How Does Baruch Spinoza Use Metaphysics?

In the Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz he suggest that, "we maintain that everything that is to happen to some person is already contained virtually in his nature or notion, as properties of a circle are contained in its definition." This assertion raised a difficulty for Leibniz. This difficulty was that "human freedom will no longer hold, and that an absolute fatality would rule over all our actions as well as over all the rest of what happens in the world." With such a reality there would be no use for free will and whatever fate succumbs an individual is the will of the Most High; in other words, being destined. But for Leibniz, this is not the determined reality of humanity. Leibniz

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.

Leibniz and Aquinas adopt the view of contingency to explain the sufficient reason of ‘something rather than nothing’. To Hume’s fallacy of composition; which asserts that just because parts of a thing is caused by one thing, it is a mistake to believe the whole is created in the same way, it is only a matter of having one simple substance that makes up the whole thing. Let’s take for example a car which has different parts, made by different people; the wheel, the seats the doors etc. when each part is broken down into the simplest form in any form of matter, it is still an atom with sub atomic particles. Leibniz’s attempt to use contingency to suggest a cosmological argument is

24.   What we call Metaphysics, Aristotle called "first philosophy" because it considers the most basic questions of existence.

Property dualism proclaims the existence of a single, physical substance (unlike Cartesian dualism), but argues that this single

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

Hasker, W. (1983). Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. (1st ed.). Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press.

This doesn’t seem to make any sense considering that God’s best possible world is one with free will. However, I think that Leibniz would argue that knowledge of the future doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of choice in the matter. Like God, the Super monad facilitates and governs aspects of the rational and perceiving monads, so having omniscience is inevitable when considering all the power that God has. The monad isn’t making me take any actions or fixing me on a set path, it simply has knowledge of my actions due to the power of God. To further clarify my position, I would like to refer to the Monadology itself; Leibniz establishes the power of the monad on line 47 by saying “Thus God alone is the basic unitary thing, the original simple substance. All created or derivative monads are produced by him.”. From there he elaborates on the extent of God's power on line 48 “In God there is (i) power, which is the source of everything, then (ii) knowledge, which contains every single idea, and then finally (iii) will, which produces changes in accordance with the principle of what is best. And these are what correspond, respectively, to what in created monads constitute (i) the subject, or base, or basic nature of

This paper evaluates an argument against Perdurantism and presents possible alternatives to demonstrate that substances do not always overlap. Firstly, we utilize the Lump and Clay example from Effingham’s (20xx) An Introduction To Ontology to illustrate what Perdurantism entails. Afterwards, we object the anti-perdurantist’s argument because it is arbitrary to claim that a substance’s career only begins when it is born and it ceases when it dies. Then, we provide a response on behalf of the anti-perdurantist to show that our objection can be implausible because it can lead to unintuitive commitments. Lastly, we provide a general assessment to show that our objection only works if we can accept the unintuitive consequences.

A significant aspect in Leibniz’s Monadology and Discourse on Metaphysics, is his conception of simple substance and interaction. Leibniz assigns the term Monad to all simple substances. Monads are beings without parts, for which “neither extension, nor shape, nor divisibility is possible” (M3). Monads can exist as determined, necessary, finite, or infinite beings. For Leibniz, God exists as the only one necessary and infinite Monad, who is the sole causer of the infinity many determined, independent and finite Monads in the universe, all of which are contingent on God for their existence (D14). Leibniz claimed that all created Monads “have within them a certain perfection; there is a kind of self sufficiency which makes them the source of

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).

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

The advantage of Spinoza’s substance monism over Descartes’ substance dualism in terms of his metaphysics of God/Nature, is that Spinoza’s God is one that supports his entire system. Where Descartes’ Meditations is built on doubt, Spinoza’s Ethics is built on certainty and on a series of definitions.

For Leibniz, both his development of calculus and his faith intersected within the law of non-contradiction along with identity and substance (Blumenfeld 1987). For the law A=A, every single predicate that can be said of one 'A ' must be held for the second 'A '. It is a proposition that is either true or false, and a cornerstone notion for Kant in relation to 'god ' and morality. Also, known as the Law of non-contradiction. Concerning the Law of Identity, Leibniz reasoned that it could only be satisfied as a law in the abstract. Or, what could be said in the realm of metaphysics, or a different ontology. He concludes that because nothing in our sensory experience satisfies that law. If nothing in our sensory world does not satisfy this law, it follows that this law is not of this world or has a different ontology. Therefore his 'math ' intersects with his view of 'god ' as sharing in being 'metaphysical '.

Philosophy is the careful study if the states of, validity, existence, and conduct. It comes from the Greek word, philosophia, which translates into “the love of wisdom”. Philosophy encompasses a vast range of topics and ever person, place, thing, and idea has its roots embedded in it. For the purpose of this paper, I will be only covering the branches of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. These branches serve as the building blocks for studying and teaching philosophy. While examining these building blocks, I will argue why philosophy should be studied.