is, you are free to share, copy, distribute, store, and
Substance dualism is a never ending argument in the Philosophy world as it’s been going on for decades. It is the view that the universe contains two important types of entity which is mental and material. The structure of this paper is that four main argument leads to one conclusion. Firstly, I’ll argue about Descartes’s ‘separability argument’ which stands as the definition of Substance Dualism. Secondly, I’ll argue that mental and physical have different and perhaps irreconcilable properties. An argument is not complete without a counter argument which in this case the “pairing” problem that exists in Descartes theory is highlighted and where is the interaction of material and immaterial takes
Spinoza’s staunch, pantheistic monist view of the world establishes that the mind and body are not separate entities in themselves, but only two of an infinite amount of attributes of the same and only substance in existence – God. One can relate this reasoning to two attributes of a red-hot poker – red and hot. Does this entail that red and hot are always dependent on a poker and that they are in essence the same thing? Although this is not a likely conclusion, Spinoza raises the important question of how far we can analytically separate parts of a world that are always interacting with each other. Try getting a metal poker to glow red without heating it, or heating a poker without eventually having it glow red. This is improbable, albeit possible in theory. The mind and body may be two separately identifiable things, but one will more than likely find the two cooperating with each other as attributes of the natural world.
God however, is a substance that is not finite; God is of the highest level of reality, an infinite substance. There are three levels of reality with properties or modes at the lowest, finite substances such as humans in the middle and an infinite substance, i.e. God as the highest (Thompson, 30).
He wanted to figure out how they functioned together. Spinoza accepted Descartes mathematical model for deducing knowledge. He defends, outside the intellect; there is nothing but substance and its modes or affections. Spinoza establishes the "Fact and manner of [a] divine causality" through careful mathematical deduction. Consequently, God's essence exists through His own active power and necessity. For this Spinoza was considered an atheist (Collins, 1967, p.83).
The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the
In the Fifth Mediation, Descartes purports his ontological argument for the existence of God. It is simpler than his first and based on God's essence. For anything else that exists, the essence of that thing only implies it's existence. For God, however, essence
While the above steps demonstrate Spinoza’s substance monism, they also show that the overarching factor in his philosophy is the argument for the existence of God and God’s attributes which necessarily follow.
In computing – programming there is almost always more than one solution to a problem and this is where Logical Reasoning used to. The main use of Logical Reasoning is to anticipate the outcomes of the algorithms that are designed to solve a problem, to help select the best solution. Consequently Logical reasoning is the systematic application of rules to problem solving and task completion. These rules could be mathematical, logical, programming, grammatical, engineering, scientific, story construction in fact anybody of rules based around a logical system.